When companies pollute the planet by pumping out millions of tons of carbon dioxiode every year it hurts everybody including people who don’t benefit from it.
So capping how much they can pollute and taxing them if they polute more than that makes sense. Getting into peoples pocket book is a very effective way to get them to change there ways. Plus the money raised by poluters will go to companies and people that are doing a better job protecting the enviroment. The tax is totally avoidable all you have to do is figure out how to pollute less.

Here’s one:

http://smu.edu/earthsciences/people/faculty/tabor/10.1999.01Ekart.pdf

Scott Saturday wrote:
Here’s one:



http://smu.edu/earthsciences/people/faculty/tabor/10.1999.01Ekart.pdf

It’s good to know that you have not totally rejected the use of mathematical (therefore computable) models!

Of course, when analyzing the methodology used in the cited report, one must remember the warning giving by the researchers themselves: "Since we are unable to measure directly the variables required for each pCO₂ calculation, we use assumptions where necessary." (p. 813, emphasis added). There are a number of assumptions made, possibly the most significant being the rate of CO₂ release from soil, where "Our lack of knowledge of respired CO₂ concentration for these fossil soils is one of the major sources of uncertainty with this method" (same page). Also, "Possible contamination of fossil OM [organic matter] with modern OM during erosion of overlying sediments and exposure of the paleosols is an additional complication (p. 814).

For these reasons, this would be considered to be of substantially less reliability and therefore less usefulness than the ice core studies. Ice cores are not releasers of carbon dioxide, but are merely recorders of the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere at the time the ice was formed. Also, the very nature of ice cores prevent the sort of contamination from erosion by modern organic matter that may have a profound influence on the measurable results from fossilized soil samples.

Ultimately, we have to consider samples going back 400 million years as being indicators that complex non-human life on the surface of this planet in extremely high carbon dioxide concentrations was an impossibility. Indeed, that does seem to be the point of climate change/global warming advocates: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will eliminate complex living organisms on the face of this planet.

Obviously, IF humans are contributing in any way to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide where that concentration approaches anything near the measurements reported by Ekart et al., AND are doing nothing to decrease those concentrations, THEN the implications for us and our immediate future are grim.

Scott Saturday wrote:

a2zresource wrote:





Ultimately, we have to consider samples going back 400 million years as being indicators that complex non-human life on the surface of this planet in extremely high carbon dioxide concentrations was an impossibility.

Not sure how you arrived at THAT!?? Because it is not noted in the fossil record it is an "impossibility"? This must be Mensa logic. The ice core data is compelling, but also pretty inconclusive. If anything it appears to show the highly touted 800 year lag between temperature and C02 rise. I’m not feeling the least bit grim... This ludicrous alarmist fixation on C02 as a ’forcing agent’ is rapidly falling apart - much to my glee. Why not go after water vapor? It would make a lot more sense. And I can only imagine the Obama administration trying to demonize and regulate atmospheric H20... He’s trying to regulate just about everything else! A cap and trade on water vapor would be just as useful as the current pile of sh-- (Boehner’s words) in Waxman/Markey. If this thing passes, I can hear the screams now as I think ahead to when the public discovers what a scam has been perpetrated on them. Heads will roll - and Nancy’s is at the top of the list.

A reasonable thinking person would have no problem with that at all... and that doesn’t require Mensa membership.

400 million years ago, there was higher CO₂ atmospheric concentrations because of the prevailing geophysical conditions... which probably explains why human body temperature at a homeostatic 98.6 degrees is generally a lot warmer than the current prevailing oceanic temperature now. Whatever simple plant and animal organisms that were existing on the surface of this planet 400 million years ago were able to handle it. If you want to live in those kinds of conditions, then fine: move to Venus.

If you reject the uncontaminated ice core data, then you necessarily must reject the contaminated soil samples in the study you cited, or your science is necessarily weak.

As for CO₂ acting as a forcing agent or not, you can keep beating on that dead horse until you get dog food and methane vapor, but it doesn’t change the fact that high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere generally correlate to high atmospheric temperatures. If you don’t buy into that, then why precisely did you dig up this article in the first place?

a2zresource wrote:

A reasonable thinking person would have no problem with that at all... and that doesn’t require Mensa membership.



400 million years ago, there was higher CO₂ atmospheric concentrations because of the prevailing geophysical conditions... which probably explains why human body temperature at a homeostatic 98.6 degrees is generally a lot warmer than the current prevailing oceanic temperature now. Whatever simple plant and animal organisms that were existing on the surface of this planet 400 million years ago were able to handle it. If you want to live in those kinds of conditions, then fine: move to Venus.



