Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[govols/cc]

BC's successful revenue-neutral carbon tax is living proof that it doesn't have to be. But if conservatives remove themselves from the real political debate by continuing to deny deny deny, well, chances are we'll end up with a less appealing solution. You reap what you sow.

No it's a money grab for sure. It's hard to convince anybody that if a company pays X amount for "permits" & reduces emissions for less that they can recoupe some of that flushed money by selling their left over permits to other companies to pollute more all while delaying the earth's demise.

 

[BartW]

No it's a money grab for sure. It's hard to convince anybody that if a company pays X amount for "permits" & reduces emissions for less that they can recoupe some of that flushed money by selling their left over permits to other companies to pollute more all while delaying the earth's demise.

What? Of course they could sell leftover permits, that's the point.

The money can be returned to the public via tax cuts elsewhere (slashed income tax in BC) or via a direct rebate (as was done in Australia). It's not about raising money it's about pushing the market in a less carbon-intensive direction.

 

[govols/cc]

What? Of course they could sell leftover permits, that's the point.

The money can be returned to the public via tax cuts elsewhere (slashed income tax in BC) or via a direct rebate (as was done in Australia). It's not about raising money it's about pushing the market in a less carbon-intensive direction.

Lol. Dude you live in a fantasy world. You need to hook up with the Bigfoot boy in the pub.

Tax cuts. Lol.

 

[hog88]

Classic Ross McKitrick

It's only a "pause" if you look exclusively at the surface temperature record and cherry-pick 1998, a super El Nino year, as your starting point. You can cherry-pick several periods in the 20th century that show no warming but that does not contradict the long term warming trend. Recall the escalator plot? Furthermore, over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans, which show steadily increasing heat content.

Since you're the resident anarchist maybe you can help SandVol out with his question. How do you mitigate pollution without some government action?

Your whole aurgument is nothing but cherry picked stats.

 

[Weezy]

Why the U.S. Is Cutting Carbon Faster Than Europe - Businessweek

Meanwhile, the U.S. cut its energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent from 2007 to 2012, according to data released on April 5 by the Energy Information Agency. At 5.2 billion metric tons, the U.S. is now emitting the least amount of energy-related CO2 since 1994. Not bad, especially compared with Europe, which reduced its carbon emissions by 8 percent from 2005 to 2011.

Who would have thought a few years ago that the U.S. would be curbing carbon emissions faster than Europe? Although the trends are going in different directions, they’re not unrelated. In a way, the U.S.’s ability to cut its carbon footprint has made it harder for Europe to do so. The Continent’s bungled cap-and-trade system is part of its problem, but it’s also being put at a disadvantage by America’s shale gas boom.

 

[McDad]

I like how the charts quoted 2 posts above all have different start dates at the intersection of the X and Y axis. Classic.

 

[Sandvol]

I like how the charts quoted 2 posts above all have different start dates at the intersection of the X and Y axis. Classic.

Bart needs to talk to his buddy John and tell him to get on the schtick.

 

[Sandvol]

Galileo gambit

Again SandVol, how does your anarchist utopia handle pollution? It's like you people aspire to China's 20th century environmental policies...

And again, emissions trading is a free market solution because the gubment is not instructing businesses how to reduce emissions (a la the US's command and control regulation of the 70s), just how much needs to be reduced. Some businesses can cut emissions at a lesser cost than others and sell their excess permits on the open market. This ensures that the necessary reductions are made at the lowest total cost.

And again again, it's a brainchild of the Reagan administration. Stop acting like it's a communist plot.

If carbon trading is a good idea and people can make money at it then it doesn't need government. We only need government to force a bad idea onto people.

 

[BartW]

Lol. Dude you live in a fantasy world. You need to hook up with the Bigfoot boy in the pub.

Tax cuts. Lol.

That’s a pathetic attitude. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a realistic compromise but you poo-poo it because tax cuts are “fantasy” (nevermind my previous example of BC’s slashed income tax)... The carbon tax has been endorsed by numerous prominent conservative politicians, economists, and businessmen. I’m sure some dems will want to put the revenue towards the national debt or whatever but it doesn’t have to be a money grab. It can be the opposite. We could cut taxes and cut energy subsidies across the board.

My point remains: if you remove yourself from the political process, it’s only going to hurt your chances of a favorable solution.

Your whole aurgument is nothing but cherry picked stats.

My argument is based on broad trends, scientific consensus, and fundamental physics. Your side is the one arguing global warming isn’t real because Bucksnort had a cool summer this year.

I like how the charts quoted 2 posts above all have different start dates at the intersection of the X and Y axis. Classic.

Some things like satellites and ocean thermometers have only been around recently. Air temperature and sea level rise is unprecedented no matter what scale you consider.

If carbon trading is a good idea and people can make money at it then it doesn't need government. We only need government to force a bad idea onto people.

So everyone just plays nice and doesn’t pollute? Fossil fuel companies willfully drive the market away from fossil fuels?

So you basically split all laws into two categories: bad laws imposed by the tyrannical government and good laws which everyone would follow if government didn’t exist anyway. Therefore we don’t need government.

QED

 

[govols/cc]

That’s a pathetic attitude. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a realistic compromise but you poo-poo it because tax cuts are “fantasy” (nevermind my previous example of BC’s slashed income tax)... The carbon tax has been endorsed by numerous prominent conservative politicians, economists, and businessmen. I’m sure some dems will want to put the revenue towards the national debt or whatever but it doesn’t have to be a money grab. It can be the opposite. We could cut taxes and cut energy subsidies across the board.

My point remains: if you remove yourself from the political process, it’s only going to hurt your chances of a favorable solution.


