First, volcanos (for review), and then something new that I have put together about sea level changes.


Whenever the discussions here turn on the validity of AGW (the anthropogenic explanation for global warming), someone is likely to say that volcanos are having more of an effect on earth's climate than CO₂ from fossil fuels.

I recently explained why I find this claim to be unsupportable.

We are in a geologic era of relatively low volcanic activity. The best science that I found online estimates that year in and year out, despite the sporadic and often impressive looking volcanic eruptions that we see around the world, and the undersea venting that we don't usually see, the climate warming carbon dioxide emissions from all human activities are about 100 times greater than the CO₂ contribution from all volcanic sources around the world:

quote Scientists have used a variety of methods to determine the CO2 emissions from volcanos. A common method is to use a tracer gas, ie, a gas emitted from volcanos but which does not stay in the atmosphere for long. Determining the emissions rates of the tracer gas from volcanos, together with the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere allows the overall level of volcanic activity to be measured. Once that is measured, measurements determining average rates of CO2 emissions for a given amount of activity can be used to determine the global CO2 emissions from volcanos. Other techniques are used to measure CO2 emissions from volcanos, mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones under the sea. The emissions, from all volcanos, both on land and under sea, are about one hundredth of anthropogenic emissions. While there may be some error in the estimates, it is unlikely that the error would be large enough for volcanos to be emitting a sizable fraction of anthropogenic emissions. That strongly suggests [that] volcanic emissions are not the source of the increased CO2 concentration.

Moving to the topic of sea levels, based on the last IPCC report that was published (2007), I offered my own prediction:

quote Most continental coastlines and islands around the world will see, at the very least, a 1 meter or 3.3 foot increase above current sea levels by 2100.

Because of horizontal transgression, there are many coastlines and islands that would see considerably more than just a 1 meter displacement inland of the shoreline.

quote Sea-level rise contributes to coastal erosion and inundation of low-lying coastal regions, particularly during extreme sea level events. It also leads to saltwater intrusion into aquifers, deltas and estuaries. These changes impact on coastal ecosystems, water resources, and human settlements and activities. Regions at most risk include heavily populated deltaic regions, small islands (especially coral atolls), and sandy coasts backed by major coastal developments.

This is based only on the volumetric expansion of sea water that would be expected from a 3.5 degree Celsius (6.3 degree Fahrenheit) increase in Global Mean Temperature, over the current baseline. It does not include any increase from the melting of glaciers around the world and the significant fraction of the polar ice caps that is represented by land ice. (Sea ice is not directly relevant.)

Someone countered with this:

quote What about the hundreds of submerged civilizations and cities that are under water today [that were] once thriving and above the oceans? Guess all those SUVs caught up with them.

So the line of thought here is that the uniquely human fingerprint on global sea level rise (as a result of AGW) is contradicted by archaeologic evidence of sea level changes during the last few thousand years, before the onset of the Industrial Revolution and our modern reliance on fossil fuels.

Looking (as always) for the most credibly explained science that I can find online, I find evidence that the mean global sea level (averaged from all around the world) has not increased much more than 1 meter in the last 6,000 years, and hardly at all in the last 2,000 years--until the onset of the Industrial Revolution. My first source is corroborated by the Marine and Atmospheric Research division of the Australian equivalent of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

• Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 meters.
  
• The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 meters as the last ice age ended
  
• Sea level stabilized over the last few thousand years, with hardly any fluctuations between 1 and 1800 AD
  
• Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
  
• Satellite altimeter data shows a rate of sea-level rise of 3 millimeters per year since the early 1990s ...

It wasn't rising sea levels from warming oceans that submerged various cities and civilizations around the world before the Industrial Revolution. It was localized subsidence of the affected coastlines and islands. This happens for a number of reasons, including the effects of earthquakes and movement of tectonic plates, volcanic events, depletion of underlying aquifers, gravity-driven compression of river and marine sediments, changes in the flow and sedimentation rates of river deltas, and beach erosion from ocean wave and tidal forces.

