Two Senators upcoming presser on CLEAR Act

CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you’ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (and Not SUV: That dark is SOOT=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases” are gases IN a greenhouse, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 like the window panes in a greenhouse, but …the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2… (you didn’t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
The atmosphere, the air, can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic centimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.

We charge the companies X amount, so the price rise to you is X (100%), we keep 25% of X and you get back 75% of X, you will have to find your own 25% of X somewhere else.
So, the money cycles through a government department and they skim 25% off the top. Better than Vegas.

This is just another way to increase the cost of energy, criopple American industry, drive jobs overseas and redistribute wealth. It is based on the incorrect idea that carbon dioxide gas is a pollutant or that it will unduly warm the earth. First, CO2 is essential to life and not a pollutant. Second, since levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have very little effect on temperature, and increasing the amount of CO2 improves agriculture, there will be no benefit to counterbalance the negative effects of this proposed legislation.

Can Legislators Ever Act Responsibly?

“climate bill”
Never has climate responded to lawmakers. Never.
Call it a shakedown on energy consumption. You could place any King, brand of religion or tax over the Sahara and the desert climate wouldn’t change.
I suspect Soros and other speculators are drooling over carbon trading schemes.

More dis-info coming every day:
http://www.truth-out.org/national-resource-council-report-underscores-urgency-carbon-emissions-reductions61513

Arno Arrak: July 20, 2010 at 11:47 am
What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real. They seem like nice people deceived by the global warming propaganda machine.
Nice people who are ignorant can be dangerous, too. Being mugged by a polite robber rather than an obnoxious one merely lessens the outrage — your money’s still gone.
They believe passing this bill will reduce overall CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050? They’re fools, to boot…

“75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to voters”
Wahoo! I’m going to be rich if this passes.
/sarc
MikeEE

This is yet another attempt to separate people from their money among other things. “by 2012 the price of carbon shares shall not be less than $7/ton” explicitly enforced by govt. market dictate. Tell me that’s part of a free society. By 2050 limit emissions to 17% of 2005 levels. Translation: Destroy modern US society or at least set it back to late 1800’s. Effect on climate/weather? Zero. Effect on standard of living? Hugely negative.
These competing climate bills are obviously a game to see which powermad, narcissistic, wannabe dictator can screw the public the most.

Enneagram says:
July 20, 2010 at 11:24 am
Is there a contest to put the most errors, misdirections and extraneous material into one comment? I’ll just take one:
“If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.”
I challenge you to name one scientist, politician or activist who is advocating reducing CO2 levels to zero.
There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective. Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.

Obama wants to cure the symptom of unemployment instead of the biggest cause, i.e., unsettling uncertainiy due to his “changes”. By shutting down almost all offshore drilling until November (maybe beyond), and foisting enactment of a carbon tax to fight the scam hysteria of “global warming”, Obama is pursuing a war on energy. Now he has some mainly foolish support from Maine. If they win, we lose — by suffering bigger balance of trade deficits because we’ll need more imported oil, and reap higher unemployment from much higher artificially hiked energy costs. Do they think American factories run on lobster power?

Just don’t complain buddies!, in my country we pay US$5.40 per gallon and nobody gets mad. It’s all about Global Governance, ya know…
The difference between global government and global governance is that, by the second one, pseudo independent countries enforce by their “own will” binding agreements signed with the UN and other nice international organizations.

richard telford says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
‘Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.’
Who told you 280ppm was natural?

Mongolia could do with some of that “global warming” these legislators are talking about:
Mongolia’s winter of “white death”:
The catastrophic winter of 2009-2010 has killed millions of animals and left thousands of rural families struggling to survive.
Tsedendamba, who like many Mongolians uses only his given name, was experienced enough to foresee the dzud, or “white death”. He roamed far across central Övorkhangai province to ensure his livestock fed well despite the summer drought. He prepared fodder for the coming winter and built up their shelter. Others slaughtered the weakest animals to ensure more food for the strongest.
None of it was enough. Temperatures fell to -50ºC and thick snow buried the grass. By the time it finally melted in May, nearly 9,000 families had seen their entire herds freeze or starve to death. Another 33,000, including Tsedendamba’s, lost half their livestock. Almost 10 million cattle, sheep, goats, horses, yaks and camels have died, a fifth of the country’s total, at a cost of 520bn tögrögs (£250m).
Pregnant animals miscarried and weakened ones are still succumbing to illness. Only the ravens are fat here, gorged on carrion. For many households, their only recent income has been UN payments for burying carcasses.
It took 14 days for Erdenebileg’s family to drive what remained of their flock the 300 miles from southern Dundgovi province to a bleak hillside in Töv province, close to Ulan Bator. Once, they enjoyed “a pretty decent life”, selling cashmere and spare animals for cash to supplement the meat and milk from their 600-strong herd. Then came the winter. “Every day we saw our animals dying in front of us. I was devastated,” said the 32-year-old, her face etched deep by the wind and worry.
…Bet they’re all wondering when the “global warming” is going to reach Mongolia?

richard telford says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective. Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.
What is this natural level you speak of.
The CO2 level has changed dramatically over the last billion years on earth, so what is the “natural” level. From an Ice Age, the time of the dinosaur’s, the MWP, the LIA.
Who defines the climate optimum and how can their desicion be called the “natural” level?

John from CA says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
25% of [carbon permit] auction revenues go into the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and related regional economic adjustment projects.
Bolded section should be interpreted as “income redistribution”.

