1000 years for climate change to take effect if whole world cut all emissions

ClearThought says:

I’m no climate science expert, just a guy who has watched this whole circus for the last 30 years.

You obviously don’t acknowledge that the POINT of climate action is to stop the destructive
rate of increase in carbon emissions (now adding more than 3% PER YEAR PER PERSON MORE POLLUTION in Australia)
…and in 1990 it was 1% increase in pollution per year per person… …every year…
we have to stop the RATE OF INCREASE IN POLLUTION. THAT’S the point. (see CSIRO article below)

In 2000, WE EMITTED 10% MORE POLLUTION PER YEAR PER PERSON than we did in 1990.
Compared with 1990, WE NOW EMIT 44% MORE POLLUTION PER PERSON PER YEAR.
IF WE DO NOTHING, IN 2020 WE WILL EMIT 130% MORE POLLUTION PER PERSON PER YEAR.

1990: base for comparison
2000: 1990 levels + 10%
2010: 1990 levels + 44%
2020: 1990 levels -5% with action, +130% with inaction.

IF it slows, reduces, reverses the RATE CHANGE PER YEAR PER CAPITA of CARBON POLLUTION, it works.
(frankly, I don’t care if it’s a tax or ETS or whatever – our pollution can’t keep increasing.)

…and we aren’t the only country in the world acting on climate change… (that’s just propaganda BS)
(British Airways is about to have significant costs due to European ETS, etc…)
We’re lagging a bit by world standards even if we go ahead now, and make our targets.

its not about our pollution right now, its about how much we will pollute in 20yr if we don’t CHANGE NOW.

re: climate change, I do think you are biased and I hope and trust it isn’t due to being greedy.
(or i wouldn’t be wasting my time responding here – see my rant at the end of this post…)

lets start with CLEAR thinking, honest discourse first:

1) OK, lets believe the scientists, and see where it leads, for the sake of my argument.
2) let’s figure out what the problem IS before stating that something won’t solve it.

The issue is that Climate, being a chaotic system Changes Significantly
when you add small amounts of energy to the system.

Trapping sunlight in the system with greenhouse gases increases the energy in the system.

If we increase our global average temperature by 4 degrees Celsius there are possibly
irreversible changes and catastrophic climate events that may be triggered. (see below)

3) so what is the aim of the Solution?
IT IS NOT REDUCE THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET. (as you stated above)
IT IS NOT TO IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CARBON EMITTED ANNUALLY.
(although it is hoped that this will happen over time as Tony Abbot pointed out,
our government’s 5% reduction/annum compared with 1990 pollution output – good outcome.)

THE POINT IS TO STOP INCREASING OUR POLLUTION OUTPUT.
—————————————————–
IF WE DON’T STOP THE RATE OF INCREASE IN POLLUTION OUTPUT, WE WILL SUFFER CATASTROPHE OF OUR OWN MAKING.
(not much we can do about the effects already in motion – icecaps, sealevel, drought, flood, etc)
WE CAN BARELY SEE THE EFFECTS NOW – but we can’t keep growing our carbon output per capita by increasing amounts!

1990: base for comparison
2000: 1990 levels + 10%
2010: 1990 levels + 44%
2020: 1990 levels -5% with action, +130% with inaction. The ones who don’t want action are lying (motivated by greed?).

The CSIRO paper explains that the average growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions increased from 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s to a three per cent increase per year in the 2000s.

http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalCarbonProject-PNAS.html

“The panel of scientists at the National Academies determined that we need to go on a carbon budget, recommending that the United States restrict its carbon emissions to a total of 170 to 200 billion tons of global warming gases from 2012 to 2050. That would represent an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to current projections. In 2008 alone, the U.S. released 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases. If we maintain business as usual, we’ll blow our budget in no time.

For more than 30 years, scientists have presented their research about climate change and possible solutions to U.S. policymakers, but little action has been taken to reduce carbon-emitting activities. If we continue along the high emissions path, projections show that we risk locking in a rise of 3.6 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The upper end of that range is considered catastrophic.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/understanding-urgency-climate-change.html

{now, a small rant regarding zeitgeist}
sorry wycky if i offend you, your post offended me intellectually.
i’m not judging and hope and assume you aren’t the ‘spoiler’ type described below.
…but tying yourself to Zeitgeist commits you to a level of responsibility, hence i rant.

Frankly, I’m pissed off at the level of incompetence – on both ‘sides’ of politics.

Loud morons don’t further their own cause anyhow, since the only ones
listening to the loud morons are the others (on ‘their’ ‘side’ of the argument)
able to be polarised by such meaningless stunts, rhetoric and outright lies.
OK, if you want to rabble-rouse, go ahead – but keep it out of my face, and
preferably out of my Parliament… but realise your wasted energy.

IF you really want to make things better, clear goals, hard work and honest discourse can solve issues.

IF you realise you’re Rabble-rousing, ‘spoiling’ and find yourself telling falsehoods however carefully
phrased in order to profit, gain political influence, protect unsustainable and ethically questionable
practices or further some religious / geopolitical / power & money agenda, STOP IT> THAT’S evil.
(apparently your mummy didn’t teach you very good manners, social skills or behaviour. LEARN THEM.)

{end rant}