[Beemer]

Originally Posted by david85

Karlos, you may want to look at a more recent graph.

Many companies in the pursuit of profits have directly moved their businesses from the EU/USA etc. to Communist China.
We cannot blame China's C02 output solely. It's a proxy for the consumption of other continents.

When the Middle East oil has gone. All the soldiers will come home... Unless they are out killing to maintain a hold on the worlds remaining yellow cake, (uranium).

Radiation is a far worse prospect for the health of the World's life than natural C02.

[david85]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Many companies in the pursuit of profits have directly moved their businesses from the EU/USA etc. to Communist China.
We cannot blame China's C02 output solely. It's a proxy for the consumption of other continents.

Excellent point and honestly I can't entirely blame many of those companies. If we don't want industrialists in our back yard, they will merely find a place where they are welcomed - its not like we're willing to get by without our I-phones. Its one more reason why extensive regulation and taxation in the developed world could actually have the opposite effect in reducing CO2 emissions.

Even if china did go ahead with a carbon tax in some form, they have no way to enforce it. Although carbon trading thus far has been a corruption riddled disaster in most countries anyway regardless of their state of development.

[Beemer]

I vote a bullet in the head for anyone imposing a carbon tax. China, India and Canada will not pay it.
Why should I bother going to work in a carbon tax zone to have money stolen off me?
The head of the IPCC is a bankster***. His bio's are on the 'net for all to read. This scam has made Gore a $billion for his fancy cars, private jets and air conditioned homes by the sea front and on top of mountains.

The "top scientists" like Hansen, Mann et. al. still receive almost a $million/year off the taxpayers yet have been roundly proven to be dishonest fraudsters.

***
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm

His "Other" Affiliations
Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Credit Suisse Group
Deutsche Bank AG
Asian Development Bank
Íslandsbanki
Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.
North Carolina State University
GAIL (India) Limited
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.
NTPC Ltd.
Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc.
The Energy and Resources Institute
Siderian Ventures, llc
(Here)

[david85]

Well in fairness, some canadian provinces do impose a carbon tax - mine is one of them unfortunately. Surprise - surprise.....they are actually loosing money somewhere along the line. Its supposed to be revenue neutral (paid back with rebate cheques to low income earners) but it turned out to be revenue negative according to some recent reports. I think quebec also has a carbon tax but I'm not up to speed on their details.

The second last canadian election was fought on what was describe as a "green shift". The idea being to increase the price of carbon fuels while reducing income taxes. The result was a stronger conservative minority government and the liberal pip squeak that heralded the green shift was promptly thrown under the bus by his own party. Canada did come back from the brink of green fundamentalism, but we're still pretty close to the edge.

China announced they will impose a carbon tax three years from now (very small one). But that announcement was well timed with their recent spat with the EU over a carbon tax on air travel. A bit of posturing on their part but nothing new there.

And yes, Hansen is off his rocker with his Earth turning into Venus prediction.

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by david85

And yes, Hansen is off his rocker with his Earth turning into Venus prediction.

Thanks for correcting me David.
I use Venus as a good example that C02 is a very poor GW gas.

For a start, at 55Km up the pressure is around one atmosphere (same as sea level here) and also a bit over room temperature. Yet the Sun sits twice as large in the sky as it is on Earth. It's temperature is stable. Neither is there any of Gores ("scare 'em silly so I can have their money") "thermal tipping point".

Venus' temperature on the ground is solely due to it's atmospheric pressure of 93 bar. This explains why Mars with it's very similar atmospheric composition is sadly, so cold!

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

Ian, Beemer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to global average as a starting point, or zero.

So:

0 + x = AGW

Where x = Anthropogenic forcing over time and 0 is the global average if no humans ever existed.

Thanks David ... that makes more sense ... if that is what Beemer meant.

And although it makes more sense ... the x in your example is not zero... and with a nonZero x , the AGW is also not = to 0.

There is of course disagreements between people about how significant of an impact or influence our x value makes ... but we do have a non zero x value.