So this AGW-contrarian assertion, based on the archaeologic evidence of submerged cities and civilizations, is a mislead. It does not provide any solid evidence that contradicts the anthropogenic explanation or that suggests some other natural explanation behind the current global warming. It does not counter the IPCC or other AGW-derived predictions of significant, adverse impacts from AGW-driven increases in global sea levels between now and 2100. It does not suggest that it would be unscientific or unproductive to avert even greater sea level impacts by attempting some level of climate mitigation, by reducing the amount of human greenhouse gas emissions.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-19-2013).]

So, what are you doing to limit your own "carbon footprint"? You're obviously a big proponent of anthropogenic global warming, and you have all of the stats to back it up, what are you doing to limit your own pollution output?

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: So, what are you doing to limit your own "carbon footprint"? You're obviously a big proponent of anthropogenic global warming, and you have all of the stats to back it up, what are you doing to limit your own pollution output?

Hardly anything, to be honest with you.

I don't think that further AGW can be mitigated (for the most part) at the individual consumer or household level.

I am not even a "slactivist" (signer or circulator of online petitions), much less any kind of activist.

I find it a recreation to debunk the frequently misleading statements about this topic from other posters. If "they" would slack off with the misleading statements, I would (probably) slack off with my posts in this vein. It's a cycle of action (from "them") and reaction (on my part).

If that seems weird or even unfortunate to you (a recreation), so be it; I am not the only superabundant poster on this topic. There's one (on the one side of the issue) whose motivations I think I understand; on the other side of the issue, there is another member who has posted frequently and often at great length with much scientific argument, and that poster's motivations are indecipherable to me.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-18-2013).]

How much have sea levels risen in the last century?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How much have sea levels risen in the last century?

Based on this sea levels plot, from 1880 to 2012, I see about 225 millimeters--almost 9 inches. This over a geologically narrow time interval when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased from about 280 ppm (1880) to about 400 ppm (2012). An interval (second plot, again) when Global Mean Temperature increased by about 0.7 degree Celsius (1.3 degree Fahrenheit), from 1880 to date.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-19-2013).]

Wrong button.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-19-2013).]

Im def not worried about 9 inches of rise. Im also not worried about 3 foot rise 90 years from now, ill be long dead. So what if many coast lines change a bit...its done that for millions of years. Even my local little ponds borders have changed in just several years. My sister has a little lake on her ranch. Some years its down a few feet, others its up. The neighbors use of tractors and fireplaces has had no effect.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: ... from 1880 to 2012, I see about 225 millimeters--almost 9 inches. ...

LAWDY LAWD!! WE GONE DIE!!

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I'm also not worried about 3 foot rise 90 years from now, ill be long dead.

I'm not worried about a three foot rise by next week. Not even six feet.
I have property along the Medina River, just before it feeds Medina Lake. I also live along Town Creek (in Kerrville) and part of my property is in the flood plain (100 year?). If you live next to the water, you accept the possibility of water.
I say 'so what' if global warming is happening. We evolve, we adapt.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: So, what are you doing to limit your own "carbon footprint"?

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Hardly anything, to be honest with you. I don't think that further AGW can be mitigated (for the most part) at the individual consumer or household level.

How 'bout the national level ? Nobama wants to block the Keystone pipeline due to Global Warming. That oil is gonna get used no matter what.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Based on this sea levels plot, from 1880 to 2012, I see about 225 millimeters--almost 9 inches. This over a geologically narrow time interval when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased from about 280 ppm (1880) to about 400 ppm (2012). An interval (second plot, again) when Global Mean Temperature increased by about 0.7 degree Celsius (1.3 degree Fahrenheit), from 1880 to date.

Thank you for the reply. I see where you mention atmospheric CO2 increasing, but since it's only one component of the total "global warming effect" of all greenhouse gases, how much did the overall amount of greenhouse gases increase? I'd like to put the amount of CO2 into perspective with the rest of the greenhouse gases. CO2 may be what we're trying to control, but it's just one piece of the puzzle.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Hardly anything, to be honest with you. I don't think that further AGW can be mitigated (for the most part) at the individual consumer or household level. I am not even a "slactivist" (signer or circulator of online petitions), much less any kind of activist. I find it a recreation to debunk the frequently misleading statements about this topic from other posters. If "they" would slack off with the misleading statements, I would (probably) slack off with my posts in this vein. It's a cycle of action (from "them") and reaction (on my part). If that seems weird or even unfortunate to you (a recreation), so be it; I am not the only superabundant poster on this topic. There's one (on the one side of the issue) whose motivations I think I understand; on the other side of the issue, there is another member who has posted frequently and often at great length with much scientific argument, and that poster's motivations are indecipherable to me.

