Posted on 08/31/2007 12:43:54 AM PDT by neverdem
Carbon trading, the increasingly accepted answer to global warming, will cost far more than we’re being told.
In a short time, global warming has graduated from niche cause to accepted fact. Though skeptics may still grumble (or shout) that the science isn’t settled, they’ve lost the battle when President Bush agrees to “seriously consider” an international climate-change treaty; when media mogul Rupert Murdoch writes that “climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats”; when conservative standard-bearer National Review runs a cover article saying that “it’s no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures”; when Ford CEO Alan Mulally tells the Detroit News that “temperature has increased . . . mainly because of the greenhouse gases keeping the heat in”; and when New York Times everyman columnist Tom Friedman exhorts us to “go green.” Al Gore—who, less than a decade ago, dropped his nearly career-spanning obsession with climate change, recognizing that no serious politician could make it the cornerstone of a presidential campaign—now has an Oscar for the global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Some 84 percent of Americans think that human beings are contributing to global warming, with 78 percent (and 60 percent of Republicans) saying that we should do something about it “right away,” according to an April New York Times/CBS News poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
They shouldn’t call them carbon offsets. A more accurate name would be carbon indulgences.
It has the added benefit for them, that when this whole mountain comes toppling down, pollution offset contracts will come down with them. This is something environmentalists may very well be hoping for.
Never have so many fallen for such outright deceit.
What is it about this topic that makes normally sensible people lose all ability to think?!
Bush has been the biggest disappointment. I wonder if the conservative radio hosts challenged him on his global warming comments?
Carbon indulgences.
Exactly correct. And who needs them most: the rich and famous advocates of global warming.
And to whom SHOULD these payments go? Well, actually, there is not one single person or group on the face of the earth that deserves to get paid because others are using fuel to warm their homes, drive their cars, and conduct their business.
However, I’ve decided that they can send all their guilty conscience money to ME. :>)
MSM doing a great job with the sheeple...78%...WOW thats really effective.
Follow the money. Right into Algore’s pocket.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It turns out that the only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is for the climate to have been colder 800 years ago! Changes in global temperature precede changes in atmospheric CO2 - and they precede them by about eight hundred years.
This extraordinary lag time is due to the source of the CO2: it outgasses from the oceans, which are an enormous heat-sink
The Vostok ice cores hold a record of CO2 vs atmospheric temperature data going back 420,000 yrs. The temp vs CO2 data behaviour from Vostok is shown below. The average lag is on the order of eight hundred years. So you are quite right - there's not much we can do about atmospheric CO2 - and we shouldn't be worried by it anyway
Hope this is helpful, Sir
hey i get warm in the daytime when the sun comes out...
so don’t tell me the globe don’t get warm ......
and as the day goes by why it gets EVEN warmer....yes, that’s RIGHT...
so don’t tell me there’s no such thing as A WARM globe and as a matter of fack i think we’s a warmin up right along...
man, i live it every single day....
thank god algore made me realize i was getting warm becuuse of out of control warming, globe-wise....
course i do live in florida....so...
(all you people who deny the algorical, are gonna get a nasty exxon letter from olympia and rocky to)
i reserve the balance of my time.....
hey i get warm in the daytime when the sun comes out...
so don’t tell me the globe don’t get warm ......
and as the day goes by why it gets EVEN warmer....yes, that’s RIGHT...
so don’t tell me there’s no such thing as A WARM globe and as a matter of fack i think we’s a warmin up right along...
man, i live it every single day....
thank god algore made me realize i was getting warm becuuse of out of control warming, globe-wise....
course i do live in florida....so...
(all you people who deny the algorical, are gonna get a nasty exxon letter from olympia and rocky to)
i reserve the balance of my time.....
This is leading to carbon taxes.
I’m waiting for beachfront property values to drop......then I’ll sorta, maybe, think the planet is getting warmer. I could move up to West Virginia and make out for a few years.
If they really believe this junk science they would offset the carbon consumption within their own company or would take the money they are wasting buying offsets and use it for some real conservation effort.
Yup -- see tagline.
Full title: An Inconvenient Solution to an Imaginary Problem
Exactly. I expect to see this in my phone bill in the near future.
Have you ever read point #5 in my profile? Your point about CO2 outgassing is completely wrong. That is not how the system works.