- - - - - -

My remaining confusion is still about the scope of his previous claims ... I haven't got an answer or explanation yet that clarifies that for me.

My initial knee jerk reaction is to take his written statement to mean exactly what and how he wrote it ... which has lead me to misunderstandings with people before ... Which is why Instead of just making the assumption that Beemer meant what he wrote , the way he wrote it ... I asked for the clarification... which in this case I think is mainly about the scope.

[Beemer]

My message was, there is no global average as a starting point.

I invite anyone to look at the total differentials between North and South snow/ice sheets.

The South is gaining more frozen water in mass than the North. The numbers are not even close. There is no use in cherry picking data or it will come home to haunt you.

This below shows the smoothed trends since NSIDC started but excludes the volumes.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-s...:250/normalise

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

Ian, Beemer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to global average as a starting point, or zero.

Originally Posted by Beemer

My message was, there is no global average as a starting point.

So much for David's version / effort to explain you previous post ... too bad ... David's version at least made some sense to me.

What version of the term 'average' are you using ??? Your use here does not make sense to me ... how can there be no global average?

- - - - -

Sense you seem to disagree with David's version / effort ... please explain this previous statement... which does not seem to be using the word zero in agreement with the definitions of the word I am aware of.

Originally Posted by Beemer

To have a "zero" you need an average.

- - - - -

@Beemer:
I still do not understand the scope your message claim from post #2730.

[Caps18]

Originally Posted by Beemer

My message was, there is no global average as a starting point.

I invite anyone to look at the total differentials between North and South snow/ice sheets.

The South is gaining more frozen water in mass than the North. The numbers are not even close. There is no use in cherry picking data or it will come home to haunt you.

This below shows the smoothed trends since NSIDC started but excludes the volumes.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-s...:250/normalise

That graph you keep linking to is only from 2001.5 - 2002. Not a very long period of time. And don't you think that even if the South Pole is getting some snow now, that the animals at the arctic circle are having major problems?

http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/seaice/index.shtml
Here is a better website that shows your point. But still, melting ice and reduced ice pack around Antarctica will just help speed up the melt and eventually the ice and snow over land will melt. Both ice packs in Greenland and Antarctica are getting smaller over time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0612092741.htm

And when the ice is gone from the arctic, it's not going to cause more ice to be formed in the Antarctic.

[Caps18]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Thanks for correcting me David.
I use Venus as a good example that C02 is a very poor GW gas.

For a start, at 55Km up the pressure is around one atmosphere (same as sea level here) and also a bit over room temperature. Yet the Sun sits twice as large in the sky as it is on Earth. It's temperature is stable. Neither is there any of Gores ("scare 'em silly so I can have their money") "thermal tipping point".

Venus' temperature on the ground is solely due to it's atmospheric pressure of 93 bar. This explains why Mars with it's very similar atmospheric composition is sadly, so cold!

PV = nRT

And the fact is that once you get to 800C, the calcium carbonate becomes CO2 and Calcium Oxide. Which makes the pressure go up because there is more gas in the same amount of volume. It's temperature is stable at 800-900 C @ 90 atmosphere. Not the nicest place in the solar system. It also can't radiate the heat back into space like should happen. It doesn't take much CO2 or H20 in Phoenix to keep the heat trapped on a starry night in the summer. But, go out in the desert with clean air and it will drop at night.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year. I guess this means that the atmospheric pressure on Earth is going up too by a little since CO2 stays close to the ground. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_a...urrounding_air
How much of an effect does the heavier mass of CO2 have on Venus in increasing the pressure?


Mars doesn't have the size and therefore gravity to hold onto that much of an atmosphere of the lighter gases. And it is cold enough to have a lot of frozen CO2.


This graph explains why Florida feels so much hotter at the same temperature and pressure as Arizona. You remove the H20 from the air, and you can emit more energy in the 5.5-7 IR band. The same thing applies to the three CO2 bands.

I get $0 from the green environmentalists. How much do you get for trolling this website to support the largest companies in the history of the world who have the most to lose?