[mike777]

A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.
The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.
Mr. Baker is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, the senior adviser to the president, and Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, as well as Ivanka Trump.

https://www.nytimes....carbon-tax.html


Couple of ideas to start the discussion

1) START at roughly 40$/ton and gradually increase
2) return money to Americans in the form of a dividend. at 40$=2,000$ per year for a family of 4
3)eliminate many regulations
4) some sort of border regulations regarding carbon to influence other countries

[hrothgar]

 PassedOut, on 2017-February-08, 17:12, said:

The weakened polar vortex has made the weather here in Upper Michigan much more erratic also.

It was in the mid 50s here in Boston today
We are expecting 6-10 inches of snow tomorrow

[mikeh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-January-24, 07:49, said:

The arctic ice "death spiral" may have to be commuted to a 2011 weather induced "minor blip" as Environment Canada shows in this graph of arctic ice coverage.




The lack of ice back in the 1970s may represent the "coming ice age" that was expected because of INCREASING sea-ice coverage.

Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof?

take a look at http://www.theweathe...c-sea-ice/49511


try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means.

[Al_U_Card]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-08, 23:32, said:

Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof?

take a look at http://www.theweathe...c-sea-ice/49511


try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means.

It means that depending on when you choose to start the study, you get different results. Doh!

Another canard has to do with those cuddly polar bears

https://youtu.be/z6bcCTFnGZ0

[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2017-February-08, 17:30, said:

A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.
The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.
Mr. Baker is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, the senior adviser to the president, and Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, as well as Ivanka Trump.

https://www.nytimes....carbon-tax.html


Couple of ideas to start the discussion

1) START at roughly 40$/ton and gradually increase
2) return money to Americans in the form of a dividend. at 40$=2,000$ per year for a family of 4
3)eliminate many regulations
4) some sort of border regulations regarding carbon to influence other countries

Well, CO2 certainly has a value AND it in rare supply (historically) but to restrict it is more fool's errand because of its beneficial nature viz

https://youtu.be/57W3ZhOAkAE

[Al_U_Card]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-04, 04:05, said:

Well, CO2 certainly has a value AND it in rare supply (historically) but to restrict it is more fool's errand because of its beneficial nature viz

https://youtu.be/57W3ZhOAkAE

And then there was the aftermath of 8 years of EPA
https://info.mrc.org...RAL-DAMAGE.html
Climate change, like many other things, never changes... ;(

[Al_U_Card]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-08, 23:32, said:

Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof?

take a look at http://www.theweathe...c-sea-ice/49511


try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means.

Then there is Rutgers University to add to the dishonest, stupid and deranged info

http://climate.rutge...and_season1.png

If you take this as the same as the arctic ice extent from the max in the late seventies then the next ice age is not far off... but, the climate change crisis is not a falsifiable hypothesis so more snow, less ice or any condition is proof of? The climate does change. Can we really be responsible for less ice and more snow because CO2 has gone from 350 to 400 ppm?
.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-13, 12:28, said:

Then there is Rutgers University to add to the dishonest, stupid and deranged info

Or people could just go to the real data and come to the correct conclusion.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-14, 07:45, said:

Or people could just go to the real data and come to the correct conclusion.

His words, not mine. Is the data from Rutgers not valid?
Is it possible that the NCDC data is differently presented and for what reason? They themselves use the Rutgers data, (from the NCDC site) the settled science is anything but and since a lot is on the line, these are questions that need to be asked.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-14, 09:29, said:

His words, not mine. Is the data from Rutgers not valid?
Is it possible that the NCDC data is differently presented and for what reason? They themselves use the Rutgers data, (from the NCDC site) the settled science is anything but and since a lot is on the line, these are questions that need to be asked.

We can play this game a little further if you like. Here are the Rutgers figures in full. It is just about possible to draw a line with a positive gradiant on this graph but it is a challenge and it is quite clear that the overall trend is down. Notice that my link provides a commentary as to what the graph is actually showing whereas AIU's does not. Without seeing the origin of the data, it is difficult to show just which smoke and mirrors trick he is using this time to present an impression contrary to what the data shows when taken as a whole.

