Most people won't be happy with this because all they'll see is that you've driven fuel prices up to $5/gallon. Even if the tax proceeds turn around and miraculously end up providing a net increase in pocket dollars and free time through mass transit and R&D on fuel efficiency, no one will ever put the two together and it would be labeled as a failed policy.
Also, temperatures do affect CO2 concentrations. When the temperature of water increases, it's ability to hold CO2 is diminished, and results in increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. There is a name for this effect, I just can't remember it offhand.
Actually in the latest IPCC report (AR4, 2.3.7 Stratospheric Water Vapour), they more or less said they don't understand the radiative effects of water vapor. And aside from introduction of methane, they don't understand what contributes to the overall concentrations.
Other papers I've read say water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas though and as temperatures rise it will cause a positive feedback as more water is vaporized. This does not mean that such a feedback will automatically cause out of control temperature rise, because there is negative feedback of other effects to consider as well.
Actually I compared rate of change of temperature (increasing at a constant rate) to direct levels of carbon dioxide (increasing). The reason is because temperatures were already on the rise well before the industrial revolution, thus it would be especially meaningless to correlate the rising temperature with an increase in CO2. The point is to show that the artificial addition of very large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere has not resulted in an abnormal rate of temperature rise.
Go ahead and explain to me the conclusive results achieved by comparing both values directly, which I am apparently trying to weasel away from.
Taking a derivative does not equate with 'throwing out data', one can easily extrapolate the absolute values of the 'derived' subject, as long as the starting point is known.
I wouldn't try to claim that the Sargasso sea is the be all end all of climate evidence, but the numbers provided from it are corroborated by historical records of crop growing seasons and locations. For instance, Greenland used to be colonized by Europeans during a period of relative warmth around 1300 AD shown by Sargasso sea records.
Thank you for providing your expert awareness of deceitful denialist strategies, but I'm not here with any sort of agenda. I'm not seeking a lack of conclusion, but that's what I've found. There is no experimental evidence for man made global warming, and I don't think we should be legislating policies like Cap and Trade without being certain they will actually work.
The empirical observations show no impact on the rate of global temperature rise due to increasing CO2 levels. The industrial revolution has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by more than 30%, but the slope of temperature rise has not been impacted. It has risen steadily since the mini ice age of the 1700's.
As far as climate feedback goes...
Temperature records obtained from the sargasso sea show that we are 2 degrees C below the highest measurements of the last 3000 years. This would imply that we can at least afford to rise 2 more degrees and be assured there will be no uncontrollable feedback induced spiral into rapid temperature rise. The original source of warming is irrelevant when considering feedback, all that matters is that the warming did happen.
We could very well be on our way to one of these spirals, but there is no empirical evidence to show that C02 will be the trigger that puts us over the edge.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people won't be happy with this because all they'll see is that you've driven fuel prices up to $5/gallon. Even if the tax proceeds turn around and miraculously end up providing a net increase in pocket dollars and free time through mass transit and R&D on fuel efficiency, no one will ever put the two together and it would be labeled as a failed policy.
Also, temperatures do affect CO2 concentrations. When the temperature of water increases, it's ability to hold CO2 is diminished, and results in increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. There is a name for this effect, I just can't remember it offhand.
Actually in the latest IPCC report (AR4, 2.3.7 Stratospheric Water Vapour), they more or less said they don't understand the radiative effects of water vapor. And aside from introduction of methane, they don't understand what contributes to the overall concentrations.
Other papers I've read say water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas though and as temperatures rise it will cause a positive feedback as more water is vaporized. This does not mean that such a feedback will automatically cause out of control temperature rise, because there is negative feedback of other effects to consider as well.
Actually I compared rate of change of temperature (increasing at a constant rate) to direct levels of carbon dioxide (increasing). The reason is because temperatures were already on the rise well before the industrial revolution, thus it would be especially meaningless to correlate the rising temperature with an increase in CO2. The point is to show that the artificial addition of very large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere has not resulted in an abnormal rate of temperature rise.
Go ahead and explain to me the conclusive results achieved by comparing both values directly, which I am apparently trying to weasel away from.
Taking a derivative does not equate with 'throwing out data', one can easily extrapolate the absolute values of the 'derived' subject, as long as the starting point is known.
I wouldn't try to claim that the Sargasso sea is the be all end all of climate evidence, but the numbers provided from it are corroborated by historical records of crop growing seasons and locations. For instance, Greenland used to be colonized by Europeans during a period of relative warmth around 1300 AD shown by Sargasso sea records.
Thank you for providing your expert awareness of deceitful denialist strategies, but I'm not here with any sort of agenda. I'm not seeking a lack of conclusion, but that's what I've found. There is no experimental evidence for man made global warming, and I don't think we should be legislating policies like Cap and Trade without being certain they will actually work.
The empirical observations show no impact on the rate of global temperature rise due to increasing CO2 levels. The industrial revolution has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by more than 30%, but the slope of temperature rise has not been impacted. It has risen steadily since the mini ice age of the 1700's. As far as climate feedback goes... Temperature records obtained from the sargasso sea show that we are 2 degrees C below the highest measurements of the last 3000 years. This would imply that we can at least afford to rise 2 more degrees and be assured there will be no uncontrollable feedback induced spiral into rapid temperature rise. The original source of warming is irrelevant when considering feedback, all that matters is that the warming did happen. We could very well be on our way to one of these spirals, but there is no empirical evidence to show that C02 will be the trigger that puts us over the edge.