If you have wildfires and forest regrowth, over 10 or 20 or 100 or 200 years (or whatever), there might have been a lot of carbon released, but the same amount will also be -on long term average - taken up.
But if you clear the forest or change the climate so the forests dwindle, you get a double whammy.
To get those forests to suck up all the released coal carbon, you’d need not a forest regeneration life cycle, but many many millions of years. You’d also need the type of wood from the right types of trees and absence of fungi that meant the wood didn’t rot when laid down as happened in the Carboniferous, unlike any possible conditions from today.
The point I believe he is trying to make is that how can we account for the natural variability if at any point in time it can generate more carbon that predictable. It seems like a reasonable concern to me. I understand decreasing our omissions will reduce impacts, but it seems like our contribution is vastly minor in the scheme of things.
It does not drive an increase in carbon in the atmosphere, because it all just goes straight back into the vegetation in the years afterwards. Natural variability has absolutely zero long term impact, he’s just using the word carbon to confuse people.
This is no doubt that mans use of fossil fuel has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 to 420 parts per million & that figure is rising. What is interesting questions re the additional CO2 in the atmosphere are:
1: is CO2 really the No 1 control nob for global temperatures?
2: Is additional temperature a really bad thing given we are in a glacial age anyway?
3: Is additional CO2 in the atmosphere leading to more robust & quicker growing vegetation, & therefore actually a good thing?
4: Is the rush to replace fossil fuels with intermittent power generation solutions unviable both economically & logically?
The above are legitimate questions and I acknowledge that the answers to them aren’t just yes or no …… there are lots of grey areas & half truths.
There is no doubt humanity needs to transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy as fossil fuels are a finite resource. My issues have always been how that transition takes place, when it takes place, & and of course with what.
And lets keep in mind that CO2 has risen from .028% of the atmosphere to .042%, CO2 is a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere.
Note that Australia’s contribution to the rise in global CO2 is less than 3%….so of the .014% man made CO2 increase to date, our contribution to that is .00042%. Is that something to wreck our economy over when China & India are ramping CO2 emissions up substantially making our .00042% addition of CO2 in the atmosphere look extremely inconsequential?
If the above results in people like me that question “the science“ & the logic of climate change “solutions” to be called DENIERS, as if we are denying the fact that the WWII extermination of jews took place … well that says it all doesn’t it
Perhaps a new thread where the science could be discussed and this one be left to the tweedle bros who keep posing the same broad, unspecific and numbnutted ‘questions’ while dodging any and all refutations and answers?
Of droughts and flooding rains. Ah the good old days, when they were exceptional. Currently a good deal of this country is in drought. All of the ‘record’ temps, rainfall, severe events we’ve seen in the past two decades are now norms and will continue with the only variable being that they will worsen in their intensity.
There is no ‘rush’ to transition, if there had been we’d have renewable capacity cities and towns across the continent. Needs must, tech advances with good faith investment and will. We had world leading solar tech in development but the scientists working on it could find no funding and got poached by the Europeans, Chinese and Americans. Decades lost. One of the trotted out lines of sceptics is “i have faith that even if these things end up coming true mankind will find a way” - what the fark do you think transitioning to cleaner energy sources is? And why the fark has it been stymied? Think about what colour govt we’ve had for the last two decades and how much the other mob have shifted to positions and convenient relationships to get a look in.
“ Twenty-three years ago, a Chinese-Australian solar scientist moved from Sydney to Wuxi to build China’s solar panel manufacturing industry from scratch, using technology developed in Australian universities.
Shi Zhengrong became the world’s first clean energy billionaire, nicknamed “The Sun King”. China went on to dominate global solar panel manufacturing and, thanks to a mix of innovation and cut-throat competition, made solar the cheapest source of electricity in history.
Australian science graduates filled the top technology roles at the biggest Chinese solar companies. And a solar cell design developed in Australia became the global standard.
1 + 1 is 2. 0.1 + 1 is 1.1. 1 + 0.1 = 1.1. 1 will be easier and cheaper to manage than more than 1. So if coming out of an ice age is a factor, then it is more reason to stop contributing and transition away from fossil fuels.
1: is CO2 really the No 1 control nob for global temperatures?
Yes. If you want a better answer, try google.
2: Is additional temperature a really bad thing given we are in a glacial age anyway?
You are aware of the term “too much of a good thing”? Yes, additional temperature is a bad thing.
3: Is additional CO2 in the atmosphere leading to more robust & quicker growing vegetation, & therefore actually a good thing?
Maybe? But water is more important for plant survival than CO2. Desertification will have a vastly bigger impact than a slight growth rate increase. Much of the Sahel region in Africa is experiencing civil war, partly due to desertification of that region. That climatic impact is expected to get worse and we are already seeing the real world chaos that brings.
4: Is the rush to replace fossil fuels with intermittent power generation solutions unviable both economically & logically?
Intermittent power backed up with gas peaking plants is a perfectly logical and economically sound power generation mix. Modelling of real world Australian wind and solar data from the last decade shows less that 1% of the time that a renewable mix would be unable to meet demand. The most cost effective solution in that scenario would be to pay large energy users a negotiated fee to switch off on those days. The engineering and financial tools needed are already very mature.
And lets keep in mind that CO2 has risen from .028% of the atmosphere to .042%, CO2 is a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere.
Oh… would you like to digest a trace amount of plutonium? I assume not because you are very well aware that a small amount of something can have a large impact.
Note that Australia’s contribution to the rise in global CO2 is less than 3%…
And that we are 0.3% of the global population, which makes us 10x worse emitters than anyone else on the planet. If every country refused to take action because they are a small % of the global economy, then zero change would occur. It’s a selfish and morally bankrupt argument to make.
as if we are denying the fact that the WWII extermination of jews took place
FFS
Government released a natural gas plan today. Complete, miserable, utter capitulation to the big fossil fuel companies. Massive expansion of gas export, persisting the industry way beyond 2050, taxpayer funded mapping of new gas reserves which will then be handed over to tax-dodging multinationals for free, farmers will now be ‘kept informed’ about the impact of fracking on their land and water supply (but still won’t get a say in it), and on top of all that, pathetically pretending that CCS fkg fairy dust will make it all ok. Oh, but we’re throwing a few million at Tuvalu to fix their internet cable do they shut up about sea levels. Appalling, indefensible, murderous policy, with no redeeming features.
But watch the ALP whine when they lose seats to the teals and greens next election. Worthless shitweasels.
