Skip to content

What is 2 degrees?


What do those crazy scientists mean when they talk about a global temperature rise of 2 degrees? I’m glad you asked!

I really don’t think people understand this at all. People who deny climate change is occurring really don’t understand it. Or they do, but they are deliberately playing it down. Which would make them as evil as those who behead people, because these people are condemning billions to a nasty death and they really do not care.

In the last century, the global average temperature was 14 degrees centigrade. This included the temperature in the coldest place on earth in Antarctica at a balmy -89.4 degrees centigrade and the hottest place on the Earth (Death Valley) at 56.7 degrees centigrade.

Here is the thing. Both these temperatures, like the temperatures in more populated places are no where near that average global temperatures. Sydney for example has as average MINIMUM of 14 degrees celsius and a average maximum of 22 degrees. A 2 degree rise in global temperatures does not mean Sydney will now be 16 – 24 degrees either. A rise in global temperatures from 14 degrees to 16 degrees means something much much more dangerous than that.

2 degrees means a 15% rise in temperatures. This is because 10% of 14 is 1.4 degrees. So 2 degrees is rather huge 15%. A 3 degree rise means 20% rise in temperatures and a 6 degrees temperature rise is over 40% rise in temperatures.

Antarctica cold -89.4 degrees celsius is 104 degrees away from that global average of 14. A 15% change in temperature here due to that global 2 degrees rise means the coldest place on the planet will be 15 -18 degrees warmer than that low.

And for Death Valley, which is 42 degrees higher than the average will rise by 15% of 42, or 6 degrees.

For those who live in Sydney, minimums may be a little warmer (average minimum already at global average), but maximums will rise by 15% of 8 degrees. But for somewhere like Darwin whose average yearly temperature is currently at 33 degrees max and 30 degree minimum. So they will be looking at 15% of nearly 20 degrees (difference between global temp of 14 degrees and their averages of low 30s). Thats around 3% rise on average. So Darwin’s winter average will be what Darwin’s summer average is now. And Darwin’s summer will move from the low 30’s to the high 30’s

A 2 degrees rise in global temperature is a 15-20% rise in temperatures. Thats why its a problem. Humans are big enough and smart enough to be able to change the temperature in a room. They can wear a jumper if too cool or turn on air conditioning if too hot. Other life does not have this luxury. A 2 degree change for city dwellers means a 15-20 degree change for a polar bear. Or a 15-20 degree change in the temperature of water. Antarctic krill for example moult (shed their exoskeleton over a 9 – 28 day period when the temperature is just right for them to do so. Those poor buggers are gonna have to change their plans now. And since krill forms the food of about all sea life, there is going to be a lot of upset fish. And the effect on the economy in regards to fish and chip shops would be devastating. Andrew Bolt may not care about temperatures rising, but threaten his Friday Fish meal and he may start to see the light.

When you tell people the temperature will rise by 2 degrees, they look at you with a glazed let me get some suntan lotion look. They don’t get what that means. But you tell them that the temperatures will change by 20%, them maybe, just maybe, they start to see the danger zone.

A. Ghebranious September 2014

Revolution Number 9


.
99.999%. That’s the probability given to man made climate change by the CSIRO. By the way, Don Bradman could only manage 99.99%.
.

99999csiro

So what you say. The coalition believe in that science stuff too. They have a plan! Really? And what was that plan again? Well one part was about paying polluters to do what they should have been doing without being paid. The other part involved this green army. This is not to be confused with operation sovereign borders, or operation where is Indonesia again?, or operation bring them home, or operation keep them over there, or operation border force, or operation border farce, or operation police at airports, or even operation airports at police.
.
The job of the green army was to plant trees! In fact Tony Jones asked Joe Hockey about this in 2011 (click to expand).
.
joemoree
.
Ahh! West of Moree. That would be the Simpson desert right? You got to love Joe. Good old cigar huffing Joe.
.
So while Joe struggles with where west of Moree or east of Perth he will place the green army (not to be confused with those other armies); they have a slight technical problem. It seems they may have over estimated the amount of carbon they can deal with using carbon soil technologies. If you read the Australian, this is only a recent scientific discovery.
.
Or you may be a watcher of the ABC where it was pretty well understood three years earlier in 2011.
.
Back then Greg Hunt was questioned about his figures. He had claimed that his direct action plan would require 100 square kms of land. Turns out he the scientists reckoned he would need 500 square kilometers. Something to do with the soil not holding the carbon and microbes. Anyway, Hunt fobbed it off. Just like he fobbed off the reports that it would be unwise to go ahead with dredging at Abbott point. Nonsense said Greg! However,  the mining company themselves then rejected the dredging plan. Take that in. Greg Hunt, the so called environment minister, did not – the mining company did. He does not deserve a cent of taxpayer money as salary.
.
With Joe Hockey’s sense of geography and Greg Hunt’s understanding of science, this country, which used to be pretty, is now pretty fucked up.
.

