Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D


Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

In the Africa Progress Panel's 2015 report, Australia is named along with Canada, Japan and Russia as appearing "to have withdrawn from the community of nations seeking to tackle dangerous climate change".

Australia, with one of the world's highest per capita emissions, "has gone from leadership to free-rider status in climate diplomacy", it said.

The country was on course for emissions to rise 12-18 per cent above 2000 levels after scrapping the carbon price in 2014, compared with the promise of a 5 per cent reduction by decade's end.

A separate report on Thursday by energy consultants Pitt & Sherry said Australia's emissions had jumped 1.6 per cent in the first nine months after the scrapping of the carbon price in June 2014, led by a rebound in brown coal-fired electricity production. Emissions from coal, petroleum and natural gas use are all rising for the first time since November 2011.

Australia, the US and the European Union should be aiming for deep carbon cuts by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050, while China – the largest emitter – should bring forward its planned peak, the African report said.

While the report's main focus was on the energy needs of a continent home to 600 million people without access to electricity, it noted Africa has a keen interest in reducing global warming risks given its exposure to extreme weather and widespread poverty.

"No region has done less to contribute to the climate crisis, but no region will pay a higher price for failure to tackle it," Mr Annan said in the report.

Paris pressure

The Abbott government is likely to face mounting international pressure to do more to curb carbon emissions in the run-up to the Paris climate summit at the end of the year. Australia is the only nation to remove a price on carbon and this week the House of Representatives voted to cut the renewable energy target for 2020 by about 20 per cent.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt, though, said the government was taking "significant action to tackle climate change".

The $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund bought 47 million tonnes of carbon abatement at its first auction in April at an average price of $13.95 per tonne.

"We've contracted around four times the entire amount of emissions reduction that occurred during the life of Labor's failed carbon tax – and we're achieving abatement at around one per cent of the cost," the spokesman said.

Larissa Waters, Greens climate spokeswoman on climate change, said the Abbott government had been "ignoring the science", leaving it increasingly out of step with the rest of the world.

"It's perfectly clear that Australia is widely regarded as a global climate pariah," Senator Waters said.

Bonn critique

The African report was released as officials from many nations gathered in the German city of Bonn as part of the preparation for the Paris conference.

As expected, Australia's delegation was grilled by other delegates on whether it could meet its 2020 goals, with its prepared answers released earlier this week.

Australia copped 36 questions, the most any other country, including additional queries from the USA, China, Brazil, Fiji, South Africa, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand and the UK, according to WWF-Australia.

"There is clear concern that Australia is not lifting its weight to help limit global warming and the government's actions don't match their words," Kellie Caught, WWF-Australia's manager for climate change, said.

Countries were most concerned about the scrapping of the carbon price, with questions about funding and safeguards for its substitute, the Emissions Reduction Fund, WWF said.   

Carbon price

The African panel – whose members include Michel Camdessus, a former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Irish rock singer and activist Bob Geldof and Graca Machel, Mozambican politician and widow of Nelson Mandela – called in its report for nations to introduce a "stringent" carbon price.

"The credible starting point for a 2015 carbon price in rich countries is around 21 euros [$30.60 a tonne], rising to 41 euros [$59.80] by 2020 and at annual increments of around 7 per cent thereafter," the report said.

Australia's carbon price was at $24.15 a tonne at June 30, 2014, when its repeal came into effect.

The panel also took aim at support for fossil fuels, which in Australia's case amounted to $US3.5 billion ($4.53 billion) in 2013, the report said, adding that their logic was "difficult to unravel".

"Either the new reserves discovered with the support of state subsidies will be left in the ground, which would constitute a waste of public finance during a period of acute fiscal stress," it said. "Or the reserves will be used, in which case dangerous climate change is guaranteed."

The report also said coal companies in Australia, the EU and the US were "campaigning vigorously against climate action".

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-singled-out-as-a-climate-change-freerider-by-international-panel-20150604-ghgbde.html

We are all trolls  ::)

And Australia is still a carbon sink.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:

And Australia is still a carbon sink.

What you mean in 2011 after the floods? Not exactly long term.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

And how much of our less than 2% of the world's output do we need to deal with to save the planet?

We don't do much, because we don't produce much. It is up to the countries that pour that sh1t into the atmosphere to get their sh1t together not the ones producing frig all.


Who give a sh1t what the UN has to say about anything, as useless as tits on a bull.

John, Don't you realise Australia has always been a carbon sink?

'Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. '

'Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. '

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

Australia's emissions are estimated at 390mt (2013). Now take a conservative 1tonne/hectare over 589m hectare. We have a carbon sink. Note the report is dated 2009; so nothing of floods or anything else.

'Mackey and colleagues found the highest amount of carbon was contained in a forest located in Victoria's Central Highlands, which held 1900 tonnes of carbon per hectare.'

