Carbon free low cost electricity is but a part change away in Coles Supermarket refrigeration.

The problem lies in LNPs ban to green energy not backed up by coal.

China are now producing 100, 000 per year 10KW CO2 generators running on room heat +20*C.

North Korea has now built the worlds biggest CO2 plant for energy purposes.

LNPs obstruction to a better environment is costing Australians dearly!

Perhaps he has not read the CSIRO report on the greening of the Planet?

'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.'

ww.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

Did you take something out of context? 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:


'Life as you know it on Earth ends. Seven degrees increase Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) and we can't sustain crops, water, life under those circumstances.

ok, my last comment was wrong....

um, so regarding: 'Life as you know it on Earth ends. Seven degrees increase Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) and we can't sustain crops, water, life under those circumstances.

<<

lee is faking it: must be a girl seeing as men can't do that too well!

According to the IPCC there is a 2.5 degree C rise for every doubling of CO2.

So our base is 280 ppm.
Double 560 ppm - 2.5 C
Double 1120 ppm - 5 C

Providing the ECS is at the mid-range of IPCC estimates.

However there are 14 papers with lower ECS estimates and a new paper from Penn University (home of M Mann), which says M Mann's tree-ring calculation on temperature increase is wrong.

RCP 8.5 is the only scenario suggesting such a rate, and that is considered unlikely.

The scenario for RCP 8.5 is -

'This future is consistent with:

Three times today’s CO2 emissions by 2100

Rapid increase in methane emissions

Increased use of croplands and grassland which is driven by
an increase in population

A world population of 12 billion by 2100

Lower rate of technology development

Heavy reliance on fossil fuels

High energy intensity

No implementation of climate policies'

http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/A-guide-to-RCPs.pdf

'World population to keep growing this century, hit 11 billion by 2100'

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/09/18/world-population-to-keep-growing-this-...

Other forecasts for population are lower.

Guidlines to RPC

'The RCPs are not forecasts or boundaries for potential emissions, land-use, or climate change. They are also not policy prescriptive in that they were chosen for scientific purposes to represent the span of the radiative forcing literature at the time of their selection and thus facilitate the mapping of a broad climate space. They therefore do not represent specific futures with respect to climate policy action (or no action) or technological, economic, or political viability of specific future pathways or climates. '
http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome#descript

A very scary scenario only if all parameters are met.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2014 at 5:24pm:


Reference required!