The Australian version of the Stern report was released today, well at least the first part. And the conclusions are terribly dire. Shocking:
CLIMATE change could be worse for Australia than any other developed country if dire predictions are realised, the architect of the country's policy on the issue says.
Coinciding with the release of his interim review into the global crisis, Professor Ross Garnaut said Australia should be ready to slash its carbon emissions by much more than the 60 per cent stated figure by 2050.
Wow more than 60%. Thats huge. But lets look at this a different way. Australia's emission rate per capita has been pretty consistent since 1990 at a little over 16 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emission per head. (incidently, when looking at a ratio with GDP, we fare in the middle).
However Australia's population, currently at 20mill, is expected to reach around 30mill by 2050. All those extra bodies and we are still recommended to cut emissions by at least 60%. An increase in 10mill by 2050, means that a 60% decrease in greenhouse gas is equivalent to a 73% decrease in 2050. And remember exactly what Ross Garnaut said, "Australia should be ready to slash its carbon emissions by much more than the 60 per cent stated figure by 2050". That's "much more"
But how much is Australia's deadly greenhouse gas emissions killing the world? Well Australia emits around 326 million metric tonnes a year. That's compared to a world wide rate of 27 billion metric tonnes. Hence Australia emits around 1.2% of the worlds greenhouse gas.
Now lets assume that we reduce our emissions by 60%, and lets assume that 100% of all warming has been caused by greenhouse gas (note that this assumption is clearly ludicrous but hey for the sake of the example...). With the world increasing at a rate of 0.6 degrees per 100 years, this means that if Australia were to cut our emissions by 60% by 2050, we would cool the globe by around 0.000043 degrees per year.
Thats right we would cool to world by around 0.000043 degrees per year.
Like pissing in the ocean. Of course some might argue that we all have to start somewhere and someone has to set the example etc. etc. but seriously, even with the most ludicrous assumptions involved to calculate this figure, the amount of dollars spent can hardly justify the possible results.
This is merely just another token that is costing us millions.
8 comments:
No sunspots day after day, biggest la nina for a generation. Northern Hemisphere temperatures falling 2.4 degrees c in a year. If we are lucky it's Little Ice Age here we come. If we are unlucky it's Big Ice Age here we come.
and that calculation doesn't even include increase in Co2 output from china and india. So the 0.000043 degrees per year probably should be about half that
The conclusions you have drawn over the past year regarding nighttime temperatures are far reaching. I was interested enough to talk to several people at BOM who tell me they are aware of your work but believe it is deeply flawed because of problems with the data set. I wonder if you have taken your work to them and what the response was face to face given the profound implications if you are right.
I haven't actually taken it to them (too much work on at the moment!), but will probably do so down the track. If they say that the dataset is flawed, then why are they still taking temperature readings?
Jonathan, I read it as they have issues with the subset of the data you are using. Just out of curiosity, which data are you using (e.g., how many stations, what criteria you're using to choose stations, etc.) I know you've mentioned this in previous posts, but I haven't been able to track them down with the search function.
Ta,
-- Ralph
Hi Ralph, the data is of course from the BOM and covers all the stations that they use in calculating Australia's average temperature. So of these stations dont have 3-hourly based readings, and only measure max-min.
Furthermore, the 3hourly based readings are not extensive as the max/min readings.
Hence the only stations that are used are ones where at least 90% of observations are made from 1960.
As far as the quality of the data goes. The measurements highly correlate with the max/min temperature so the quality of the data is very good. If they are disputing the accuracy of the data, then they will also have to dispute the accuracy of their max/min dataset.
Data that supports AGW must be good data.
Data that doesn't support AGW must be bad data.
Warwick Hughes summed it up the best.
"The BoM is riddled with myths."
"Australia makes bold plan to reduce world wide temperature by 0.000043 degrees per year"
OK, but you better do it. Don't make me come down there.
Post a Comment