Tramadol no prescription. Cod overnight tramadol. Tramadol….

Levitra….

Diovan effects. Diovan hct generic. Diovan. Can diovan cause asthmal….

Ultram. Ultram fed ex. Ultram and withdrawal. The mondego group wiki xwiki buy ultram. Buy ultram. How the medicine ultram i….

… option 3 seems pretty attractive.

The obvious next step for Cap and Trade regimes is a tariff on imports from states that don't play.

Since Krugman concedes the higher cost, why wouldn't competitors, not required to own the credits to emit, buy the credits anyway? They buy the credits not to emit carbon but to invest in a cost imposed on their competitors. Maybe Chinese monetary authorities, selling discounted yuan for dollars to pursue a mercantilist trade policy, decide that these credits are a better investment than Treasury securities. Both are entitlement to rents imposed on U.S. production.

If the customer wants computer models that will predict the end of the world, that's what they get.

You've got an end of the world prediction of the future, an evil enemy called fossil fuels, a salvation in the form of technology that hasn't been invented yet, and the solution requires extreme international government intervention.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a doomsday cult.

"
desperately I sought the morrow.
"
~~E A Poe~

But let's understand the cap and trade process. In order to produce and consume energy I must purchase a carbon permit that allows me to emit CO2. Now I have three choices – 1) go about my normal business and incur this higher cost; 2) replace as much of my carbon based energy with green energy and then sell the saved CO2 emissions to someone else who is following along option #1; or 3) move my production to a lower cost venue where there is no cap and trade taxes. I suspect that if the business person is a rational being – option 3 seems pretty attractive.

Is global warming possible? I don't mean in some wishy washy way, I mean with the sun being invariant, what does the black-body system look like to allow for an increased equalibrium temperature.

If the sun's output is constant, then the only thing that can cause the average temperature to increase would be a change in the efficiency that the planet re-radiated the infalling energy.

Since the sun is not changing, then an increase in the characteristic temperature would imply either an internal source of new energy, or a decrease in the efficiency in the re-radiated spectrum that somehow did not decrease the efficiency of the absorption spectrum. Something that is more transparent to the incoming energy, and less transparent to the outgoing energy.

Energy falls in and heats up the body. The body reaches a point of equalibrium and begins throwing off the same amount of energy it receives, but the band of emission is purely a function of temperature and has no relation to the frequency spectrum of the incoming energy.

Since infalling energy is constant, any change to the equalibrium temperature must be due to a change in either the rate of absorption or emission of energy in different bands. Conversely, any change in the absorption or emission of energy in different bands must change the characteristic temperature of equalibrium.

This we have to agree on.

CO2 fits that bill. It is more transparent to high frequency visible light than to infrared light. This is beyond faith. It has been measured under just about every condition that affects absorption and emission for the full range of frequencies we are talking about here.

If we can agree to this, then we can begin to ask how larger concentrations of CO2 will not result in a higher characteristic temperature. If we can't agree, then fundamental science is less understood by one of us.

I'm not saying anything about effects, or if it can be countered; I'm just stating my belief that elevated levels of CO2 must result in a higher equalibrium temperature, bar some exotic possibilities that are not worth discussing.

Then the discussion becomes one of temperature vs. quantity. Denying that, then the mechanism which changes the emission spectrum to a more transparent band has to be put forth. Energy doesn't just disappear.

Don's analysis is right on target. Keep the inside info coming!

Best comment ever.

If there is a warming tipping point and a cascade effect leading to catastrophe (positive feedback) then the question that needs to be answered is why it has not happened already, say during the medieval optimum or any other period with sustained warming.

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings?

These readings are from ancient times.

There is evidence to indicate that warming precedes elevated CO2 levels.

I will re-post a previous comment of mine:

I suspect the field of climate science has been populated by those who were propagandized in public schools on how evil capitalism is destroying the environment, so when they think about their careers, they decide to go into environmental sciences to stop the bad guys and save the earth.

They latch onto AGW because it is what they, more or less, already believe.

AGW isn't their discovery, it is their premise.

In your mind, are those temperature readings that you didn't link to conclusive proof that global warming is not/will not take place?

I would never claim that temperatures "I didn't link to" prove anything. I didn't claim that global warming is NOT occurring — I simply noted that it is not PROVEN — despite the fact that it is generally proclaimed to be — and that the facts, in many cases, contradict the global warming claims.

He also wrote:

Let see… what could keep the troposphere temperature constant in the face of larger concentrations of heat-retaining gasses in the atmosphere?
Some unknown explaination.
Some unknowable explaination, such as God.
Maybe higher wind speeds would improve heat convection to the stratosphere, or take a larger volume of air over the poles.
Maybe more frequent and severe storms would dissapate energy.