So are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: So are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

That is what is needed. Discussion.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: That is what is needed. Discussion.

I dont get it.

Seeing my place is over 425 ft above sea level I could care less even if the sea level goes up 300' tomorrow.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 08-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Hardly anything, to be honest with you. I don't think that further AGW can be mitigated (for the most part) at the individual consumer or household level.

...and that is the wrong attitude...

*IF* AGW is such a problem the solution has to start someplace, if consumers stopped being so disposable it would be a giant step forward. Leaving it all to the government to regulate and come up with solutions is a poor way to start. History has shown that governments will throw tons of cash at an issue to make it look like they are doing good without regards for the future. This whole carbon capture/storage thing is a perfect example – someone comes up with this hair brained idea that we could sweep all this CO2 under the “carpet” and forget about it with no regards with how this will affect the planet or future generations. This is a perfect example of money that is being wasted on this so called “AGW”.

People have to start taking matter in their own hands – do they need the latest and greatest computer/tablet/phone/etc? What happens to the old one? Is it properly recycled? Not likely as there are several 3rd world countries that have become a dumping ground for “our” e-waste. Out of sight and out of mind, who cares if they suffer?

edit to add: and that new 'toy' comes with a price - it needs oil to produce just about every aspect of it.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and don’t preach about it if you are not willing to help.

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 08-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I don't get it.

The left thinks global warming is happening. The right, not so much. The left calls it settled science, and do not want to discuss. The right, unconvinced, needs discussion to accept.
For people to come together, discussion is needed. You were calling his points of view arguments. Perhaps they were opinions, perhaps beliefs. I give rinselberg this, he gives us pause to think in a logical way instead of a chastising way (of which the Dumb's party has not figured out will not work).

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The left thinks global warming is happening. The right, not so much. The left calls it settled science, and do not want to discuss. The right, unconvinced, needs discussion to accept.

SOME of us that believe in AGW want an honest discussion, but it seems that others will not accept the science of it, no matter the evidence given.

The 69 page thread started by fierobear is a good example of that.

If there's good science showing AGW isn't true, lets see it! I would love for CO2 emissions to be meaningless. That just means more V8 engines for all of us.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: SOME of us that believe in AGW want an honest discussion, but it seems that others will not accept the science of it, no matter the evidence given. The 69 page thread started by fierobear is a good example of that. If there's good science showing AGW isn't true, lets see it! I would love for CO2 emissions to be meaningless. That just means more V8 engines for all of us.

If deforestation wasn't a problem, CO₂ emissions would be meaningless.

Not saying CO2 hasn't played a part, and you know I'm one of the biggest ones against global warming caused by man.
But....
All joking aside
Methane from live stock has had more and longer impact, still to this day. Than CO2 being produced by man. It reflects and isolates far more than CO2. And has a longer life span

quote Originally posted by D3M6B: Not saying CO2 hasn't played a part, and you know I'm one of the biggest ones against global warming caused by man. But.... All joking aside Methane from live stock has had more and longer impact, still to this day. Than CO2 being produced by man. It reflects and isolates far more than CO2. And has a longer life span

from wiki

''Methane is created near the Earth's surface, primarily by microorganisms by the process of methanogenesis. It is carried into the stratosphere by rising air in the tropics. Uncontrolled build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked – although human influence can upset this natural regulation – by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor. It has a net lifetime of about 10 years,[40] and is primarily removed by conversion to carbon dioxide and water.