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/16/2599532.htm

Which surely makes a conservative 1 tonne/hectare really conservative.

For how long?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/worlds-plants-and-soils-to-switch-from-carbon-sink-to-source-by-2100-study-shows/

One extensive drought can change all that very quickly, and we are heading into an El Nino phase. 

Apart from that, as the above link and your link confirms, much depends on climatic conditions,

Another if, maybe , perhaps paper. It might not happen either.

What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse? They currently use 1,000ppm and more.

Oh, I get it,they used climate models, that explains everything.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

So Australia is being "condemned" as a realist nation ( 1.11% of the World total GHG emissions) as opposed to the other actual major nations?

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

Another if, maybe , perhaps paper. It might not happen either. What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse? They currently use 1,000ppm and more. Oh, I get it,they used climate models, that explains everything.

Whatever level that 'humans cause'..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:13am: Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. So Australia is being "condemned" as a realist nation ( 1.11% of the World total GHG emissions) as opposed to the other actual major nations?

Australia is considered to be a disgrace, compared to countries like the UK  or Germany for example, both of which have very capable Conservative governments. 

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

Another if, maybe , perhaps paper. It might not happen either. What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse? They currently use 1,000ppm and more. Oh, I get it,they used climate models, that explains everything.

You numpties complain about using models, but quite happily cut and paste graphs based on models.

On your question (?). Good point, but It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse.

Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 8:50pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:13am: Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. So Australia is being "condemned" as a realist nation ( 1.11% of the World total GHG emissions) as opposed to the other actual major nations? Australia is considered to be a disgrace, compared to countries like the UK  or Germany for example, both of which have very capable Conservative governments.

Sure it is...mostly because we are realistic about the whole Co2 ( plant food) emissions thing.
Oh nooo, Australia doesn't think that the gas that is the basis of ALL life on Earth is 'bad'  and also doesn't think that we are 'worse' than countries like China, Indian and the US....oh the horror..... :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 8:50pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:13am: Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. So Australia is being "condemned" as a realist nation ( 1.11% of the World total GHG emissions) as opposed to the other actual major nations? Australia is considered to be a disgrace, compared to countries like the UK  or Germany for example, both of which have very capable Conservative governments.  Sure it is...mostly because we are realistic about the whole Co2 ( plant food) emissions thing. Oh nooo, Australia doesn't think that the gas that is the basis of ALL life on Earth is 'bad'  and also doesn't think that we are 'worse' than countries like China, Indian and the US....oh the horror..... :D :D :D

You have been taken hook line and sinker. Both China and the US have done enough in renewable energy generation to more than cover the total energy consumption of Australia each several times over.

Australia generating capacity is about 65GW in total. China over 400GW from renewables sources alone.  The US, about 170 GW.

Australia is rapidly becoming a backwater in the renewable energy stakes. We could be exporting renewable electricity.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

Another if, maybe , perhaps paper. It might not happen either. What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse? They currently use 1,000ppm and more. Oh, I get it,they used climate models, that explains everything.

What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse?


Probably not relevant - the problem is the change in other conditions which vary dramatically from the expansion of desert areas leaving soil incapable of growing many plant types and water variations. Irrespective of the CO2 level plants do not grow well without water or in poor soil.

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:13am: Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. And how much of our less than 2% of the world's output do we need to deal with to save the planet? We don't do much, because we don't produce much. It is up to the countries that pour that sh1t into the atmosphere to get their sh1t together not the ones producing frig all. Who give a sh1t what the UN has to say about anything, as useless as tits on a bull.

And how much of our less than 2%


You understand that 2% is 300% more than our share and we are still producing more, the rate is increasing because we are doing very little.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:58am:

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 6:51pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:13am: Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. And how much of our less than 2% of the world's output do we need to deal with to save the planet? We don't do much, because we don't produce much. It is up to the countries that pour that sh1t into the atmosphere to get their sh1t together not the ones producing frig all. Who give a sh1t what the UN has to say about anything, as useless as tits on a bull. And how much of our less than 2% You understand that 2% is 300% more than our share and we are still producing more, the rate is increasing because we are doing very little.

So if we do something about our less than 2% of the total, we will save the world will we?   ;D ;D ;D

'Our share' is less than 2% not 300% no need to get all hysterical and fudge some numbers for 'effect'.


Our effect on total output is frig all and whether we do something or not is irrelevant, just like UN's grandstanding about us.

Talk to me when we hit double digits and then we are having an effect on the situation, until then, I think we should do as much as we have to and no more. Less that 2% is about right, wouldn't you say?

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm.

Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime?

Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests?

3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm. 

Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks.

Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere.

https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Both China and the US have done enough in renewable energy generation to more than cover the total energy consumption of Australia each several times over.