.

.
A. Ghebranious, September 2014

There’s a hole Dear Liza, Liza a hole



.
The coalition argument that people will have their super money in their pocket is false.
.
Money that goes into your superannuation account is taxed at a different rate than your wages are. Super has a concessionary tax rate of 15% on the the contribution. Instead, it will now be subjected to your marginal tax rate at more like 30% for the average wage.
.
So for every $1000 that would have gone into your super as $850 after tax is now $700 in your pocket. More if your marginal rate is closer to 50%. The coalition now say the decision is yours. If you wish to contribute to your super yourself, you can.
.
So lets do that. We now take the $700 (the amount that we have in our pocket now) and put it into super. As we do, we pay 15% contribution tax. $700 then becomes a contribution of $595. A loss to the worker of $255 from that $850 that would have gone in at the 15% tax rate rather than taxed as a wage.
.
When the coalition say this is great news for workers, they are trying to spin you round like a record.
.

[Correction. I have been advised that after tax super contributions are not taxed 15% (up to allowed limits). So the $700 would be fully added into super. But it is still $150 less than if contributed before tax. I also do not mention the $500 govt contribution to low income workers who will lose this from 2017 for the rest of their working life.]


.

.
A Ghebranious August 2014

Add it up


.
Einstein is reported to have said the greatest invention of man is compound interest. Einstein was my kind of comedian. But I think the point he is making is he is amazed at how all the little things add up.
.
Take this budget from the coalition. Its full of nasty little surprises. Its full of things that Abbott swore on a stack of bibles to never do, but not even raising a sweat as he did. But what happens when you add all these little nasty things. What do you get when you combine the coalitions attack on super, their attack on education, on heath, on pensions, and on young job seekers?
.
Well firstly it will mean a child being born into a health system where if their parents can afford it, get a bigger percentage of survival than one on the user pays govt system. The PPL will be in place. So expect businesses that are involved to be passing on the costs to their consumers (thats us). But it also means that for families with a working mother will get 6 months off work. So its good that there will be time for the mother and child to bond. But I doubt she will have any as she will be spending most of the 6 months trying to find a good childcare centre for when she returns to work.
.
No doubt she will have the luxury of travelling on the roads of the 21st century along with the increased traffic of large trucks as she navigates one child care centre to another. She may also want to scout schools for the newborn. She can scout them on the now over clogged with traffic excuse for a broadband system, or she can get back into that car she usually doesn’t drive much. The latter is probably faster, despite the lorries.
.
Schooling for the child will be based on a needs basis. If you need education, you better have the basis to pay for it. It will be a lottery. But if your child manages to get to the end of high school with out much scathing, here is where the fun really starts.
.
Under the earn or learn option, children who study will be laid with a debt as will those with a trade. Now this is in and of it self fine if you can complete your education and find a place in the workforce. But if training or learning is not for you, then you got to get earning as you are on your own for 6 months.
.
Now if you are lucky enough to have been born into a family that can pay off your student loan and thereby reduce your debt to zero, lucky you. If you cant, your debt starts accruing while you salary rate does not for a while. Now that maybe okay for some to set aside a few years to pay it off, but life happens and you may soon find yourself looking for a place with a partner and a kid of your own on the way. More debt on debt.
.
Doctor visits are copaymented. More and more co payments applied on services you thought you had already paid for with your taxes. For low income workers, its poverty city. Tax on super will exceed tax on wages. Fees on super will see what little you accrue be subject to unscrupulous financial planners. Longer gaps between visits to the doctor will lead to a detriment to over all life expectancy. On the other end, high income earners get a tax break. 0% tax. A reward for earning a lot of money.
.
And there is the problem when you reward a person for earning a lot of money. It means you are left with a lot of people that dont.
.

.
A.Ghebranious August 2014

Asylum Seeker Trade Agreements


.