Methane also affects the degradation of the ozone layer.[41][42]''

NO CO2 is far less reactive so lasts far longer 100 to 500 years vs 10 for methane in the atmosphere
and when the methane does breakdown it produces CO2

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The left thinks global warming is happening. The right, not so much. The left calls it settled science, and do not want to discuss. The right, unconvinced, needs discussion to accept. For people to come together, discussion is needed. You were calling his points of view arguments. Perhaps they were opinions, perhaps beliefs. I give rinselberg this, he gives us pause to think in a logical way instead of a chastising way (of which the Dumb's party has not figured out will not work).

But what is the point of discussing if even one who is convinced, does not act?
I do think Rinselberg goes about his arguments (not a bad word) in a nice way.
But IMO without action the discussion is pointless.
I agree with Mickey_Moose.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The left thinks global warming is happening. The right, not so much. The left calls it settled science, and do not want to discuss. The right, unconvinced, needs discussion to accept. For people to come together, discussion is needed. You were calling his points of view arguments. Perhaps they were opinions, perhaps beliefs. I give rinselberg this, he gives us pause to think in a logical way instead of a chastising way (of which the Dumb's party has not figured out will not work).

kinda.
Global Warming IS happening. that part is mosty settled. it is the CAUSE which is the argument.

global warming has happened in the past, 3 times that we know of. each time followed by an ice age. and, while still early - it is due to happen again. of course these are at ridiculous time scales spanning generations.

and the science also requires ridiculous time spans for actual anything resembling "proof". much like the Tobacco Kills needed "proof". well, you need an entire generation to die to get the proof. It did, and it was done. proved.

I know I am not sold on "greenhouse gasses", but, I am slowly coming to on it. Mostly, I think its just what the earth does. its done it before. it'll do it again.

I wonder how did the industrial revolution affected global warming compared to what we emit today?
http://www.bing.com/images/...+pollution&FORM=IGRE

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: from wiki ''Methane is created near the Earth's surface, primarily by microorganisms by the process of methanogenesis. It is carried into the stratosphere by rising air in the tropics. Uncontrolled build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked – although human influence can upset this natural regulation – by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor. It has a net lifetime of about 10 years,[40] and is primarily removed by conversion to carbon dioxide and water. Methane also affects the degradation of the ozone layer.[41][42]'' NO CO2 is far less reactive so lasts far longer 100 to 500 years vs 10 for methane in the atmosphere and when the methane does breakdown it produces CO2

Yes methane and water vapor are much more powerful greenhouse gases but also are self regulating.
The thing you have to remember though, is that we're looking at what affects the climate. If you simply ignore the impact of these gases you are given a false sense of the size of the impact of CO2 by itself.

We have to look at the "global warming effect" that takes into account not only the amount of a greenhouse gas but how much it contributes to global warming to see what the overall effect is.

You may only be trying to change the amount of CO2, but if you don't look at it's contribution to global warming in the context of all contributors to global warming, you don't know how much of an impact any changes in CO2 will have on the total system.

I do t know the scientific numbers.
But I've read by several creditable minds in the scientific field, that the OZone has had such h damage to it, that if the greenhouse gases was to be removed we would lose a great deal of protection from the suns radiation.
I haven't really looked into this. But figure I would share

How Extreme Australian Rains Made Global Sea Levels Drop
by RICHARD HARRIS - National Public Radio
August 20, 2013


http://www.npr.org/2013/08/...els-drop?ft=1&f=1001

The damn thing is 15 M below sea level, so we can just run a pipe to the ocean and all of our problems will be solved.

btw, I do not believe that 20 feet of water in this lake bed is why the ocean levels dropped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eyre - I do believe the so called scientists have their collective heads up their collective asses.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 08-20-2013).]

So if I have this correct, and if the figures posted are correct, at 3mm per year, at 2100 AD we should have about 11" of ocean net rise. And it is correct that this is a far cry from the IPCC claim of a meter or 3.3 ft.

As for the Maldives, they have a height above sea level of about 8 ft. so I guess they aren't disappearing either.

What this does not take into account is the ocean cycles. They may well recede at some point.

What concerns me more is the tectonic plate shift that is pretty much overdue. That will affect the ocean floor and the capacity of the "bowl" That is far more dangerous IMHO.

