4.5 billion years ago there were no humans. The earth has warmed and cooled, but it has always done so based on a natural cycle of positive feedback loops and subsequent forcing events. The current trend is being helped along by humans, just as smoking a cigarette "helps along" cancer in the lungs.

Does that mean we need CAT? No. I think a carbon VAT would be a better policy answer, and I also think reforestation and creating new CO2 sinks while slowly removing fossil fuel subsidies and giving tax cuts to renewable energy to level the playing field is the real solution(since FF have had decades of billion dollar handouts to make the cost look cheaper and keep the public addicted).

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 13 2009 01:46pm

It's far from my area of expertise too. But we all seem to have political opinions around here, and I'm sure you don't lack one of those. This discussion is not only about the science behind AGW, there is an immensely important political discussion that is inextricable from the complete discussion. I'll have to muddle my way through the scientific aspect of this discussion, but like you, I have an intense political opinion about it that requires me to get involved in the scientific one too.



Physics has a great deal to do with climatology. How do you think they come up with tables and graphs and data discussing, amongst other things; the frequencies of radiation blocked by which gases, means of accurately assessing pre-Muana Loa CO2 measurements, pre-industrial temperature readinds, etc.?

Which is why I'm discussing this aspect right now rather than getting all muddied up in the science that we both admit is over our heads.



Physics has a lot to do with lots of fields, but it certainly doesn't make you a specialist in climatology who knows enough about it that you can legitimately think "I can tell people who have spent their whole careers studying this that they're wrong." Especially when the fellow doesn't even have to have a degree in physics to be a high school physics teacher, and if he did it would only have to be a Bachelor's.

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on Dec 13 2009 04:15pm

Atmospheric chemistry is really detailed, are you familiar with inorganic/organic thermochemistry?

Not too well familiar with it.

Where are you going with this? Guy's a physics teacher. I'm sure there's some overlap between thermochemistry and physics, but again, it's far from a one-to-one transfer of information where any physicist can sit down and start doing the work without learning anything extra on the subject.

Chemistry=/=physics

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm wondering where you're going with this, since we're having a discussion about the fact that a guy who teaches high school biology and physics might not be the best climatologist.

+1 To agreeing.

Politically, I think those on the right have got to come up with a viable solution that challenges the legitimacy of CAT to solve the problem and actually provides society with another pathway. People are sick of hearing the same old tired "we're just going to say no" or "driving SUVs is GOOD for the planet!" crap.

Republicans need to figure out a VAT is a regressive tax, that it can help balance the budget, and that it is a viable solution that can combat the same problem. If we had one party saying "Carbon CAT" and the other party saying "Carbon VAT" I think we could have a real discussion. Climate denial isn't going to influence enough people at this point for it to be a viable talking point, and a VAT on carbon would spur real clean energy investment. CAT will just create another $600 trillion derivatives market. Big business supports CAT.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 13 2009 04:27pm

I've already gone on record about what steps should be taken, but to restate them; Nuclear energy, supported by installing both state of the art pebble bed nuclear reactors and a completely new power distribution system, clean coal & natural gas backup systems for peak usage, and ER-EV (extended range electric vehicle) like the products from Tesla motors or the Chevy Volt & Toyota Prius using power from the grid to provide transportation in place of gasoline.

These won't come cheaply, but impoverishing ourselves trying to do it how they're proposing in Copenhagen won't get it done either. The key, in my opinion, is promoting growth and economic prosperity to achieve these ends.

Edit: As for reforestation, there's little the US can do. We already have a large percentage of forest land amongst the world's countries, so on that point, we'd have to depend on other nations. Brazil, for example, cuts immense swathes of forest so they can grow sugarcane to feed their ethanol energy economy.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 13 2009 04:53pm