It's time for a carbon tax
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.
That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.
That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.
Major Findings
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.
Major Findings
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.
A carbon tax is solely focused on fossil fuels which, when burnt, emit billions of tons of carbon that otherwise would not be released into the atmosphere and thus cannot be captured by plants and converted back into O2.
Last edited by Magish; Feb 17, 2009 at 04:09 PM.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
You don't, because that has no net effect on global climate change (assuming you buy the theory). The carbon in our bodies are part of the natural cycle. It is the same thing as me burning the tree in my backyard. Even though it will create a huge fire and emit tons of CO2, it has no net effect because a new tree will someday grow in the same place and remove all the carbon I put into the atmosphere by burning it.
A carbon tax is solely focused on fossil fuels which, when burnt, emit billions of tons of carbon that otherwise would not be released into the atmosphere and thus cannot be captured by plants and converted back into O2.
A carbon tax is solely focused on fossil fuels which, when burnt, emit billions of tons of carbon that otherwise would not be released into the atmosphere and thus cannot be captured by plants and converted back into O2.
There's no difference if you burn wood or oil; carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the reaction.
Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The only difference is which reaction created it.
Matter can't be created or destroyed.
There's a finite amount of carbon on this planet; the amount present today is the same amount that was present XXX million years ago.
The carbon in fossil fuels came from __________?
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Either way, taxing people for conforming to societies unquenchable thirst for fossil fuels is just plain mean. Like I suggested, there are programs, and there should be more, providing tax breaks to utilizing technologies proven to be better for the environment from production to disposal.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,650
From: Mountains
Car Info: 2007 Nissan Frontier
Huh?
There's no difference if you burn wood or oil; carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the reaction.
Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The only difference is which reaction created it.
Matter can't be created or destroyed.
There's a finite amount of carbon on this planet; the amount present today is the same amount that was present XXX million years ago.
The carbon in fossil fuels came from __________?
There's no difference if you burn wood or oil; carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the reaction.
Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The only difference is which reaction created it.
Matter can't be created or destroyed.
There's a finite amount of carbon on this planet; the amount present today is the same amount that was present XXX million years ago.
The carbon in fossil fuels came from __________?
For thousands upon thousands of years, before humans discovered how to extract and utilize fossil fuels, the carbon contained within these solids and liquids (oil, natural gas, coal, shale, ect) remained sequestered down below the earth's surface. Therefore, they had no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without human intervention, the carbon sequestered within these rocks would have never been added to the atmosphere. It would have simply been locked down below the earths surface indefinitely. The matter would not be "gone," it would just have to effect on the atmosphere.
Plants and animals on the other hand are a part of the carbon cycle. This has been something that has been going on since the beginning of time. If I burn the tree in my backyard it will emit a bunch of CO2 right off the bat. But this will be countered by the fact that another tree will someday grow in its place and remove that CO2 from the atmosphere, creating no net increase in CO2.
By emitting burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, we add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere that would have never been there otherwise. The carbon cycle is not equipped to handle all this new CO2 because there are not nearly enough plants growing on earth to convert it all back into O2.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
From: Los Angeles
Car Info: 2000 Subaru Impreza RS-WRX
Here is the difference:
For thousands upon thousands of years, before humans discovered how to extract and utilize fossil fuels, the carbon contained within these solids and liquids (oil, natural gas, coal, shale, ect) remained sequestered down below the earth's surface. Therefore, they had no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without human intervention, the carbon sequestered within these rocks would have never been added to the atmosphere. It would have simply been locked down below the earths surface indefinitely. The matter would not be "gone," it would just have to effect on the atmosphere.
Plants and animals on the other hand are a part of the carbon cycle. This has been something that has been going on since the beginning of time. If I burn the tree in my backyard it will emit a bunch of CO2 right off the bat. But this will be countered by the fact that another tree will someday grow in its place and remove that CO2 from the atmosphere, creating no net increase in CO2.
By emitting burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, we add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere that would have never been there otherwise. The carbon cycle is not equipped to handle all this new CO2 because there are not nearly enough plants growing on earth to convert it all back into O2.
For thousands upon thousands of years, before humans discovered how to extract and utilize fossil fuels, the carbon contained within these solids and liquids (oil, natural gas, coal, shale, ect) remained sequestered down below the earth's surface. Therefore, they had no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without human intervention, the carbon sequestered within these rocks would have never been added to the atmosphere. It would have simply been locked down below the earths surface indefinitely. The matter would not be "gone," it would just have to effect on the atmosphere.
Plants and animals on the other hand are a part of the carbon cycle. This has been something that has been going on since the beginning of time. If I burn the tree in my backyard it will emit a bunch of CO2 right off the bat. But this will be countered by the fact that another tree will someday grow in its place and remove that CO2 from the atmosphere, creating no net increase in CO2.
By emitting burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, we add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere that would have never been there otherwise. The carbon cycle is not equipped to handle all this new CO2 because there are not nearly enough plants growing on earth to convert it all back into O2.
The earth is a big recycler... it can handle X ammount of CO2 and recycle that effectively... the oceans and plants can absorb and recyle it....
Its a balanced system... more co2, and plants and sea algae grow faster to absorb the co2.
The question is... what is the limit beyond which the earth can cope to maintain the balance... caused by us burning too much fossil fuels.
The problem is compounded by de-forestation, and poisoning ocean life....
However the formula to calculate this is extremely complex, So its hard to predict with certainty.
The one thing that is fact.. is that earth is a closed system, with limited resources... (except for sunshine)
whether carbon tax is a solution is up for debate... but cleaning things up couldn't hurt. Prevention is better than cure.
The main problem is too many people.... and growing fast....
more people = more food and energy demand = more fossil fuels burned
same rules apply... earth is a closed system with only so much space...eventually there will be...... issues
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Cap and trade works in Europe and it will work here. the last thing we need is more taxes.
i dont completely agree with the assertions or 'science' on climate change, but regardless, i dont think its a good idea to spew toxic **** into the air we breathe.
we need to reign in pollution, global warming or not. period.
i dont completely agree with the assertions or 'science' on climate change, but regardless, i dont think its a good idea to spew toxic **** into the air we breathe.
we need to reign in pollution, global warming or not. period.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
When we were conceived, the carbon that became us came from the food that our moms consumed; mom didn't magically create more carbon.
Where did the fossils come from, meaning, what were they before becoming fossilized?
To think that your meaningless lives have any influence on this grand scheme is preposterous. When the time is right mother nature will show you how to clean house. Something tells me it will have nothing to do with taxes...
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.
so basically.... about 1/4 - 1/3 or scientists have confidence in the geologic record we have of climate change and what humans are doing to effect it.
scientific 'consensus' my ***