I've got an idea for you. How about you download NASA environmental simulator. The models used in that program have been developed by the top atmospheric scientists over many years. You can adjust all sorts of parameters, including CO2 concentrations to see what the projected effect is on the overall global temperature.

In other words, people much smarter than you or I have spent many years researching the effects of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

So unless you have a Ph.D in atmospheric dynamics and are actively researching the subject, and have peer reviewed scientific papers to back up your rather absurd claim, then please stop spreading misinformation.

The truth is that it doesn't take a strong GHG to influence global climate. The CO2 level in the atmosphere has almost doubled since 1900. CO2 absorbtion waveband is in the infrared. CO2 is a "heavy" gas that stays mainly in the troposphere. The CO2 cycle is approximately 150 years.

This means that CO2 absorbs heat in the lower atmosphere and it stays there for a long time. The more you have, the less heat is radiated back into space, and more stays trapped.

Along with CO2 are NOx (nitrous oxides), which has also increased by quite a bit. They have a smaller absorption spectrum and a shorter life in the atmosphere. Gases like methane have increased as well, but the they have really short lives (on the order of 12 years), so do not contribute as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

By the way, CO2 is why Venus is roughly 900 degrees everywhere on the planet, even at the poles and on the night side of the planet (which never sees the sun).

I'm not sure it would have a positive effect on the economy, but I agree that ome sort of "luxury" tax would be prudent. A number of car manufacturers would take a hit if this went into effect immediately, as they wouldn't be able to move a chunk of their inventories. This would indirectly affect other cars since they'd try to make up the loss.

Your statement is correct in regards to profits from gasoline sales, however oil companies pull in profits from many other sales than just gasoline.

~X~

 

Correction, the three way catalytic converter REDUCED the amount of pollution coming out of tailpipes. It's still there, which is why your car has to be tested for emmisions.

The current carbon cycle, as I stated before, is 150 years. CO2 is essential for flora AND fauna, as well as help keeping earth from turning into a snowball in space.

Too much CO2 is the problem. There are already animal species having problems with this.

~X~

 

No on is arguing the fact that climate does change through natural variation. Pre-tech civilizations were very much dependant on their climate to survive as they were all primarily agriculture. A ten year drought would take a civilization from the top of the world and render it into oblivion.

What we are talking about here is UN-natural rapid climate change, which there is a preponderance of evidence describing.

~X~

 

So your essentially disregarding all science that has been built on data gathered from historical sources, such as ice cores, geological strata, red-shifting, radiological dating, tree rings, etc. .

With your single (rather inane) comment about science, you've pretty much waved you hand at Paleantology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Geology, Evolutionary Biology, and numerous other branches of science. All of these require the examination of historical data in order to form hypothesis and theories to predict and test phenomena.

By your argument, you could disprove that dinosaurs walked the Earth millions of years ago even though we have found fossils in geological strata that have been radio-dated to the time period, because since we weren't actually there to see it (remember, no two-way trips through time) then it didn't happen.

This is good. This clears up why you see things they way you do. It's not logical, nor scientific, but it explains your comments.

For your information, science doesn't dictate anything. Science is applying the scientific method to study whatever you're attempting to study. That is:

1. Observe object of study
2. State a hypothesis
3. Gather data related to hypothesis
4. Test hypothesis
5. If hypothesis is supported by collected data, hypothesis becomes theory. Else, ditch or modify hypothesis.
6. Keep tesing theory with new data.
7. If theory holds over many tests and many years, make theory law

Science says come up with theories and keep testing. General and special relativity say that time travel is improbable (not impossible).

Now that we've cleared up that it is impossible to discuss most sciences with you as you clearly disregard the sources of their data as fantasy (indeed, it seems you disregard science in general), we can get back to discussing the topic at hand.

I think it would be better to penalize both buyers and manufacturers for inefficient vehicles. This can be started immediately. However, the penalties must make sense.

For instance, there is little reason why a single guy living in downtown Boston needing a F150 (unless it's for his profession). At the same time, owning a 2WD Prius makes little sense to someone who lives off in the wilderness in Montana.

The penalties need to be flexible based on living situation and needs. A family of five may legitimately need a large SUV, however a couple in suburbia have little need for a H2 other than a status symbol.

So something like a luxury tax, where it can be re-evaluated when situations change might work. But it's going to be complicated and probably take years to hammer out the details that specify what is "fair use" and what is "luxury".

~X~

 

A little fact checking is in order, I'll use the site that twuelfing posted. The concentration of co2 has gone from 295ppm in 1900 to 378ppm in 2004. That is an increase of 28%, your off by a factor of almost 4, almost double would be around 590ppm. I wish they had graphed concentration in 2100 if Kyoto was met, my guess would be still well above 650ppm.

 

Maybe I'm dwelling on your incorrect use of "several orders of magnitude", but by what you say you think that co2 concentration will go up by 1000 times. The sites you post say we could increase to 700ppm from the current 378 if nothing is done to decrease co2. That is an increase of around 50% (1.5 times) compared to 2004, and an increase of 150% (2.5 times) since we started messing things up.

How would you determine the true cost of oil. I've seen a few analyses that try such a task, here's a thread from awhile back that suggested $14 per gallon of gas would be the true cost.

https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...ighlight=%2414

In retrospect, my comparison to an alternative Horse society is only one conceivable alternative. Having visited Germany recently I see mass transit can work effectively, though I'm not sure how the overall cost would compare. The $14 estimate seems to regard everything as an expense that wouldn't exist with an alternative.

I'm not clear what you mean by "consume resources which they don't own". Oil companies legally own the oil they extract through buying the land, or by lease agreement between land owners private or public, with royalties paid.