And China gets a free pass to use coal until 2030, when they will review it.


John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime?

Has it be shown that humans cannot adapt to the slowly rising CO2 levels? How many years to adapt to 3,000ppm; if it ever gets there.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:55am:

Probably not relevant - the problem is the change in other conditions which vary dramatically from the expansion of desert areas leaving soil incapable of growing many plant types and water variations. Irrespective of the CO2 level plants do not grow well without water or in poor soil.

'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. '

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Australia condemned while "Hunt the C...."  plants a tree  ;D ;D ;D Australia has become a climate change "free-rider", dropping off the list of nations taking "credible" action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. In the Africa Progress Panel's 2015 report, Australia is named along with Canada, Japan and Russia as appearing "to have withdrawn from the community of nations seeking to tackle dangerous climate change". Australia, with one of the world's highest per capita emissions, "has gone from leadership to free-rider status in climate diplomacy", it said. The country was on course for emissions to rise 12-18 per cent above 2000 levels after scrapping the carbon price in 2014, compared with the promise of a 5 per cent reduction by decade's end. A separate report on Thursday by energy consultants Pitt & Sherry said Australia's emissions had jumped 1.6 per cent in the first nine months after the scrapping of the carbon price in June 2014, led by a rebound in brown coal-fired electricity production. Emissions from coal, petroleum and natural gas use are all rising for the first time since November 2011. Australia, the US and the European Union should be aiming for deep carbon cuts by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050, while China – the largest emitter – should bring forward its planned peak, the African report said. While the report's main focus was on the energy needs of a continent home to 600 million people without access to electricity, it noted Africa has a keen interest in reducing global warming risks given its exposure to extreme weather and widespread poverty. "No region has done less to contribute to the climate crisis, but no region will pay a higher price for failure to tackle it," Mr Annan said in the report. Paris pressure The Abbott government is likely to face mounting international pressure to do more to curb carbon emissions in the run-up to the Paris climate summit at the end of the year. Australia is the only nation to remove a price on carbon and this week the House of Representatives voted to cut the renewable energy target for 2020 by about 20 per cent. A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt, though, said the government was taking "significant action to tackle climate change". The $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund bought 47 million tonnes of carbon abatement at its first auction in April at an average price of $13.95 per tonne. "We've contracted around four times the entire amount of emissions reduction that occurred during the life of Labor's failed carbon tax – and we're achieving abatement at around one per cent of the cost," the spokesman said. Larissa Waters, Greens climate spokeswoman on climate change, said the Abbott government had been "ignoring the science", leaving it increasingly out of step with the rest of the world. "It's perfectly clear that Australia is widely regarded as a global climate pariah," Senator Waters said. Bonn critique The African report was released as officials from many nations gathered in the German city of Bonn as part of the preparation for the Paris conference. As expected, Australia's delegation was grilled by other delegates on whether it could meet its 2020 goals, with its prepared answers released earlier this week. Australia copped 36 questions, the most any other country, including additional queries from the USA, China, Brazil, Fiji, South Africa, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand and the UK, according to WWF-Australia. "There is clear concern that Australia is not lifting its weight to help limit global warming and the government's actions don't match their words," Kellie Caught, WWF-Australia's manager for climate change, said. Countries were most concerned about the scrapping of the carbon price, with questions about funding and safeguards for its substitute, the Emissions Reduction Fund, WWF said.    Carbon price The African panel – whose members include Michel Camdessus, a former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Irish rock singer and activist Bob Geldof and Graca Machel, Mozambican politician and widow of Nelson Mandela – called in its report for nations to introduce a "stringent" carbon price. "The credible starting point for a 2015 carbon price in rich countries is around 21 euros [$30.60 a tonne], rising to 41 euros [$59.80] by 2020 and at annual increments of around 7 per cent thereafter," the report said. Australia's carbon price was at $24.15 a tonne at June 30, 2014, when its repeal came into effect. The panel also took aim at support for fossil fuels, which in Australia's case amounted to $US3.5 billion ($4.53 billion) in 2013, the report said, adding that their logic was "difficult to unravel". "Either the new reserves discovered with the support of state subsidies will be left in the ground, which would constitute a waste of public finance during a period of acute fiscal stress," it said. "Or the reserves will be used, in which case dangerous climate change is guaranteed." http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-singled-out-as-a-climate-change-freerider-by-international-panel-20150604-ghgbde.html

Its because most Australians can spot snake oil from kilometres away.

And AGW is nothing but snake oil.....!!!!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure that they can see your cut and pasted snake oil for what it is. Your cred is going out the window. ψεύτικο μαλάκας

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

Another if, maybe , perhaps paper. It might not happen either. What level of CO2 causes plants to stop growing in a greenhouse? They currently use 1,000ppm and more. Oh, I get it,they used climate models, that explains everything.