If you reject the uncontaminated ice core data, then you necessarily must reject the contaminated soil samples in the study you cited, or your science is necessarily weak.



As for CO₂ acting as a forcing agent or not, you can keep beating on that dead horse until you get dog food and methane vapor, but it doesn’t change the fact that high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere generally correlate to high atmospheric temperatures. If you don’t buy into that, then why precisely did you dig up this article in the first place?

Who said anything about "rejecting" the ice core samples? Quite the contrary: I think they present a powerful argument that C02 had nothing to do with "forcing" the temperature at all, seeing as how those levels followed the temperature curve by a substantial amount of time. And please try and remember that ’correlation’ does NOT mean ’causation’. Temperatures in the 20th century correlated very closely with the price of a US postal service stamp, but I’m guessing they’re only marginally related. Besides, surely you know that if you look at a time scale of tens of years (the realm of the alarmists) the ’correlation’ of temps to C02 is fair to middlin’ at best. If you stretch out and begin to look at time scales of millions of years...the C02-temperature correlation fairly sucks. It’s funny how a true believer in the predictive qualities of computer models so blithely uses phrases like "probably explains" when trying to make a point. Here, make this point: Show me ONE piece of empirical, observational evidence that demonstrates C02 is a forcing agent on global temperature. As you no doubt know, there ARE none. You’ll notice that you don’t hear many of the AGW faithful bringing up ice core samples these days...the new playbook is ocean acidification... get with the program!

Scott Saturday wrote:

a2zresource wrote:



A reasonable thinking person would have no problem with that at all... and that doesn’t require Mensa membership.





400 million years ago, there was higher CO₂ atmospheric concentrations because of the prevailing geophysical conditions... which probably explains why human body temperature at a homeostatic 98.6 degrees is generally a lot warmer than the current prevailing oceanic temperature now. Whatever simple plant and animal organisms that were existing on the surface of this planet 400 million years ago were able to handle it. If you want to live in those kinds of conditions, then fine: move to Venus.





If you reject the uncontaminated ice core data, then you necessarily must reject the contaminated soil samples in the study you cited, or your science is necessarily weak.





As for CO₂ acting as a forcing agent or not, you can keep beating on that dead horse until you get dog food and methane vapor, but it doesn’t change the fact that high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere generally correlate to high atmospheric temperatures. If you don’t buy into that, then why precisely did you dig up this article in the first place?

Who said anything about "rejecting" the ice core samples? Quite the contrary: I think they present a powerful argument that C02 had nothing to do with "forcing" the temperature at all, seeing as how those levels followed the temperature curve by a substantial amount of time. And please try and remember that ’correlation’ does NOT mean ’causation’. Temperatures in the 20th century correlated very closely with the price of a US postal service stamp, but I’m guessing they’re only marginally related. Besides, surely you know that if you look at a time scale of tens of years (the realm of the alarmists) the ’correlation’ of temps to C02 is fair to middlin’ at best. If you stretch out and begin to look at time scales of millions of years...the C02-temperature correlation fairly sucks. It’s funny how a true believer in the predictive qualities of computer models so blithely uses phrases like "probably explains" when trying to make a point. Here, make this point: Show me ONE piece of empirical, observational evidence that demonstrates C02 is a forcing agent on global temperature. As you no doubt know, there ARE none. You’ll notice that you don’t hear many of the AGW faithful bringing up ice core samples these days...the new playbook is ocean acidification... get with the program!

Obviously you didn’t read my response, so I’ll repeat the line: As for CO₂ acting as a forcing agent or not, you can keep beating on that dead horse until you get dog food and methane vapor, but it doesn’t change the fact that high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere generally correlate to high atmospheric temperatures.

You are "forcing" the issue, not me. The fact that you seem to miss the correlation that just about everyone in the scientific community sees just helps us to be informed of the failures in the critical thinking components of your education. This is further highlighted by your "stretching" argument by which I could apply to your genetic makeup to prove you are North Korean if I "stretch" it far enough. For people who have an education, your "stretching" argument is merely a distortion of data to prove anything you’d like. The only reason nobody else points this out to you is that the rest of the intelligent people on this rock seem to be ignoring your posts altogether.

You can’t prove either point anymore than a quantum physicist can prove the location of an atom in space time. At this juncture it is immeasurable. At best you can only hypothesize probability. Now that being said, I personally would rather lean toward the idea of man made global warming given the consequences of the later if I was wrong.