.
Forget Andrew Robb’s race to lock us into Free Trade Agreements! Keep your eye on Scott Morrison’s Asylum seeker Trade Agreements. Now we just don’t pay off countries who act as off shore repositories for asylum seekers;  we are now doing trade deals from countries to take back refugees. Including the countries they are running from. A gun boat or two here. A discount on Uranium there maybe? Who knows. It’s not like we are told details of the Free Trade Agreements, so why would they tell us?
.
And lets be serious people. Other countries know how much we don’t want Asylum Seekers here, so you can bet they will set the price accordingly. They will do the work we consider so dirty and they will benefit accordingly. Mean while, 157 Asylum Seekers are being moved to mainland Australia. And there is a reason for this. One the coalition are not wanting to mention. Detention centres on Nauru and Manus and even Christmas Island are for people who entered Australian waters without a visa by boat.
.
But these 157 human beings did not enter Australian waters without a visa by boat. They were escorted INTO Australian waters by the Australian govt. These people can not be told you can never reside in Australia, as they do not meet the criteria imposed on other humans deemed ‘illegals’. And according to Morrison, the entire processing of these individuals will not be conducted by the Australian govt and their officials, but the Indian government and their officials.
.
Do you get what that means Australia? No? We are now running an off shore detention centre for India in Australia! All because we refuse to consider doing processing onshore ourselves. We are now playing the role of PNG does on Manus for the Indian government.
.
Now THAT is what I call a swapsies.
.

.

.
A. Ghebranious July 2014

A Hair Width


Hair’s width. That’s supposed to be the distance between a Foreign Minister and their Prime Minister. But there seems to be glitches in the Matrix.
.
Tony Abbott FINALLY got that phone call from Vladimir Putin. The one he said he had not been pushing for. But at 3am it happened. Not that anyone in Australia was told straight away. But they WERE told in Russia.

abbottputintalk

 

http://news.kremlin.ru/news/46259

Mean while, Julie Bishop arrives in New York. While she confirmed a phone call was made, she went on to make a number of statements that seemed to have already been worked out according to the Russian press release.

Now I know what you are thinking. So am I. It’s the Russians. If Rambo can’t trust them, why should I? Well, as it turns out, Abbott has finally mentioned the phone call. He was clearly saving it to announce on radio. Apparently, Putin said all the right things. Yet Bishop acted like Putin had not said a thing at all. Maybe this was a deliberate brilliant diplomatic strategy. But there is a teeny weeny little problem. And you have to pardon the translation I put up as its a computer translation of Russian to English. Which means you get Renglish.

 

 Both sides stressed the importance to the completion of the investigation to avoid politicized statements in connection with the tragedy.

.

So you would think that a statement like “This is not a time to use bodies as hostages or pawns in a Ukrainian-Russian conflict,” which could be easily interpreted as politicised, could be a diplomatic error. Because its certainly not smart.
.
Of course, if Bishop’s office was NOT informed of the outcome of the Russian conversation, then it makes sense that Bishop is playing the hardline half cocked race to lynch someone, anyone tactic of her prime minister. But imagine how THIS will go down in Russia. The PM saying Putin said the right things and he will hold him to his word, and Bishop claiming the Russians are using bodies as hostages. This AFTER Putin and Abbott agreed to not politicise the matter.
.
And so we get an example of why there should be no greater distance than a hair’s width between a Prime Minister and their Foreign Minister, and a clear example of that not happening all in the same pie. The horrible thought in my mind and one I really do wish is NOT true, is the coalition are trying to use the disaster for a poll lift. They certainly did not get one in Neilson for the repeal of the Clean Energy Bills.
.
So I will go with sheer incompetence. Which fits in nicely with everything else they have been involved with since they got into office.

 

undone

.

.

.
A. Ghebranious July 2014

Someone tried to pull a fast one.


