Ed, part of the issue, as I understand it, is not just the fact we produce more CO2, but we mix in other materials through fertilizers, and the over farming of land, to where the rains, when they come, wash a lot of the nitrogen and sulfur compounds into rivers and oceans. On top of it, China produces huge amounts of sulfur compounds (just look at Beijing's pollution issues) from industry. The removal of large CO2 absorbtion tools such as the Amazon and Indonesian forests further complicates things. Everyone is doing what they want and keeping up with the overall impact becomes complicated. Add to this the fact a lot of the base changes may be just a natural variation cycle, and you get into really complicated dynamics, which can be manipulated for anyone's purposes.

Prof, there is also the issue of removal of some of the largest CO2 absorption tools in the Amazon and the Indonesian islands. The combination of dynamic modeling and incorporating the impact of those activities does make it a lot harder to come up with simpler answers. On top of it, they like to burn off a lot of the material, adding to the problem. I have often thought if they want to go crazy with GW science and rules, they need to go talk to them before they come after cars and cows.

No they do, but the addition of other things makes it a multi faceted issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

The carbon cycle is shown here:

http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbo...

The mixing of other things makes the process more acidic than in the past, raising the overall acidity in the ocean. This has been proposed as a cause for coral reef die offs.

All they would have to do is repeal/redefine the 1906 Antiquities Act. It was originally intended for small monuments to protect cliff dwelling sites from being looted. Sites like Canyon De Chelly, Betatakin, Chaco Canyon, etc. Teedy Roosevelt signed it into law and immediately used it to create the huge Grand Canyon National Monument. De facto National Parks which supposedly only Congress can create. Of course, try and find that language in the enumerated powers.

I remember learning in Oceanography 101, that CO2 in the atmosphere is buffered in the oceans. Increased partial pressure in the atmosphere, results in increased dissolved CO2 in the ocean which then leads to increased deposition of CaCO2 as limestone. Coral reefs do great.

They probably don't teach that anymore.

That's one of the things that should be taken out of the president's hands. If we need a new National Monument, congress should have to pass a bill.

He is pulling out all the stops in this last year. Now there is yet a new National Monument being designated by the stroke of a pen. 1.9 million acres in SE Utah called the Bears Ears.

Thanks for the reply. I have not studied this possibility. Do you have info that shows this is happening and is harmful that you can share so I can become more versed in the subject?

Even "IF" climate events had it's roots in the abuses of our planets resources, (NOT) no one in government nor it's bureaucracies has a mind, much less a brain to make a difference.
The problem with western societies is that we've not been taught nor understand the natural cycles. The truth is: It's the Sun Silly.

Of course we know, it's another ploy to control technology, resources and the amazing conscious human beings on our planet...not one of which wishes to rule anyone but himself.

if I had a headache, it might not be because I drank
too much -- it might be because I thought too hard!

the postulate that human emissions are causing harm
has not been established;;; cause-and-effect is a
tough thing to prove. . first, let's prove it. -- j
.

I agree completely. -- j
.

might makes wrong. -- j
.

They've got to do something to distract their constituents from the scandals, stupidities, and falsehoods that have become so obvious in the last few years. There's always good ol' climate change to fill the bill.

The introduction of toxic and radiological materials into the atmosphere and oceans by China, India, Japan, North Korea, Iran, etc. There are no known sequestration mechanisms that moderate this. However, politics gets into the way of dealing with the problem.

If a company is engaging in an activity that is causing harm to the environment - say, they pipe water from a river to their chemical plant - then they are responsible for returning that 'river water' to the river in good condition and minus the chemical waste. If I live downstream, then I should not be able to tell that there is a chemical plant just around the bend upstream of me. If they are 'burning stuff' that is 'causing harm' then they are indeed responsible for removing the pollutants until they are below the level of 'harm'.

I do not see that this should be a matter of taxes. I do not think that AGW is valid (I think it is the pipe-dream of a power elite) so there is no cost to coastal dwellers. Since I do not see the 'harm' I do not see the 'fee'; if I did see a 'fee'...it would not be a tax.

Jan

What real issues are you referring to?

I disagree, CircuitGuy, but find your argument rational. I have not seen any persuasive evidence that what is being taxed is actually harmful. I think that what is being taxed is 'you are part of the petrochemical industry, which we are trying to exterminate for ideological reasons'.

Jan

"Political solutions to scientific problems...invariably make matters worse..."

Yes.

Jan

I agree - and pointed you up. But I remember, when I was a kid, a time when environmentalists were Good. The big difference is that 'back then' the power they had was the power of publicity.

We have created them as a monster.

Jan

When a scientist makes a prediction it is based on a model of reality, or theory if you will.
The ecosphere is extraordinarily complex and if a model is to accurately reflect the behavior of the thing being modeled it must take that complexity into account. Fundamentally there are two kinds of models that are used by scientists; static and dynamic. A static model assumes little or no interaction between components of the system while a dynamic model takes, or at least attempts to take, these interactions into account. Most AGW models are, unfortunately, static in nature.There are several reasons for this but for the most part it is because static models are easier to understand and evaluate. Dynamic models tend to be exceptionally complex, just like the thing being modeled. Here is an example. Vegetation responds to increases in the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere by collecting the carbon and releasing oxygen into the environment. This carbon is one of the main building blocks of a plants cellular structure so this process forms part of a natural carbon sequestration mechanism. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 is met with a corresponding increase in vegetation. Carbon is plant food. The exact dynamic of this process is poorly understood so it is difficult to model. As a result vegetation response plays a minor roll in atmospheric CO2 growth models, not because it is insignificant but simply because it is hard to do. This is one of many such instances of AGW alarmists "cherry picking" data to support their contention that we face a dire threat. The worst part of all this is that in the fog of confusion about climate dynamics real issues are given little attention. It's the old KISS principal, "Keep It Simple Stupid". But unfortunately simple solutions to complex problems don't work no matter how attractive they may be cosmetically or politically.

I was referring to cg and his progressiveness.

That is most probably true, showing the cracks in our government structure...

Obama's most dangerous year in office. When he will make the most reckless decisions without care.

It is religion, the current use of CC is being done as a religious thing "Have faith, we are right" even in view of conflicting evidence, as well as an increasing body of data that this is a normal progrssion cycle that goes from hot to cold and back. There is a body of evidence that indicates sea levels were much lower a couple thousand years ago, especially with North Sea villages found, and Black Sea discoveries. Yet a cyclic projection model is still lacking.

I am not understanding. What progressive pap? I understand the taxing question, I am not advocating that, but I do believe there is an issue with some forms of responsibility. My own company I work for spends millions each year to stay with a neutral impact position, they find it is a bigger return in not paying lawyers as well as positive public perception.