Arn

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im def not worried about 9 inches of rise. Im also not worried about 3 foot rise 90 years from now, ill be long dead.

Ah, the great American attitude about anything.. Who cares, by the time it happens ill be dead.. Screw those still around, not my problem..

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So if I have this correct, and if the figures posted are correct, at 3mm per year, at 2100 AD we should have about 11" of ocean net rise. And it is correct that this is a far cry from the IPCC claim of a meter or 3.3 ft. As for the Maldives, they have a height above sea level of about 8 ft. so I guess they aren't disappearing either. What this does not take into account is the ocean cycles. They may well recede at some point. What concerns me more is the tectonic plate shift that is pretty much overdue. That will affect the ocean floor and the capacity of the "bowl" That is far more dangerous IMHO. Arn

Your mistake is that you have to use liberal math to calculate the rise.

Start by multiplying the rise per year by the number of years. Then make up an answer designed to scare everyone into thinking what you want. Don't just go 100% over estimate. More like 500%. Basically any number that makes a liberal feel good about how bad it is.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I see where you mention atmospheric CO2 increasing, but since it's only one component of the total "global warming effect" of all greenhouse gases, how much did the overall amount of greenhouse gases increase? I'd like to put the amount of CO2 into perspective with the rest of the greenhouse gases. CO2 may be what we're trying to control, but it's just one piece of the puzzle.

Here's something from the EPA:

quote Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain manufactured greenhouse gases have all risen over the last few hundred years. Before the industrial era began in the late 1700s, carbon dioxide concentrations measured approximately 280 ppm. Concentrations have risen steadily since then, reaching an annual average of 394 ppm in 2012—a 41 percent increase. Almost all of this increase is due to human activities. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since preindustrial times, reaching about 1,826 ppb in 2012. It is very likely that this increase is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Historical measurements show that the current global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are unprecedented compared with the past 650,000 years. Over the past 100,000 years, concentrations of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have rarely exceeded 280 ppb. Levels have risen since the 1920s, however, reaching a new high of 325 ppb in 2012. This increase is primarily due to agriculture. Concentrations of many of the halogenated gases (gases that contain chlorine, fluorine, or bromine) were essentially zero a few decades ago but have increased rapidly as they have been incorporated into industrial products and processes. Some of these chemicals are now being phased out of use because they are ozone-depleting substances, meaning they also cause harm to the Earth's ozone layer. As a result, concentrations of some ozone-depleting gases have begun to stabilize or decline. Concentrations of other halogenated gases have continued to rise, however, especially where the gases have emerged as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals. Some of these halogenated gases are considered major greenhouse gases due to their very high global warming potentials and long atmospheric lifetimes.

Source--including historical plots of the four major anthropogenic greenhouse gases:
http://www.epa.gov/climatec...-concentrations.html


In one of my other recent posts on this topic, I included a table of greenhouse abatement practices and technologies from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007).

These abatement strategies--to whatever extent they are implemented--can be expected to curtail human emissions of the four most important anthropogenic greenhouse gases, from the perspective of global warming:

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂)
  
• Methane (CH₄)
  
• Nitrous oxide (N₂O)
  
• Fluorinated gases

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2013).]

As long as the politics of money and taxation are involved, AGW will be an issue.

Its apparent that the ecoscientists cooked the books to make their hypothesis more believable, when they got caught, their credibility was lost. Add in the other mistakes that were made, the credibility of even the good science becomes doubted by many.

It makes good sense on every level to be more responsible with our consumption and disposal of the resources that we have, that's a no-brainer.

Does any one of us really believe that any government policy, program or set of regulations is really going to have a big enough and rapid enough effect to change whatever the outcome will be, or that the worlds population will comply with said regulations?

Bottom line is that we are all along for the ride, no matter who is right and who isn't.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: But what is the point of discussing if even one who is convinced, does not act? I do think Rinselberg goes about his arguments (not a bad word) in a nice way. But IMO without action the discussion is pointless. I agree with Mickey_Moose.

