Carbon tax...good or bad?

luckily intelligent people are ignoring scientific illiterate denier conspiracy nuts like trump and his trumpettes...it would appear cheap reliable energy storage is now only 2-3 years away...a couple of Canadians working out of MIT have the financial backing of Bill Gates and energy giant Total S.A. ...the technology is in it's last stages of testing...giant batteries that can be made as large needed, don't overheat, catch fire or explode(not Li-ion) and that last decades...the last hurdle for industrial sized energy storage appears to have been met.

 

CO2 is A cause of warming, not THE cause.

 

You warmists have been confronted with the reality that says your beliefs are phooey many times I'm sure, but yet you persist in your delusion. Why??

Here is a graph that shows how wrong you are. Religious zealots aren't as hard headed as you guys.



Your delusion is the red line - reality is the blue and green lines.

Again, you have no, none, zip, zero data or empirical evidence to support your delusion.

 

So what is the cause??

 

Likely there are multiple factors causing positive feedback but I don't know any more than anyone else.

 

Well, the empirical evidence shows that the feedbacks are negative, not positive.

If the feedbacks were positive, those blue and green lines in the graph would be up near the computer model red line.

The computer models are wrong b/c they all assume positive feedback; hence the theory is wrong.

Rather admit the theory is wrong however, the powers-that-be spend $billions propagandizing in support of what amounts to a scientific lie.

Since most people don't have even a rudimentary understanding of science, they simply believe their government's propaganda.

 

I take it back...obviously YOU do know. Climate issues solved....yay!

 

Bad.

It's just a hammer wrapped in feel good green felt, designed to pad budgets and hide the fiscal impact of social justice engineering.

 

There's nothing to solve - that's the point. That's what the actual science and empirical evidence clearly demonstrates.

Go on believing the the lie of you want. I assume you are a leftist and have darker political motives for doing so.

 

A carbon tax will do essentially NOTHING to protect low lying land from the threat of rising ocean levels for at least five decades or more from what I have read about it.

A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse.



Just a nudge could collapse West Antarctic Ice Sheet, raise sea levels 3 meters

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and naive to believe such a thing.

Seriously, wake up dude.

 

Any of you alarmists wanna tackle your 32 wrong answers compared to reality??

Or are you waiting for your "scientists" to manipulate the temperature record even more so "the facts" fit their theory??

Funny how you guys always take your ball and go home when confronted with the actual facts

 

This is a very misleading graph by a known climate misinformer. It's not showing what you think it's showing. Christy has cherry-picked about < 0.5% of the thermal mass of the climate system here and compared it to another cherry-picked subset of climate models (the worst ones he could find) and then uses this as justification that AGW is wrong. Which < 0.5% of the climate system did Christy cherry-pick? I'm glad you asked. This is the middle troposphere from 20N to 20S latitude and is known as the tropical mid troposphere hotspot problem. It is a known problem (or at least it was) with climate modeling. What Christy doesn't tell you is that whereas models overestimate the warming in this < 0.5% of the climate system they underestimate even more severely in other parts of the climate system like the Arctic region. This in no way refutes the primary hypothesis of AGW. All it shows is that climate modeling is not perfect which is par for the course in ALL disciplines of science.

Here are the real charts.









And what about Hansen's now famous 1988 computer model prediction. It too did quite well. Note that scenario B is the business-as-usual scenario that Hansen felt would be the most likely to occur. In reality public policy (mostly through banning of CFCs) actually reduced the radiative forcing by 20% and scenario B assumed no large volcanic eruptions when in fact Pinatubo (1991) cooled the planet by at least 0.3C. And despite all of that Hansen's scenario B was actually still pretty close. Had CFCs not been banned and had an unusually large volcanic eruption not occurred then Hansen would have severely underestimated the warming.



And here is what the oceanic heat content has been doing. Note that this graph represents 93% of the thermal mass of the climate system as opposed to Christy's < 0.5% depiction you posted. Notice that once again 2018 is going to set yet another record for total heat uptake which pretty much occurs on a yearly basis now.