I don't disagree with the fact that an initial warming can start the process, but the rest is mostly wrong. There is a positive feedback mechanism, but it is from water-vapor, not CO2. If you were correct, the temperature might lead the initiation of the interglacial warming, but the fact is that temperature leads the CO2 all the way up the whole warming process (and also leads on the way down, too). That is inconsistent with your hypothesis.
CO2-induced warming of the planet causes relative humidity to increase TOO. Both factors contribute to the increasing temperature of the planet in the glacial-interglacial transition. The general water vapor content of the atmosphere is “set” by the overall planetary temperature, and the determining factor of that is atmospheric CO2 concentration.
No. The primary determining factor is water-vapor, CO2 is only a small contributing factor (and man-made only a small part of that). The water-vapor concentration is 10-50 times total CO2 by volume, depending on the local humidity.
2. How do you explain the fact that temperature leads CO2 all the way up to the top of the rise -- and leads on the way down? That indicates that water-vapor is the causal effect, CO2 the result.
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
Will Runaway Water Warm the World (good article despite the "scary" title)
"Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect"
How do you explain the fact that temperature leads CO2 all the way up to the top of the rise -- and leads on the way down? That indicates that water-vapor is the causal effect, CO2 the result.
The temperature rise began, temporally, before the increase in CO2. Once CO2 begins to increase, it forces additional increases in temperature, but because temperature started to rise before CO2, it is always "ahead" in the record.
Admittedly this is a hard concept to grasp. Try this. You have a cold beaker of water in the refrigerator. You take it out of the refrigerator and let it start to warm up, measuring the temperature every two minutes. After an hour, you put a Bunsen burner under the beaker, and keep recording the temperature, while also recording the amount of gas used by the burner (also recorded against time).
You plot the temperature and the gas consumuption against time, starting at the time when the beaker was removed from the refrigerator.
What will that plot look like?
You can sketch this out yourself as a thought experiment: use two Y-axes, one for temperature and one for volume of gas burned. The X-axis is time. I would verbally describe it like this: the temperature curve shows a slow increase starting at time 0. There is no gas volume. At the 1-hour mark (actually, 2 minutes after the 1-hour mark), the slope of the temperature increase gets steeper, and a linear -- assuming you don't mess with the burner after you light it -- line showing increasing gas volume initiates at zero sloping upward.
Did the warming water in the beaker cause the consumption of the gas by the Bunsen burner? Even though the temperature began to rise before gas started to be burned, what was the main factor causing the temperature to rise after the 1-hour mark? If you turned the burner up (more gas burned per unit time), what would happen to the two curves?
Now for the falling temperature. Now imagine that you turn the burner down to an extremely low flame -- so low, in fact, that it cannot maintain the high temperature that the water in the beaker reached. So the gas consumption slope will become much less steeper, while the temperature curve will start to go down -- even while the gas volume curve is still going up. I.e., because there are other climate factors involved besides atmospheric CO2, the cooling can be initiated while CO2 is still rising, or quasi-stable. In the climate cycle, negative feedbacks will then act to drawdown CO2 -- this doesn't work for the gas in the beaker-burner analogy. But you can see that the temperature drop initiates and continues even though the consumption of gas line is still going up. (I could try to stretch this with ice and ice volume in the beaker, but that's too much.)
Your analogy fails because in one case (GW) the quantity measured is the amount of CO2 in the air, whereas in your ansatz you are measuring the amount of gas already burned, an integral wrt time. Integrals will lag, but you are trying to compare apples and bowling-balls, not even oranges.
I’m waiting for beachfront property values to drop......then I’ll sorta, maybe, think the planet is getting warmer. I could move up to West Virginia and make out for a few years
its a plan and im damn glad proud of ya for comin up with it!
we all have to face this doom each in his own way accountable to his own diety.......
as for me give me purchasing power because i yam waat i yam.
just a thought...
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.
15 years of ceaseless propaganda - NONE of it countered by ANY effective words from ANYBODY.
Look, if I repeat something that long, that endlessly, from tens of thousands of “unbiased” news sources every hour of every day -—— it is going to be believed.
Apparently there are some on this board who are convinced too. No facts or reasoning will change their mind... although a nice grant that ISN’T tied to proving the GW theory might yield interesting results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.