The point ? There are a few reasons for discussing. Using your example of the convinced who will not act, they may have an epiphany moment and realize they indeed do need to act, or, they might realize that man caused global warming is gonna happen just as sure as man caused traffic jams are and accept and deal with it. You left out the other party of discussion in your example. They can also have an epiphany moment. No one is gonna be convinced of anything without discussion. My opinions are well thought out (or so I believe) but I still learn from discussion and my opinions are affected.
More importantly, those that are paying attention to a discussion but who are not convinced, may be swayed by what is said. We don't want people joining the wrong bandwagon (no matter which bandwagon we come from).

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Does any one of us really believe that any government policy, program or set of regulations is really going to have a big enough and rapid enough effect to change whatever the outcome will be...?

Anything taxed will be consumed less. So yes, it's very easy for governmental bodies to reduce carbon emissions - either by taxing fuel , or taxing carbon itself. The outcome is the same - less carbon dioxide.

My personal opinion is that fuel should be taxed more than it is now but it should be offset by income tax cuts. Taxing carbon emissions is a round-about way to avoid fuel taxes.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The point ? There are a few reasons for discussing. Using your example of the convinced who will not act, they may have an epiphany moment and realize they indeed do need to act, or, they might realize that man caused global warming is gonna happen just as sure as man caused traffic jams are and accept and deal with it. You left out the other party of discussion in your example. They can also have an epiphany moment. No one is gonna be convinced of anything without discussion. My opinions are well thought out (or so I believe) but I still learn from discussion and my opinions are affected. More importantly, those that are paying attention to a discussion but who are not convinced, may be swayed by what is said. We don't want people joining the wrong bandwagon (no matter which bandwagon we come from).

True about onlookers and those who began the topic. Its just hard to muster an argument, over and over, with someone who doesnt care enough to act.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: True about onlookers and those who began the topic. Its just hard to muster an argument, over and over, with someone who doesnt care enough to act.

Act? When I vote for my elected officials, I try to pick the candidates that align with my ideas on these issues. I still use the only cell phone that I ever acquired. As far as waste recycling, I contribute whatever discards that are accepted by the local recycling agency. I have never once used the fireplace that was furnished with my residence--nothing like the typical home fireplace to waste energy and generate excessive and exceptionally harmful air pollution. I have been using compact fluorescent bulbs for lighting, and most recently, some newly available LED bulbs. My gasoline powered cars are well maintained as far as all emissions and gas mileage considerations. I keep my tires properly inflated. I don't drag race or spin up my tires when I accelerate from stoplights. I reuse paper sheets for my computer printouts, whenever that will do. I use mass transit (BART) when it's convenient for me to travel that way. I refuse to be talked into any home delivered newspaper subscriptions.

I could limit myself to an all vegetarian diet--but I won't.

I could power down my computer and not post anymore on this topic--but I won't.

Any other suggestions, from those who are seeing this as an individual or family level issue?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Anything taxed will be consumed less. So yes, it's very easy for governmental bodies to reduce carbon emissions - either by taxing fuel , or taxing carbon itself. The outcome is the same - less carbon dioxide. My personal opinion is that fuel should be taxed more than it is now but it should be offset by income tax cuts. Taxing carbon emissions is a round-about way to avoid fuel taxes.

And the likelihood of the government allowing tax offsets is about the same as living forever.....dream on.

This isnt about saving the earth or the environment, its about money, and control.

If the earth becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will still be here, just inhabited by another species that has adapted to the conditions.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Taxing carbon emissions is a round-about way to avoid fuel taxes.

Taxing carbon based emissions is a fuel tax on fuel consumed, .

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: How Extreme Australian Rains Made Global Sea Levels Drop by RICHARD HARRIS - National Public Radio August 20, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/08/...els-drop?ft=1&f=1001 The damn thing is 15 M below sea level, so we can just run a pipe to the ocean and all of our problems will be solved. btw, I do not believe that 20 feet of water in this lake bed is why the ocean levels dropped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eyre - I do believe the so called scientists have their collective heads up their collective asses.

Lake Eyre is pretty bloody big. But it doesn't mention the inland sea we have undeground. Even though the red centre is a desert there is a lot of water underground. Vast oceans of it at times.