My argument is based on broad trends, scientific consensus, and fundamental physics. Your side is the one arguing global warming isn’t real because Bucksnort had a cool summer this year.

Some things like satellites and ocean thermometers have only been around recently. Air temperature and sea level rise is unprecedented no matter what scale you consider.

So everyone just plays nice and doesn’t pollute? Fossil fuel companies willfully drive the market away from fossil fuels?

So you basically split all laws into two categories: bad laws imposed by the tyrannical government and good laws which everyone would follow if government didn’t exist anyway. Therefore we don’t need government.

QED

So it's a money grab fueled by flawed science & political agendas?

 

[n_huffhines]

Classic Ross McKitrick
It's only a "pause" if you look exclusively at the surface temperature record and cherry-pick 1998, a super El Nino year, as your starting point. You can cherry-pick several periods in the 20th century that show no warming but that does not contradict the long term warming trend. Recall the escalator plot? Furthermore, over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans, which show steadily increasing heat content.

Since you're the resident anarchist maybe you can help SandVol out with his question. How do you mitigate pollution without some government action?

But I think the point is that if greenhouse gases cause the warming, then we'll see it first in the air temperatures, right? If we're emitting more into the air, why is the air reacting the way it has? For all I know the "pause" hasn't affected the ocean, arctic region, etc. yet. You would probably know have a better idea of how that works. I'm not sure by what you meant with "over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans". We see 90% of the effects? Immediate effects? I remember the focus of the ICPP report I read a few years back was all about surface air temperatures...why did they focus so much on that?

 

[BartW]

So it's a money grab fueled by flawed science & political agendas?

No, that does not follow from my post. What part of "fundamental physics" don't you understand?

 

[McDad]

Some things like satellites and ocean thermometers have only been around recently. Air temperature and sea level rise is unprecedented no matter what scale you consider.]

Bart, does 'unprecedented' still mean without precedent? If yes, how can a scientific mind like yours make such a claim regarding precedent when the instrumentation used to measure the data have "only been around recently'?

TIA

 

[govols/cc]

No, that does not follow from my post. What part of "fundamental physics" don't you understand?

It's fundamental politics not physics.

 

[BartW]

But I think the point is that if greenhouse gases cause the warming, then we'll see it first in the air temperatures, right? If we're emitting more into the air, why is the air reacting the way it has? For all I know the "pause" hasn't affected the ocean, arctic region, etc. yet. You would probably know have a better idea of how that works. I'm not sure by what you meant with "over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans". We see 90% of the effects? Immediate effects? I remember the focus of the ICPP report I read a few years back was all about surface air temperatures...why did they focus so much on that?

We emit CO2 into the air and that goes into the ocean too, yes. But when I say over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans I'm talking about the radiation itself. Most of the energy re-radiated by greenhouse gases goes into heating the ocean. Air temperatures are rising too, but they are largely influenced by short-term weather events like La Nina, El Nino, PDO, etc. Very little of the increased incoming radiation goes directly into heating the atmosphere.

 

[n_huffhines]

We emit CO2 into the air and that goes into the ocean too, yes. But when I say over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans I'm talking about the radiation itself. Most of the energy re-radiated by greenhouse gases goes into heating the ocean. Air temperatures are rising too, but they are largely influenced by short-term weather events like La Nina, El Nino, PDO, etc. Very little of the increased incoming radiation goes directly into heating the atmosphere.

Are the effects immediate? The arcs on those graphs for ocean levels, ocean temperatures, arcitc ice levels, etc. and surface temperatures are very similar until the last 15 years....so how do you explain that?

 

[BartW]

Bart, does 'unprecedented' still mean without precedent? If yes, how can a scientific mind like yours make such a claim regarding precedent when the instrumentation used to measure the data have "only been around recently'?

TIA

We have great temperature data for hundreds of thousands of years and good data for millions of years beyond that. Arctic sea ice extent on the other hand only goes back a few decades.

 

[BartW]

What part of "fundamental physics" don't you understand?

lmao I just realized how silly this question is

 

[govols/cc]

lmao I just realized how silly this question is

It's hilarious when you say it. Lol

 

[McDad]

We have great temperature data for hundreds of thousands of years and good data for millions of years beyond that. Arctic sea ice extent on the other hand only goes back a few decades.

Hundreds of thousands of year, huh? Arctic sea ice needs a few hundred millenia of observation before we make claims.

 

[BartW]

Are the effects immediate? The arcs on those graphs for ocean levels, ocean temperatures, arcitc ice levels, etc. and surface temperatures are very similar until the last 15 years....so how do you explain that?

The effects are most immediate in shallow ocean temperature. I'm not quite sure what you're seeing for ocean heat content

or sea level rise

Surface temperature and Arctic sea ice have greater interannual variability but you can hardly call it a trend change.

 

[govols/cc]

The effects are most immediate in shallow ocean temperature. I'm not quite sure what you're seeing for ocean heat content

or sea level rise

Surface temperature and Arctic sea ice have greater interannual variability but you can hardly call it a trend change.

So where's the evidence this is induced by man?

 

[Gramps]

The effects are most immediate in shallow ocean temperature. I'm not quite sure what you're seeing for ocean heat content

or sea level rise

Surface temperature and Arctic sea ice have greater interannual variability but you can hardly call it a trend change.

Do you have a chart for this ?

Originally Posted by BartW View Post
We have great temperature data for hundreds of thousands of years and good data for millions of years beyond that.

 

[BartW]

It's hilarious when you say it. Lol

I know, I have a physics degree lol: Man I crack myself up.

I guess the better question would be "what part of fundamental physics do you understand?"

 

[Obsessed]

Do you have a chart for this ?

....