I did not — and would not — -propose any of those (mostly) fallacious and foolish “straw man” “explanations” you offer in a lame attempt to discredit the facts I offered — instead I offer the simpler explanation — that the surface record is distorted and that the global climate models that predict tropical troposphere warming underestimate NATURAL variability and fail to account for natural, i.e. non-man-made, causes of climate variations.

You then followed up with this claim:

Someone would tell us if the measured temperatures have been warmer at the poles, and we would notice things like more frequent and severe storms.

Sure, someone would tell us. But would those who tell us arctic temperatures hit “new highs” also tell us that Antarctic ice is increasing? See here for that story: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm

Or just “Goggle” it for yourself. You’ll find lots of stories — and lots of scientists — showing the Antarctic ice thickness is increasing.

You then continued:

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings? I only ask because maybe they were events that caused spikes, but then flattened out because there was no year-after-year sustained elevations of CO2. That's just a thought.

No “year-after-year sustained “elevations of CO2”? Are you kidding? There were CENTURIES of “sustained, year-after-year of CO2 elevations”. But two facts stand out — first, that the increases in CO2 levels seen in the ice core samples, throughout the historical record, CAME AFTER, and FOLLOWED, the increase in temperatures, by some 800 years. This is one of Al Gore’s most egregious lies — he shows the CO2 levels rising along with temperatures, but he glosses over, and evades, the fact that temperature changes occurred LONG BEFORE the CO2 concentration began to change.

There is a good, and logical, explanation for this phenomena, known to all climate scientists. If the world warms, for ANY reason, even for a reason having nothing to do with CO2, then as the oceans warm, they will release CO2 into the atmosphere. Warm water holds less of any dissolved gas, including CO2, so as the oceans warm in response to atmospheric warming, they will emit CO2, and its concentration will rise.

The exact opposite will happen, during periods of cooling. And the record shows this as well — as global temperatures decline, CO2 levels decline — beginning some 800 years AFTER temperatures start to fall — and they do so because the cooling oceans can hold more CO2.

So, the ice core data, if is proves or indicates anything, shows that CO2 levels FOLLOW — and RESULT FROM — temperature changes, as opposed to causing those temperature changes.

Ackerman concluded:

Also, if a CO2 event could in fact cause dramatic changes, one has to wonder if sustained CO2 elevations might cause even more dramatic changes.
It's just a thought, but I'm not saying you have to think about.

Trouble is, the historical record — as I’ve just pointed out — indicates that CO2 changes lag behind — and thus trail — and thus cannot cause those “dramatic changes” you’d love to link them to.

Once again, we see that a (mostly) cursory examination of the data and the facts shows the fallacies in the global warming theories — as well as exposing the dishonesty of its promoters.

I can say something about his claim that to disagree with the global warming ideology is "junk science." Mr. Krugman, the earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, give or take a few billion. Over that time, there have been periods during which the earth was much warmer than now, and periods in which there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth's dynamic systems have cycles, including the carbon cycle. Now human beings have been around in the modern form for less than 100,000 years give or take a few (in deep planetary time this is the blink of an eye), and our brains became fully modern only during the most recent glacial advance. Civilization started with the end of the most recent glacial advance. So where do we get the idea that the earth's climate must now remain constant because we are here?

Yes, I'm trying to frighten you because I have some ulterior motive to do so. The people who think up this science stuff should stop telling people about it. It scares them.

In your mind, are those temperature readings that you didn't link to conclusive proof that global warming is not/will not take place?

Maybe this is why some economic models fail. They look at first-order data and come to a conclusion.

Let see… what could keep the troposphere temperature constant in the face of larger concentrations of heat-retaining gasses in the atmosphere?

Some unknown explaination.
Some unknowable explaination, such as God.
Maybe higher wind speeds would improve heat convection to the stratosphere, or take a larger volume of air over the poles.
Maybe more frequent and severe storms would dissapate energy.

Someone would tell us if the measured temperatures have been warmer at the poles, and we would notice things like more frequent and severe storms.

As for past ice core readings, did they find any signs that humans were contributing to those elevated readings? I only ask because maybe they were events that caused spikes, but then flattened out because there was no year-after-year sustained elevations of CO2. That's just a thought.

Also, how much permafrost was around at the time of these events?

Also, if a CO2 event could in fact cause dramatic changes, one has to wonder if sustained CO2 elevations might cause even more dramatic changes.

It's just a thought, but I'm not saying you have to think about.

How about we talk about the voluntarily funded non-governmental plan that is free to do whatever it wants with money from whom ever it can talk into contributing.

Under Paul Krugman economics is guided not by well thought out theories backed by empirical evidence but by ideology.

Economics, according to the moral ciphers in power at the moment, is to be practiced in service to the modern day left wing ideologues.