[Zelandakh]

Update: I think I might have found his trick. In the previous link you can show the data for each month individually. If you do this and take out specifically January you get this graph. Notice the strong anomaly in 1981 matched in AIU's graph. In other words, he took all of the datasets and managed to find one that could just about be represented as showing a positive trend, then posted it as representative of the entire data set. But this is simply not the case. Anyone can page through the data and see that the real trend is negative, as pointed out in the combined graph I posted previously. Just another example of AIU posting obvious misinformation that is easy to disprove when given all of the information but presented without any background to try and make it appear to be based on something more concrete. Sad.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-14, 09:49, said:

Update: I think I might have found his trick. In the previous link you can show the data for each month individually. If you do this and take out specifically January you get this graph. Notice the strong anomaly in 1981 matched in AIU's graph. In other words, he took all of the datasets and managed to find one that could just about be represented as showing a positive trend, then posted it as representative of the entire data set. But this is simply not the case. Anyone can page through the data and see that the real trend is negative, as pointed out in the combined graph I posted previously. Just another example of AIU posting obvious misinformation that is easy to disprove when given all of the information but presented without any background to try and make it appear to be based on something more concrete. Sad.

I just copied it from one of several sites that referenced it to show that precip has been increasing over the last several decades. Mostly due to the doom and gloomers claims that the western US snow-pack was declining and that California was in permanent drought...except maybe the Oroville watershed....
Don't hyperventilate over my posts. I just pass on what I find to show that all the hysteria and alarmism is unwarranted. Too bad if you wasted any time on your fabulations but at least you appear to have some spare time....

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-15, 11:48, said:

I just copied it from one of several sites that referenced it to show that precip has been increasing over the last several decades. Mostly due to the doom and gloomers claims that the western US snow-pack was declining and that California was in permanent drought...except maybe the Oroville watershed....
Don't hyperventilate over my posts. I just pass on what I find to show that all the hysteria and alarmism is unwarranted. Too bad if you wasted any time on your fabulations but at least you appear to have some spare time....

Good, then you will obviously acknowledge now that you have seen all of the data that the trend is indeed down and that the graph you posted is in fact misleading. Perhaps you will also point this out on the site you got this from so as to make sure they improve their data collection. After all, you want to get to the real truth as much as anyone else, right?

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-16, 02:50, said:

Good, then you will obviously acknowledge now that you have seen all of the data that the trend is indeed down and that the graph you posted is in fact misleading. Perhaps you will also point this out on the site you got this from so as to make sure they improve their data collection. After all, you want to get to the real truth as much as anyone else, right?

Ansolutely right. First I will have to go back to your presentation and verify its contents and propositions and then take a look at your analysis of the supposed alterations to the Rutgers data/graph that you discovered and then look into what the blowback is to date on those sites where it appeared (lots of folks looked at it so perhaps they, too, discovered the scurrilous subterfuge). I'll get back to you then.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-16, 03:42, said:

I'll get back to you then.

Great, I will read it with interest. Perhaps you will even surprise me!

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-16, 07:24, said:

Great, I will read it with interest. Perhaps you will even surprise me!

As near as I can see, from the NOAA site, snow cover is up for North America and for North America+Greenland. Eurasia is down enough to make the Northern Hemisphere totals ever so slightly negative. The reference I gave appears to be the NA or NA+G version.(Not explicitly shown on the Rutgers graph but since the sites in question were talking about NA precip., that might well explain it. US Exceptionalism strikes again lol
Maybe global warming is more regional than supposed?

[Zelandakh]

Actually it is remarkably consistent between NA and Eurasia, much more so than I would have expected. In both cases, snow extent is slightly up in Autumn and Winter and strongly down in Summer, for a small reduction overall. The relevant graphs can be seen here, including the one that started this discussion, which can now be seen in its proper context.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-20, 04:07, said:

Actually it is remarkably consistent between NA and Eurasia, much more so than I would have expected. In both cases, snow extent is slightly up in Autumn and Winter and strongly down in Summer, for a small reduction overall. The relevant graphs can be seen here, including the one that started this discussion, which can now be seen in its proper context.

You cast a lot of aspersions and accusations my way in those posts about how I fiddled the data. Anything to add about that?

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-20, 04:39, said:

You cast a lot of aspersions and accusations my way in those posts about how I fiddled the data. Anything to add about that?

Sure. It would be good to give the complete facts about something when posting it and not give a part of the picture that presents one impression that is different from that of the data as a whole. I have nothing against informed debate and probably count as amongst the more skeptical on BBF but sometimes you do post misleading information and I personally think this does a disservice to everyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-20, 06:53, said:

Sure. It would be good to give the complete facts about something when posting it and not give a part of the picture that presents one impression that is different from that of the data as a whole. I have nothing against informed debate and probably count as amongst the more skeptical on BBF but sometimes you do post misleading information and I personally think this does a disservice to everyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue.

Unlike Barney Google, I don't ever think that I hold the exact truth to anything. Nor am I interested in giving lectures on any topic. Providing viewpoints and references will ellicit sufficient response from those with whom exchange is worthwile...as for the rest, I am happy to not engage with their inanities.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...