This means I do believe we should take steps to lower and eventually eliminate the use of hydrocarbons as fuel. "Cap and Trade" is not it! "This is a jobs bill". I’ve heard over and over again. Yes this is a jobs bill. It is the very germination of not only an entire new market but a giant bureaucracy to regulate it. This is exactly what America needs, another bullshit middle man market that doesn’t produce or invent anything (sarcasm off). Not to mention the overtones of an Eco socialistic agenda weaved into it.

I can’t really point fingers at any citizen who sees this as a viable option. They just want something done and it is almost the only idea out there. Thank you Republicans! You spoke of beating a horse into dog food. How about we beet the republicans.

Back to the point though, this idea, much like most ideas that make it through congress, it is about money for lobbyist and power for politicians. Unless your Al Gore, then its about both.

Meanwhile back at Club G8...

RUSSIA:
The economic advisor of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared bluntly that Russia was not prepared to sacrifice its economic growth for the purpose of CO2 reductions.
Just over a month ago, the Russian President announced that his country intended to increase CO2 emissions by 30% by 2020.

CHINA and INDIA
Both countries are in the midst of economic and energy booms that will determine much of the 21st century. Both countries have categorically ruled out any mandatory emissions cuts, thereby ensuring that the diplomatic tug of war will continue for many years to come.

Even if they significantly increased their energy efficiency and were able to introduce an extensive assortment of low-carbon technologies (which is in the range of the possible), it is still expected that China’s and India’s CO2 emissions will nearly double over the next three decades.

By 2050, the combined population of China and India will have grown to a staggering three billion people. By then, most Chinese and Indians will have adopted an urban lifestyle, with cars, air conditioning, refrigerators, televisions and computers. This rate of population and economic growth together with the most extraordinary rise in energy demand makes any hope of medium-term emission reductions redundant.

Orig. Article at: http://...com/la55y7

Obviously you didn’t read my response, so I’ll repeat the line: As for CO₂ acting as a forcing agent or not, you can keep beating on that dead horse until you get dog food and methane vapor, but it doesn’t change the fact that high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere generally correlate to high atmospheric temperatures.



You are "forcing" the issue, not me. The fact that you seem to miss the correlation that just about everyone in the scientific community sees just helps us to be informed of the failures in the critical thinking components of your education. This is further highlighted by your "stretching" argument by which I could apply to your genetic makeup to prove you are North Korean if I "stretch" it far enough. For people who have an education, your "stretching" argument is merely a distortion of data to prove anything you’d like. The only reason nobody else points this out to you is that the rest of the intelligent people on this rock seem to be ignoring your posts altogether.

"Just about everyone" huh? That’s a good one. Gone off on using the (now thoroughly discredited) ’consensus’ nonsense eh? OK, no worries....so, if I understand your convoluted reasoning above (which basically says nothing - ever thought of going into politics?), you are now conveniently backing away from the theory that C02 plays a major role in positive forcing of the temperature? You are still coherent enough to realize that this very idea IS the foundation of AGW right? Patronizing comments like those above don’t do much to support your argument - and if the readers of this forum are as intelligent as you seem to think, they won’t be fooled either. No, your response is pure AGW playbook: ignore the debate and belittle the debater. Since you can’t provide any evidence that atmospheric C02 ’forces’ global temperature, then why are we trying to lower it again???? The precautionary principle perhaps? Even though as a matter of policy, it has an almost perfect historical record of causing more damage than good? Or is it simply that computer modelers hate admitting when they’re wrong? I read now that Hansen’s latest approach is to explain away the current mild downward trend in temperature as a ’short pause’ in global warming, (sorry, ’climate change’) which will "pick back up" in 10-20 years? How do you feel about the prospects of an already skeptical public, growing wearier by the day with every new apocalyptic announcement, willingly paying more for just about everything while the temperature of the Earth stubbornly refuses to validate modelers predictions?

PS I guess you didn’t catch my goof. It is atmospheric C02 that is almost perfectly correlated with the price of a postage stamp over the last century...not temperature. My bad. "Stretching" should be a technique any modeler is well acquainted with...it is the lifeblood GCMs.

Scott Saturday wrote: I guess you didn’t catch my goof. It is atmospheric C02 that is almost perfectly correlated with the price of a postage stamp over the last century...not temperature.

A novel theory, but generally as un-supported as the phobia regarding computer models.