 

You got duped by a known climate misinformer. Climate models are not wrong. They actually have a very good track record in both reproducing past global mean temperatures (both troposphere and hydrosphere) and future trajectories (see Hansen [1988]). Are they perfect? Nope. But, they are accurate and skillful in both explaining past temperature changes and predicting future temperature changes. That is a fact. And it remains a fact despite you get duped by someone with a history of producing misleading graphs.

 

The net effect of ALL climate forcing agents. This includes but is not limited to greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar radiation, albedo, etc. These agents/mechanisms ebb and flow over time. It's always the net effect of all of them that dictates the final radiative forcing. We just happen to live in an era where greenhouse gases are the dominating factor.

 

FACT: The troposphere and hydrosphere are warming. This is confirmed by 3 satellite datasets, 6 conventional surface station datasets, dozens of reanalysis datasets, and several ocean datasets. There exists no dataset which publishes a global mean temperature that says otherwise. Literally...none.

FACT: This warming is primary the result of the greenhouse gas effect especially after WWII. The smoking gun signal for this is the warming troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere. There is no physical process aside from the conversion of quantized energy in certain infrared spectrum photons into thermal energy. Literally...there exists no other physical process that can explain this unique observation.

FACT: Humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. This is confirmed by several lines of evidence including the decline of the 14C-to-13C/13C ratio, the decline of the 13C-to-12C ratio, decline of the O2 ratio to the other gas species, and finally the mass accounting of the fossil fuels dug up from under the ground with the amount of carbon that has been injected into the carbon cycle.

 

Absolute nonsense... you wouldn't know science from a cheeseburger

 

If it's absolute nonsense then explain how the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools?

 

So....you are presented with a data set which is confirmed by multiple sources and easily verified, the accuracy can be quickly determined with minimal effort and rebutted or debunked if incorrect and debated.

Your response is then to say "Nuh Uh you poo-poo head"?

Dude....you suck at this.

 

Nobody takes James Hansen seriously. He's a flake whose track record and attempts at science are laughable.

That you guys are still citing Hansen shows just how far behind you guys are.

 

Remind me..between Christy and Hansen which on has made numerous egregious mistakes in measuring the global mean temperature? Which one has made better predictions of the global mean temperature?

 

Here's a good one...

"James Hansen - The Climate Chiropractor. Need Your Climate Adjusted?? Call James Hansen".

Too funny!!!!

 

I'll answer the questions for you.

Christy has made several egregious mistakes in measuring the global mean temperature. One of his mistakes was so bad that the correction increased the rate of warming by 0.1C/decade. Again, that's 0.1C per decade! That was his mistake back in the 90's that was identified just a few weeks after he claimed that his dataset was the most accurate in the world with an error of no more than 0.01C from the start of the period to the end of the period. By the way, his UAH dataset is THE most adjusted dataset in existence and requires the use of computer models (which he bashes constantly) to produce. And in double irony his satellite dataset only works because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If CO2 weren't a GHG then his dataset (plus all other satellite based datasets) would be completely useless.

Hansen has made far better predictions. As in like it's not even close. And his "business-as-usual" prediction was only off by 0.2C after 30 years and that was with 20% less radiative forcing (due to banning of CFCs) than the "business-as-usual" scenario he published in 1988. Furthermore, Pinatubo was a rare VEI 6 eruption that cooled the planet by 0.3C. Hansen's "business-as-usual" scenario stipulated no large volcanic eruptions. An yet despite imperfect input conditions the output from the model was still pretty good.

 

What about Arrhenius' prediction that the polar regions would warm faster than equatorial regions and that the ocean would absorb a significant portion of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions. Yep, he nailed that. And that was a prediction made in 1896!

Now remind me...how are those denier predictions from Easterbrook, Soon, Baliunas, D'Aleo, Seitz, Singer, etc. working out?

 

The point is - Hansen has been exposed numerous times changing the temp record to fit his doom and gloom narrative.

He's a snake oil salesman.

Here's a prediction - it'll be cold out tonight.