Complex systems : CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth  :) :)

I will repeat this in this thread until you learn it  :D :D :D

Ajax wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

Its because most Australians can spot snake oil from kilometres away. And AGW is nothing but snake oil.....!!!!!!!!!

Which is why Ajax is part of an army of people who spend their time trying to convince the internet that CO2 is the only limiting factor to plant growth despite 3rd world educated people knowing better  :) :)

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 8:55am: Probably not relevant - the problem is the change in other conditions which vary dramatically from the expansion of desert areas leaving soil incapable of growing many plant types and water variations. Irrespective of the CO2 level plants do not grow well without water or in poor soil. 'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. ' http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.

"Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

(from same source)
propaganda is all cherry picking  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

"Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

Where have I said ongoing research is not required?

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 6:05pm: "Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects." Where have I said ongoing research is not required?

WHERE DID YOU SAY IT  ;) ;) ?? OR ARE YOU JUST ONE OF THOSE CONARTISTS WHO SPECIALISES IN THE ART OF USING INDIRECT ARGUMENT TO CONFUSE A POTENTIAL VICTIM AT THE BEHEST OF DADDYKINS WHO CONFUSED YOU WITH HIS NON-LOVE  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

SURE CONFUSED MUMMYKINS DIDN'T IT C***BREATH  :D

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 8:55am: Probably not relevant - the problem is the change in other conditions which vary dramatically from the expansion of desert areas leaving soil incapable of growing many plant types and water variations. Irrespective of the CO2 level plants do not grow well without water or in poor soil. 'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. ' http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

And yet surprisingly nobody is growing wheat in the Simpson desert.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

lee wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 11:58am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 8:55am: Probably not relevant - the problem is the change in other conditions which vary dramatically from the expansion of desert areas leaving soil incapable of growing many plant types and water variations. Irrespective of the CO2 level plants do not grow well without water or in poor soil. 'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. ' http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2 And yet surprisingly nobody is growing wheat in the Simpson desert.

...if you introduce more than one variable lee might get angry and smoke some more crack to make the noises go away and/or his wife stop rolling her eyes at him so go easy on the poor copper internet voting old man lover: he might be busy telling his kids how important Bjorn Lomborg was to their future so don't break his concentration you stirrer you  ;D ;D ;D ;D

(is that bottle shop still open !?hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn!? <looks desperately at emptying bottle of 4 dollar red>... 4 bucks mate- not good but I'm not cooking with the shite like that dumb up himself servo attendant  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D)

Back to it: yeh, stop stirring cat <!hic>  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:22pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm. Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime? Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests? 3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm.  Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks. Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf

When Co2 levels shot up to 7000ppm about 500 million years ago life thrived......because vegetation also thrived.

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 10:29am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 10:34am: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:22pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm. Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime? Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests? 3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm.  Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks. Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf When Co2 levels shot up to 7000ppm about 500 million years ago life thrived......because vegetation also thrived.

link, thanx!!

:D :D

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 10:29am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 10:34am: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:22pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm. Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime? Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests? 3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm.  Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks. Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf When Co2 levels shot up to 7000ppm about 500 million years ago life thrived......because vegetation also thrived.

500 Million years ago all life was confined to the sea and vegetation was just developing on the land.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 10:29am: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 10:34am: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:22pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm. Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime? Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests? 3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm.  Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks. Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf When Co2 levels shot up to 7000ppm about 500 million years ago life thrived......because vegetation also thrived. 500 Million years ago all life was confined to the sea and vegetation was just developing on the land.

Yes you are correct, but the 7000ppm in our atmosphere provided ample food for animals to develop and life thrived from that point onwards.

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 8:08am: Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 10:29am: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 10:34am: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:22pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:16pm: It's a pity that we don't live in a greenhouse. Nut that shows why the paper is shite. We can live in 1000ppm. Can all members of society including pregnant women, the old and infirm breathe elevated levels of CO2 at 3000ppm without effect for their entire lifetime? Are you sure about that?  Has anybody actually done any lifetime tests? 3000ppm would be the expected level in relatively confined indoor situations with an outdoors atmospheric level of 1000ppm.  Healthy submariners have had to exposure to similar levels and have shown slight health problems after only a few weeks. Of course, the symptoms go away after returning to breathing a normal atmosphere. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf When Co2 levels shot up to 7000ppm about 500 million years ago life thrived......because vegetation also thrived. 500 Million years ago all life was confined to the sea and vegetation was just developing on the land. Yes you are correct, but the 7000ppm in our atmosphere provided ample food for animals to develop and life thrived from that point onwards.

If Ajax tried to sell a tv at harvey norman the manager would be getting a workout  ;D ;D