Posted on 12/06/2007 3:43:11 PM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- Democrats turned back repeated efforts by Republican senators to soften the economic impact of a global warming bill before advancing it out of a Senate committee on Wednesday.
It was the first bill calling for mandatory U.S. limits on so-called greenhouse gases to be taken up in Congress since global warming emerged as an environmental issue more than two decades ago. The bill was approved 11-8 by the Environment and Public Works Committee.
GOP critics of the bill argued that limiting greenhouse gas emissions could become a hardship because of higher energy costs.
But Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a Republican co-sponsor who gave the bill legitimacy among many moderate GOP senators, called it ''a chance to give America our opportunity ... to be counted on this very, very important issue.''
The bill calls for the United States to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation.
It would create a ''cap-and-trade'' system whereby companies would have pollution allowances that they could sell if they went below the emission limits, or buy if they found they could not meet the requirements.
From your home page it appears that you have been studying this for a while.
Nice chart. Are you attempting to show that ozone and carbon dioxide are the primary sources of earth’s thermal radiation and that water vapor is not?
I’ve got a copy dated 1946.
$$$$$ There’s always a money trail with these scumbag politicians. So few have any dignity and honor.
“I’ve got a copy dated 1946.”
Mine is dated 1973, so obviously the data has been adjusted for at least some inflation.
No, I was just trying to show that IR absorption is a feature of the physical chemistry of the CO2 molecule. Since you read my profile, you must realize I know something about physical chemistry (though unfortunately it was the math-intensive aspects of graduate level P-chem that curtailed my advanced chemistry degree pursuit).
Just found this paper today while searching for a response to your posting. I'll have to keep it in my files.
Climate Change and Tropospheric Temperature Trends
Sorry, it doesn't have an "abbreviated short version" (ASV). For a complex subject like this, ASVs gloss over a lot of important scientific information. Evans' piece is a fine example.
“No, I was just trying to show that IR absorption is a feature of the physical chemistry of the CO2 molecule.”
Whew! Thank goodness, I was fearing that I had to gear up for a major mind bender!
And, oh yeah, I can certainly sympathize with your sentiments regarding P-Chem. The several courses I had to take in P- Chem led me to some serious thoughts about being in the wrong profession (nearly confirmed when I took O-Chem, and thermo “G.D. its 2” ).
My reference to physical chemistry was aimed at the concept of equilibrium and apparent lack of respect, or shall I say faith, in the known (my old handbook of Chemistry has a bunch) and without going too far out on a limb, many unknown equilibrium laws of our physical world. My thinking is that the fact that this earth has managed to maintain its’ equilibrium through the millennia should humble man’s thoughts regarding this subject.
How anyone can pretend that they can come to any definitive conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming is beyond me. As much as I admire the eminent scientists, only a hubristic fool could conclude that man currently has the data or computational ability to reliably calculate parameters for such a complex phenomena as the earth’s climate. That is, unless they never took a serious Chemistry course, then I guess it’s easy.
Come on, can you seriously compare a time scale of hundreds of thousands of years to one that focuses on a hundred years? No chance that the Vostok data missed a 10% concentration spike or two that might have occurred in a hundred year span? Excuse my skepticism.
Besides, you missed my point regarding the earth’s equilibrium. Life has existed on this planet for a very long time. It appears intuitively obvious that there are mechanisms that ensure its’ continued existence, whether man is aware of them or not.
Just wondering whether I should have spelled “whether “ as “weather”. It would have made the sentence more apropos.
Yes, here's another rendition of the same thing:
It's the same graphics from the same sources overlaid and colored to show where the CO2 absorption spectrum peeks out from behind that of water vapor. The sun's radiation and earth's black body radiation are an additional overlay.
Yes, it's not IPCC. They don't have any discussion regarding the physics or experimental data regarding the aspects covered in those graphs whatsoever.
I think it's an omission by design. That is to say, I think they want people to only focus on the empirical data or circumstantial evidence. They don't want anyone to get too nosey and start digging.
I'm not as smart as you. I don't have a pair of PhDs. Help me to understand...
You seem to be saying that an increase in CO2 causes a rise in temperature, which causes a rise in CO2, which causes a rise in temperature, which causes...
It's horrible. Except it's happened before. It happened before man screwed up the world with population, productivity, and prosperity. Absent industrial man, it's hard to make a case for anthropogenic warming.
So what caused past warmings? Ah, no one knows. More research is required. Hey, I'm with you.
What stopped past warmings, given the runaway symbiotic relationship between temperature and CO2? Uh, more research is required, right?
The problem, Colgitator, is I'm much simpler than you. I look at the graph below, use a straight edge, and conclude that CO2 goes up after a rise in temperature. Roll a bowling ball downhill and bop me in the head, but it still seems rather straight forward.
Oceans are CO2 sinks. Heat them and release CO2. Cool them and they absorb CO2.
Of course, I'm stupid and simple. I can't figure out what might cause temperature to rise if it's rise is unrelated to CO2. Unless, maybe, the sun has something to do with temperature here on earth. I know this isn't nearly as exciting as the proposition that man and Mathus cause our doom, but that's what you get from a simple entrepreneur. I look at the following and think that the sun might influence temperature...
Being a simple guy, I don't understand the complex climate models. Maybe it's because I've tried to model market share using multiple regression for a particular industry. Real world, even when we think we've got a pretty good understanding of the "forcings," it's nearly impossible to get a good r^2.
I couldn't understand it. It always worked in business school using the textbook data. Why wouldn't it work using real data? I mean I could get results, but I couldn't get a good fit or solid predictive model outside of the textbook.
So you see, simple guy that I am, I wonder about the fit of climate models that are far, far more complex that anything I ever worked on.
I'm such a simpleton that the time series models I've worked on made me extremely skeptical of Hansen's original time series. We're talking about a slight increase in temperature from a 100 year time series with questionable records in the past. That's not many data points, plus, humans were recording observations from stick thermometers. Were they doing it at the same time of day? Were they rounding up? Down? Was it consistent?
Of course, human error is not possible, right? I mean, no one would ever expect the United Nations to publish a chart that totally ignores the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age, right? Furthermore, it's unfathomable for this to appear in a PowerPoint presentation turned movie and win not only an Academy Award, but a Nobel Prize? I mean surely, no one would assign the Nobel to something so wrong, right?
The Infamous Hockey Stick
Oops. The Hockey Stick kinda missed a few parts of the temperature record.
Of course, if someone like a United Nations panel or a former U.S. Vice President rock star/Gaia disciple/Nobel Laureate were to make such a major goof, admission would be promptly forthcoming,right?
Credibility, from my limited perspective, appears to be in short supply. So what is credible? I'm much more inclined to trust the temperature record in the post war period than the turn of the century, but it doesn't support warming...
Of course, the most accurate data we've got comes from satellites. It doesn't help either...
If this is all so much globaloney, the question is why? Why bother? The climate scientists couldn't be motivated by something so crude as grant money could they? The politicians couldn't be affected by something as crass as the naked pursuit of power could they?
You're a smart guy, Cogitator. Well, you're an overly educated guy anyway. Think. Who benefits from global warming? Who loses? Could this be as simple as money and power?
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.