Our Oceans are Under Attack

A carbon tax was M Strong's scheme to finance the war on 3rd world poverty, if you believe he didn't have a hidden agenda.
Not going to fly. Collecting money doesn't solve problems. Often creates them.
Taxes cause inflation. Business isn't going to absorb increased transportation costs out of their profits. They'll add it into the price increase of goods and services.
I don't know what you plan to spend the carbon tax revenue on. Do YOU? Blank checks and free rides to spend as you please, ain't gonna happen.
When I talk about actionable plans, I don't mean New Years resolutions.
I mean get on the road, muster the equipment and experts at the target site, and bore into the mountain until you see daylight on the other side.

Okay. I'm going to extend some trust here. Don't abuse me.
Amongst the various figures for human produced atmospheric CO2, what's a REASONABLE estimate of how many parts per million is actually attributable to man, of the current total 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 ?

What's a reasonable estimate of increase per annum, parts per million will be attributable to man, each year for the next 5.

What industries, activities, cities are you wanting to shutdown or curtail TODAY, to hold the line at current emissions or atmospheric concentration?

If you plan to reverse/reduce atmospheric CO2 ppm, how much more can you curtail human activity until you arrive at the maximum reduction for man, and have to start slaughtering animals by millions, to gain further reductions?

What will you sacrifice to accomplish that maximum goal?

I'm talking pragmatism.

What will all this cost in terms of undermining economy and lifestyle reduction?
Making all the USA into a 3rd world slum?

I'm serious.

 

If you want governmental reform, here's a Doable idea at local levels.
Relax zoning restrictions and small business regulations.
One of the things I enjoy about Mexico, is it's entrepreneur-manship culture.
Want to open a business ? Convert your living room into a shop and hang out a sign.
I can walk within two blocks of my house to several mom/pop grocery stores, restaurants, barbershop/beauty parlors, a farmers market, tailors, laundrys, mechanic garages, tire shops, internet cafes, and clothing boutiques. And a couple bars, if I drank but don't.
No need to drive.
Compare that with American suburbia.
Open up neighborhoods to walking distance neighborhood shops, like small town USA used to be.
How much less driving to the Mall, would result in a cut in emissions?

Guilt trip billboards aimed at northeastern liberal AGWers in their upscale suburban neighborhoods, extolling the virtues dezoning, and of walk to mom and pop stores nestled amongst their half million dollar and multi million dollar homes. GOOD IDEA. Luxury taxes on fancy homes, cars, designer clothes, could pay for the billboards.
Taxes on individuals don't result in higher goods prices. Have to periodically purchase (online or by mail) and prominently display current date decals on vehicles, homes, suit jacket back,, is the surtax mechanism.

 

It is freaking Florida. There has always been localized street flooding after a heavy rain, including every street in Florida I have lived on as long as I have lived here. That is a weather event, not climate. Plus, the soil is sandy so it soaks in very quickly.

 

And it has always rained a lot in Florida. No more now than when I was a young'un.

 

Now I read about earth cooling and rising of ocean levels, by NASA
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Science-US-climate-oceans/2014/10/06/id/598864/?promo_code=12BDF-1

 

Plus, as the northern part of the continent continues to rise post-glacially, the southern part continues sinking to its pre-glacial level.

 

Let them off the ropes Hoyt! Unsportsman like to keep pounding kidneys when they can only barely stand by hanging onto the ring ropes!

 

And none of that has anything at all to do with climate science and its implications. None of that has anything at all to do with CO2's influence on climate and what we should do about it. The world does not revolve around Maurice Strong.

 

This business about "CO2 is dry, CO2 is wet" that you keep banging on about is rather missing the point. Ok, so you reckon it is impossible for increased CO2 levels to cause a drought in one section of the globe and cause a flood in another section of the globe.

You do realise that CO2 has been influencing climate to some degree for millions of years? That its influence on temperature also has influences on things like evaporation and precipitation? That if water evaporates somewhere it is likely to come down somewhere else, and that if you increase evaporation in one region you may well get increased rainfall somewhere else? That all of this has been going on all your life?

By saying that you cannot understand how increased CO2 could lead to both droughts and floods, and that this must be illogical, you are also effectively saying that the climate you have had all your life is illogical and cannot exist.

Now, if you really want to claim that our existing climate is a logical contradiction and therefore cannot exist, I suggest that this is not a good look, and says more about your grasp of the topic than it does about the climate or about logic.