.
What an interesting turn of events in the Senate yesterday.
.
I suspected something was on when Abbott appeared doing a presser from Perth. The presser was timed before the Senate began. In Perth, it was 6am. That’s a rather early time to get up if you are not on an election campaign or the faux campaign Abbott ran from 2010 to 2013.
.
Clearly, something was afoot to make him get up that early. And when Clive appeared on TV shortly after saying PUP would be voting against the carbon repeal bill, it all fell into place.
.
Abbott’s presser was a message. And his message was full of warning bells. The Senate ‘should’ pass the repeal bill today, he said. He added a load of other words of half optimism. He even tried to drop a veiled threat onto the cross benches with the same threat he turned into a reality on Windsor and Oakeshott. He said they were voted in by the conservative vote. In other words, he was saying remember what my mate Rupert did to those other guys.
.
PUP may have been watching the Abbott presser. They may not. But they were clearly quiet angry about something. So angry, they did indeed end up voting against the repeal bill.
.
From what we know, PUP sent round an amendment on the Monday of this week. Later talks between PUP and the Coalition had PUP made changes to this amendment, but it appears, the coalition where planning on a double cross all along.
.
The focus of the changes to the original amendment were mostly technical terminology over who exactly is liable for what Palmer called a penalty if they do not pass on the refund to consumers. The coalition spent the entire week talking with PUP over these technical terms. But they did not tell PUP one very very important thing.
.
You see, the Senate can’t initiate amendments that raise revenue. Penalty or not. The Coalition are well aware of this. It’s bread and butter stuff for those in Federal Politics. So the coalition spent the entire week trying to divert PUP’s attention from this little trap and argued technical terminology and lawyer words.
.
What would have happened is the Coalition would have passed the repeal bill with the amendment that they then KNEW would be struck down as unconstitutional. So they get their repeal, and Palmer and PUP get shafted.
.
Abetz should have advised PUP of this problem on the Monday, when PUP first sent them the amendment. They did not. Nor did the Coalition distribute the changes PUP made on the Friday morning meaning those changes where not distributed to the full Senate two hours prior to a vote and therefore those changes could not be voted on.
.
The really funny part was it was the Senate clerk who bought it to the attention of PUP that the amendment had constitutional issues. This should have been mentioned by the Coalition. Abetz as leader of the senate for the coalition would know this. Yet it was the Senate clerk that alerted PUP to the problem.
.
There began a furious round of corridor talks between Abetz and PUP as well as the odd phone call to Clive. Abetz was now saying to PUP to trust him. That they should pass the repeal bill and next week, the coalition will make some changes in parliament. Palmer was having none of it. He wanted to see the changes in HoR first. Then PUP will vote.
.
Now we also are seeing why this was never going to happen in the HoR if PUP had opted to ‘trust’ Tony. One of the other cross benches, David Leyonhjelm, is very anti taxes, penalties or otherwise. And he has come out saying that if there are extra taxes/penalties in the repeal bill, *HE* wont be voting for the bill!!! I can guarantee you that the Coalition were well away of Leyonhjelm’s opinion. The other thing he is against is increasing the size of the ACCC!
.
Meanwhile, the coalition are trying to placate PUP by pointing out they will increase the size of the ACCC for him!!! But Palmer wants to see the HoR add the penalties into the legislation AND increase the ACCC powers.
.
This will no doubt mean they will lose Leyonhjelm’s vote. Which puts the coalition behind the eight ball if they make those changes Palmer wants and still behind it if they do!
.
Abbott has staked his political career on something or rather. He had also called an ETS all sorts of names. And soon he will have to call it friend. Abbott has a habit of saying stupid stuff. Stuff like he didn’t punch a wall. Bolt and Kroger went further and called Barbra Ramajan a liar for saying he punched a wall. Recently both Kroger and Bolt were forced to apologise for calling Barbra a liar. That means she did not lie about Abbott punching a wall. So that means Abbott was lying when he said he did not punch any wall.
.
Take the people who are now trapped and imprisoned on a Australian vessel in international waters. These people are there now because Abbott stupidly painted the whole asylum seeker issue as simple. Simple people voted for him and his simple beliefs. And when Abbott and the coalition realised its not simple at all, Abbott invoked operation silence. But silence can also be deafening. And Abbott’s determination to look good is a ‘at all costs’ mentality. And so the people that end up paying Abbott’s costs are the weak, the oppressed, the poor, and those who are too old to work. Which is exactly what he is doing in his budget.
.
It will be interesting if any changes at all are made as requested by Clive Palmer/PUP and as not wanted by David Leyonhjelm. I don’t hold out much hope it will go David Leyonhjelm’s way. Nor do I imagine the electricity generators will be happy with Clive’s amendment.
.
And all while this debate rages, the world recorded its warmest May on record in 2014. No matter which way Abbott looks, the heat is definitely on.
.

.

.
A. Ghebranious July 2014

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,631 other followers