Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
Oh, but it is not absurd, and is indeed science...
What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react. In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
Oh, but it is not absurd, and is indeed science...
What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorption, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react. In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
Precisely why it's absurd and NOT science at all.
The idea that you can build a model of something we know very little about it and claim the outcome is fact, is not science, it is politics, and crooked politics at that.
You are the one making an assumption that there is no problem, I follow the evidence that there IS a problem, a big problem that has been exasperated by the fossil fuel lobby.
A revenue neutral carbon tax comes at little to no cost, and it has been shown to be effective in reducing CO2 emissions in BC since 2008...If it can work here it can work there. During the time the tax had been in place, fossil fuel consumption had dropped 17.4% per capita. Province of British Columbia
I think you are misunderstanding the costs of policies. Government spending is not the only social cost of a policy. For instance, "cap and trade" has practically zero overhead costs. But a cap and trade by many measures would triple the cost of electricity. Since electricity use is basically universal in all industries(as well as in individual homes), the cost of production of basically everything would rise as a result. Thereby, the cost-of-living would rise sharply.
What we are really discussing here is "efficiency of production". Fossil fuels are the most efficient energy source when it comes to the labor and skills necessary to extract a given amount of energy. Which is why fossil fuels are so cheap compared to the alternatives.
When we pay for something that is more expensive, as a general rule, that item either takes more labor-hours to produce, or it requires greater skills to produce. If you artificially lower the efficiency of production of energy(or any other market), you will necessarily be redirecting resources(IE labor) to be less productive.
This idea that you can reduce the efficiency of production without having any effect whatsoever on standard-of-living is completely delusional. It would be equivalent to arguing that if we stopped using tractors and went back to the horse and plow, that not only would there be no reduction in our standard-of-living, but that there would be an increase in the standard-of-living. It cannot be true. And I have no clue why anyone would believe it.
As for Canada. Keep in mind, Canada's economy is actually based almost completely around the exploitation of natural resources. If we set aside Canada's oil sands for a moment. Keep in mind, British Colombia's electricity production is mostly from hydroelectric power. Which requires two things, for the government to dam up almost all of the rivers(pissing off the environmentalists). As well as having the water resources to exploit to begin with. British Colombia is located in an area of the world that is almost unique in its water resources. On top of that, Canada has a relatively small population size. The policies of British Colombia or for that matter Alberta's oil sands, or Quebec's hydroelectric resources, have zero applicability to pretty much all of the United States.
If British Colombia was located in the plains of Kansas, they would have an entirely different set of priorities.
I think too many are stuck in the "Global warming" rut.... YES, the Climate is changing, this does NOT mean everywhere on the planet is warmer .... Locally we had a worse winter than we have had in years, the Great Lakes had more ice coverage than in years, our summer so far has been a lot cooler than "normal", I believe it has been drier summer than "normal" too, BUT some areas have had severe storms even tornadoes more than previous years.
The ONLY thing in dispute is how much affect humans have on this ... Personally, I think on a global level it is very minimal, in some areas humans are destroying the environment.
Nature is working on a way to have an Extinction Level Event, this time involving humans.
You are the one making an assumption that there is no problem, I follow the evidence that there IS a problem, a big problem that has been exasperated by the fossil fuel lobby.
A revenue neutral carbon tax comes at little to no cost, and it has been shown to be effective in reducing CO2 emissions in BC since 2008...If it can work here it can work there. During the time the tax had been in place, fossil fuel consumption had dropped 17.4% per capita. Province of British Columbia
I believe you meant exacerbated - exasperated more accurately describes those who respond to your posts!
The trouble here is that the evidence you follow does not lead to your conclusion alone - there are other explanations, such as the notion that the warming/cooling we see along a 20-30 year scale is much more influenced by solar activity than we had previously expected. That is one quite plausible explanation for the global cooling idiocy of the 1970's, the global warming idiocy of the 1990's, and the current dispute over why we've still got ice caps right now.
Whether a tax is revenue neutral or not is largely irrelevant - the damaging effects have nothing to do with whether the government gains by the tax or not. Due to your location, it's fairly easy to step up hydro-electric production to replace coal fired electric production. In Arizona, that is a much tough nut to crack.
I think too many are stuck in the "Global warming" rut.... YES, the Climate is changing, this does NOT mean everywhere on the planet is warmer .... Locally we had a worse winter than we have had in years, the Great Lakes had more ice coverage than in years, our summer so far has been a lot cooler than "normal", I believe it has been drier summer than "normal" too, BUT some areas have had severe storms even tornadoes more than previous years.
The ONLY thing in dispute is how much affect humans have on this ... Personally, I think on a global level it is very minimal, in some areas humans are destroying the environment.
It was the same way over here in Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMack
Nature is working on a way to have an Extinction Level Event, this time involving humans.
Imagine Ebola, or HIV as an airborne disease.
Don't be absurd. We are about ~40 years overdue for an ice age.
The idea that you can build a model of something we know very little about it and claim the outcome is fact, is not science, it is politics, and crooked politics at that.
Know little about? The greenhouse effect, despite all the controversy that surrounds the term, is actually one of the most well-established theories in atmospheric science....The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