I'd prefer that oil companies were given the opportunity to bid to own the land. Then ANWR could be offered up for public auction and you, me and other conservationists could pool our resources to outbid Exxon, Ted Turner, or anyone else wanting it for whatever reason. In ANWR's case I'd first give it back to Alaskans, then they could decide whether they wanted it to remain as is. Hardly seems fair that 59% of Alaska isn't controlled by the Alaskan citizens.

 

My bad, for some reason I was thinking the number was 195 ppm. I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

By the way, that graph indicates "business as usual". The problem is, business is not usual. As more and more countries industrialize (like China and India) they will contribute more to the problem.

China and India are rapidly catching up. Imagine US level consumption and pollution for populations 10 and 3 times greater than our own.

That 700 ppm is a gross underestimate.

With Kyoto, it would have been greater than 700ppm. One of the problems with Kyoto was that it penalized modernized countries but didn't do much to stop other countries. Right now, China and India are still considered partly in the "other" countries category.

On the bright side, in a few more decades the US won't be the largest contributor to pollution anymore.

Some other information regarding CO2:
1. Current average CO2 concentration as of January 2007 is 383 ppm
2. Average CO2 variations are 6ppm, with the highest concentrations occuring in May
3. The current rate of increase is 2.3 ppm/yr

Here's the wiki on CO2, including information regarding the 800,000 year old ice core they drilled out of Antarctica that shows that CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in th past 800,000 years, including the warm inter-glacials. Though we all know you discount such science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide


~X~

 

It does not matter if all of the "wealthy" individuals brought the same vehicles. In the absolute worst case scenerio, the fuel efficient crowd will be having their purchases subsidized by the wasteful crowd, which will lead to a more efficient economy because the more fuel efficient crowd would be able to afford even more exotic vehicles. Of course, I do not believe that people will be willing to pay such excessive prices for vehicles and would instead opt for more efficient ones or to wait for efficient ones that they want. That will place immense pressure on vehicle manufacturers, and if they ignore that pressure there is a good chance that one year a given manufacturer will sell three million cars and the next year that same manufacturer will sell five hundred thousand cars, which would drive that manufacturer out of business and would ensure that only efficient cars are made. This is a form of Darwinism.

The difference is that people in the government do not have IQs equal to infinity. If they did, they would have solved everything before it was a problem, but they have not, therefore it is inherently impossible for them to solve things by means of a government plan, as evidenced by the failures of government plans to solve problems that we have been seeing for decades. The only way to improve fuel economy of vehicles is to manipulate market forces through taxation to either coerce vehicle manufacturers of inefficient vehicles to make more efficient vehicles or drive them out of business. So far, such a manipulation has never been tried, as no conventional politician would ever do something that would require them to explain to people why hundreds of thousands of people need to find new jobs.

The United States is composed of fifty separate countries, much like the European Union, and free trade and commerce did wonders for each country in the United States, despite all of the foreign products being sold in each country and the loss of inefficient industries across the board to the point where certain industries were eliminated in certain areas. If gas guzzler taxes like I have described are instituted and enforced in each state, there is a good chance that GM and Ford will both go out of business, but the United States will have more efficient vehicles, which will be good for the United States economy by cutting dependence on foreign oil. It will also ensure a higher standard of living from having superior vehicles. And if both or either GM and/or Ford manage to make more fuel efficient vehicles as a result of this incentive, then the United States will be better off than it is now as a result.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to drive to work and provide for their families as they see fit if you do not approve of it?

A gasoline tax also aims taxation's enormous potential to kill off an area of the economy at the entire economy. Is not punishing those who buy inefficient vehicles enough, must you punish the fuel efficient crowd too? And those people who are struggling to merely put food on the table because they have too much dignity to accept handouts; must you see to it that they starve?

It depends where the oil is. In most places, it does not cost more than few dollars to extract it from the ground unless you only consider the first barrels they get out of the ground. This is known as economics of scale.

Read:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

People should not be taxed because of how large or luxurious their vehicles are. That would only harm the standard of living. They should be taxed on how inefficient their vehicles are, as their inefficient equipment is damaging to the economy and hurts everyone financially.

Anyone that is truly interested in improving fuel economy of vehicles would never target vehicles on any grounds other than their efficiency or lack of efficiency. I assume that your goal is to improve vehicles' fuel economy. Am I correct?

That would make their refinery profits much lower than 20 cents a gallon. I ignored their other potential forms of revenue when calculating it based on what ExxonMobil reportedly made and sold. The figure I calculated mirrored one put on television and also predicted by a federal agency.

 

Now who's ignoring the best that science has to offer. Why do you assume they didn't include China and India? Why would the UN IPCC grossly underestimate this?

Let's not forget Africa, where most haven't even heard of electricity, but we that have benefited the most want to tell them the only electricity they can invest in is wind and solar. Let'em burning dung and die from indoor smoke before they get affordable electricity.
Can't seem to find your 2.3ppm per year stat. I found this site that "quotes" NOAA data and says that 2005 was second at 2.6ppm, but that the overall trend was 1.9ppm over the last 10 years. There is a weak but possible overall decreasing trend. This could be an Exxon paid mouthpiece but they seem pretty green.

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-co2.html

I will note that with a current 383ppm the yearly increase is either a 0.6% or 0.5% for 2.3ppm or 1.9ppm respectively. But for some reason the UN IPCC sticks with the assumption that there will be a 1% increase over the next 100 years. If the increase is stable or decreasing as it might, we will never get close to a 1% average increase.

I think you're confusing me with Shining Arcanine.

 

Your credibility is shot Shining Arcanine, Steve Milloy of Junkscience is a FOX News contributor, anything he says is tainted by Exxon, Milloy is the head "Denier" and a target of ELF death threats.