 

Do you remember...never mind. I'll upload again here. See the precipitation map below?
I don't know how familiar you are with USA geography, so please don't feel insulted if I explain it.
The brown/dry part of the USA is west of the continental divide, the lush green east of the divide.
You can't miss the divide. it's called the Rocky Mountains. continues on south into Mexico. Called the Sierra Madre here.
Two hour drive to the west from my house, landscape abruptly changes from tropical rain forest, to brown desert and cacti. I live on the eastern green side, in the mountains of Mexico.
Weather moves west to east, or northwest to southeast, in N. America.
So the moisture laden clouds in the west get carried high aloft over the mountain tops where they cool and drop there water load on the east half.
CO2 has NOTHING to do with the arid climate of our western desert.
It's simple mechanics of geography, altitudes, and prevailing winds.
The drought article imaginarynumber posted, contained the phrase "the drying effect of CO2" in reference to our western desert. Ignorant statement.
My immediate reaction was "that's wormy bait".
I been casting it draped on a treble hook ever since.
Here, let me help unhook you, and I'll toss you back, catch and release.

 

Is this the passage you are referring too?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/02/3572205/warming-dust-bowlify/

If so, I'm not sure what is so puzzling about that statement. If I correctly understand what is being said, it is just what all AGW "alarmists" are saying, which is that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is causing more heat to be trapped by the atmosphere, which is causing Global Warming, which (for some places) is causing increased risk of drought. Other places may have increased precipitation. :?:

 

Half of the USA is ALWAYS gripped by drought.
These pictures are the Sierra Madre in Mexico, east and west sides.
USA has similar scenery east and west of Rockies.

 

Barny me ol' china, I can't help thinking that for a bloke who studied logic formally you really do not seem to be all that good at using it.

Yes, over here we have a similar thing with the Great Dividing Range. There is also the Andes' effect on the Atacama as another example. Mountains do that sort of thing.

However, and this is the bit you seem to be missing, although rainfall is less in the shadow of said ranges there is still some (apart from the Atacama). If you change the climate, you may reduce the rainfall in those areas. This will make things worse. It will make things worse for the people who live there, and for anyone who attempts to grow things there.

The area west of the GDR in Australia does contain a lot of desert as you go further west. However, closer to the western side of the range is a lot of agricultural land that is still, by east coast US standard, semi-arid a lot of the time. When this country gets hit by a drought, it is not good. I assure you the farmers and other people living there would not be in favour of increased incidence and/or severity of droughts. This should be obvious to anyone who has given it a bit of thought (ie: not you).

Tell ya what: how about you rock on over to California and ask the people there if they mind if you make California less habitable, because you're in Florida and you don't give a f#%$. See what they have to say about that.

 

You claim you are convinced AND terrified we are in for a drubbing.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But I have my doubts how serious you and other worriers really are.
You seem to exert all your efforts in haranguing skeptics the bogeyman is coming up the walk, but I see precious little actual preparations.
When a hurricane is headed for Florida (my other and native home) everybody hustles to get ready.
You are NOT putting carbon taxes on the USA. Forget it, and find something constructive to do.
I've said, even as an unbeliever, I'll help make amelioratory and precautionary projects happen if they stand a chance of being effective against climate change.
I agree climate change is occurring. The cause of it is the heated debate.
I have faith in the inventiveness of man. The free exchange of ideas in free western cultures enhances our prowess.
Our exuberant life style attracts the bright young minds from other nations. All our scientists are not descended from the peoples of the British Isles.
Our scientists and engineers are recently Russians, Pakistani, Indians, Arabs, Orientals, Germans, French, Slavic, Turks, Latinos, other nationalities, Native Amerinds, and some Red Necks.
We'll continue to try to solve world problems as we solve our own.
Competition in inventing advanced technology is welcome.
Try to tie our hands, we won't co-operate. We'll fight you.
The biggest reasons the USA has been so successful is our cosmopolitan population and freedom to try.

And I didn't say I was particularly good at logic. I took one class as I also took one class each in about a dozen mathematical disciplines. Frankly, I'm surprised I remember much of it, after all these years.

 

Nope. What I have claimed is that according to the best information we have available, the coming changes do not look like a good thing. I can't be bothered being terrified about it, because that won't do any good anyway. However, taking what action can be taken does seem prudent.

Well it's a bit hard to get people to start getting ready when they refuse to believe there's a problem.

That is a matter for the US electorate. If enough of them vote for a government that has such a policy, you will end up with a such a tax. At the moment that doesn't seem likely, but things may change.

This is a meaningless statement though, because you have already decided that all the science is wrong and therefore carbon reduction will have no effect. Because of this, your statement reduces to "I am not prepared to do anything".

To the same extent that there is heated debate about the occurrence of evolution. IOW, none in scientific circles. Your denial of climate science is analogous to your denial of evolution.