Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:48am:


Sadly the temperature increases per century are NOT linear.

In addition there are numerous KNOWN and UN-KNOWN tipping points along the way which will trigger great catastrophies on a global scale. SOme of which will be irreversible.

Humanity can cease ALL carbon emission tomorrow and the planet will not begin to equilibrate thermally for at least a century.

We don't have much time to act.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:48am:




Funny how the hysterics believe that the US, china and europe are sitting around waiting for Australia to lead the way before they'll do anything.

Here's a badly kept secret, the US, china and europe don't think about Australia before making decisions that affect them.

It's a wank that is being perpetrated by the dumb sh1t socialists that states that unless we go all out with our 2% the rest of the world will do nothing so we must act now before it is too late. The rest of the world will do what ever they want without giving the slightest bugger what we do or don't do.



So we can happily wait until the rest of the world sort through all the problems associated with their own CO2 pollution issues and when they have got all the technology in order, we can sort our very minor issues out.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

You didn't link to substantiation of that assertion. Why might that be, I wonder?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:



really?


You wouldn't mind show the link to these "crippling sanctions" you speak of.


Look the carbon tax is a hoax, nothing will change unless you make people change and handling back most of the money will achieve the usual amount of nothing that we have all come to expect from this moronic endevour.


The world won't shut us down because we waited until they got their own sh1t together; sh1t most of them sit around and do nothing while country's slaughter their won citizens for sh1ts and giggles. They will do bugger all to us for waiting a while.


It just a masturbatory fantasy for socialists, it serves nothing.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:



bugger abbott, who gives a sh1t what he does.


These wank taxes are a total waste of time and effort.

If you want to fix the problem fine, fix it, don't crap on a about the benefits of some wank tax.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:
Is that really saying what you say you think it's saying?

#, I think so.

other links

'The study, conducted by Brendan Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra Berry and David Lindenmayer, reveals some remarkable facts about the capacity of Eucalyptus Regnans (Mountain Ash) to store carbon. The scientists have found that Mountain Ash have the capacity to store 10 times more carbon than other native forests in Australia.

In studying Australia’s forests it was found that the highest biomass carbon stocks are in the mountain ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria and in Tasmania. These forests store an average of more than 1200 tonnes biomass carbon, and a maximum of over 2000 tonnes of biomass carbon per hectare of forest.'

http://crdunn.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/mountain-ash-carbon-stash.html

'Frankly the only one which makes across-biome comparisons is that first story, which details research done by the Australian National University. Let's use their data for reference.


Cool temperate dry forest, photo: Barry Solow via flickr.
Temperate Forests, Then Tropical, Then Boreal
Based on their calculations, for above- and below-ground biomass in metric tons of carbon stored per hectare, cool temperate moist forests store the most carbon, 625 tC/ha, with warm temperate moist storing slightly less, 500 tC/ha. Cool temperate dry forests stored 280 tC/ha. Tropical rainforests stored 250 tC/h. Boreal forests stored 100 tC/ha.

Remember those are averages and in some cases specific forests may be much higher--the researchers found that some temperate forests in Australia scored far higher. And combine any forest type with predominantly peat soils and you've got a natural carbon storage machine par excellence.


Tropical rainforest photo: Amanda Slater via flickr.
How Much Forest to Offset Your Driving for One Year?
But what do those numbers really mean? While I admit I'm not a huge fan of breaking down carbon storage into the number of cars taken off the road by a given activity, I frankly couldn't think of a more concrete example for this one.

In terms of the amount of emissions from cars that each type of forest could absorb, this is how it broke down. I'm using metric tons of carbon emitted by the average US car per year (1.5 tons based on EIA data; that's 5.5 tons of CO2 per passenger vehicle, by the way) absorbed by a hectare of forest. Which means...

A hectare of moist temperate forest offsets the yearly emissions of between 417 and 333 cars, depending on whether if that forest is in a cool or warm climate. The same area of dry temperate forest is 280 cars. Tropical rainforest is 250 cars, on average. Boreal forest is 100 cars per hectare.'

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/how-much-carbon-do-different-forests-store-what-size-offsets-your-driving-for-a-year.html

The article from the Chief Scientist also excludes stands of trees that do not fit into the category of 'forest'.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:


Jesus was a socialist - and so was his old man