And so, having revealed much, it’s down-periscope.
And now, CTM – you know the rest of the story.
All names are fake. Email is disposable.
So long. I hope you figure out what winning is and what’s worth winning.

richard telford says July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm: “Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.”
Is the “stabilization” to be done in all 8,000,000,000 square miles of the Earth’s atmosphere, or only some of it?

Increasing prices on anything affects what we buy, very little of which is necessary in order to live. US citizens especially are capable of forgoing replacing old with new and instead just duct-taping the old back together again. The economy will tank (as in tank more than it has), regardless of the kickback. Anyone who voted for these two and still support them must not like being employed.

Moderator… time to snip the “sovreigns” (along with birthers and truthers). The posts read like “conspiracy to commit tax evasion” — WUWT?
To the point — why add a new market distortion when eliminating one (various forms of subsidy to the fossil fuel industry) would work as well, if not better?

At least they are being honest, redistribution of wealth…
“Sending auction revenues directly to consumers means 80% of the American public
will incur no net costs and
the lowest income population will receive net positive benefits.
The remaining 20% percent – the highest income earners—will see less
than a 0.3% decrease in income.”
and Richard, what the hell is “natural”, are you kidding?

Cap and Trade is poor public policy. It can not possibly do what anyone wants done except for a had full of traders who think they can profit from it and foolish politicians who believe they need to be seen to be doing something, even it that something is the wrong or ineffective thing.

Every time you shine money in the face of people most of them will jump on the money without really knowing or thinking where it comes from. Some people want to get reelected so badly that they will shine the dollar sign in the face of voters.
If they think that the industry will only charge the 100% of increase… they are fools. Not only that but the costs associated in managing this system and printing those checks and the stamps and envelops… yeah, right… 25%
Don’t touch my life giving CO2… I need it to live and feed my family.

Politicians will be smarting up the day donkeys fly…
wait a minute… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/7900025/Pictures-of-the-day-20-July-2010.html

Notice the phrase“The IPCC’s analysis concluded with greater than 95 percent certainty that human consumption of fossil fuels and land use practices are contributing directly to observed changes in climate. “
That phase allows government intervention in the use of energy AND in the use of landotherwise known as how farmers grow food. I thought humans had already tried that and failed miserably. First at Plymouth Colony,:
“The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept.
The results were disastrous. Communism didn’t work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent. “ http://freedomkeys.com/thanksgiving.htm
And later in the Soviet Union. Looks like THIS time we are going to try it worldwide and collapse our whole civilization when it fails again as it must.
FOr those who believe “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept, you forgot one tiny problem. Humans, and all animals are lazy. It is hard wired into us as it should b. Only the young expend more energy than is needed without a reason. Remember the Pilgrims were a religious sect and probably the best case scenario for “communalism” to work. It did not.
Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate….
“In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.” http://mises.org/daily/336
Unfortunately the true story of Thanksgiving is never taught in schools so the myth of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” continues to find fertile ground in the minds of idealists.
Do not bother trying to tell me that “communalism” is not the ultimate goal. The UN has already spelled out its view point on land ownership.
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” http://sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
As Wayne Hage stated: “If you can’t own property, you are property.”

Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory. Sen. Inhofe needs to take Sen. Collins aside and give her a crash course in elementary physics.
There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
If the CLEAR Act passes, hold on to your wallets and purses. The hot air emanating from the mouths of mindless politicians poses is a very real threat to humanity.

kirkmyers says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm
There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
—————
A thought experiment: what happens if you “slow the process of cooling” while continuing to add heat from an external source at constant rate?

With friends like Collins; and her cohort dope Snowe ; we really don’t need enemies (of the people).
One of the reasons I have no desire whatsoever to go anywhere or buy anything from anywhere in New England, is I refuse to support the livelihoods of people who keep sending these birdbrains to the US Congress. Although they represent postage stamp type areas of the country and people locked in another century; they keep on screwing up the lives of everybody else.
At least out here in California; we know that we have no representation in the US Congress; and we just ignore the two dames that the local fruits and nuts keep electing.
So we ( CA ) are slowly turning into a third world Country; and we already are the world center for Leaf Blower Technology; but the market is already saturated.
We are all closer to that tipping point than we think; but it has nothing to do with Climate.

This Bill, or the Cap & Trade Bill, in conjuction with the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts and the recently passed Healthcare “Reform” bill will drive a stake through the heart of our economy. The Financial “Reform” Bill will assist in the process. Unless there are big changes in November in both houses of congress the economy will take a huge dump, inflation will go wild and there will, indeed, be less green house gasses produced along with much less of everything else. Count on it.

RE: kirkmyers: (July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm) “Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory.”
Unfortunately, I see the outcome of all these closed-door Climategate hearings being used as a springboard for a new push to finally get something done now that that ‘mountain of evidence’ has all been ‘washed’ away by these learned tribunals.
I suspect that many of these people have come to believe, despite all the suppressed evidence to the contrary, that carbon dioxide is a dangerous industrial chemical that man is using to foul the environment and they want that process stopped as soon as possible. I would not be surprised to find that this teaching to be a mandatory policy in many of our public schools.
Perhaps some of our elected representatives are hoping re-create themselves as genuine heroes of the green revolution to remedy their sagging popularity in the polls.
Perhaps we need the release of a new cadre of non-partisan post-Climategate videos like “Global Warming, Doomsday Called Off.”

George E. Smith says:
July 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“”” Gail Combs says:
July 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
…………………….. ”
So Gail, isn’t it sufficient to know that TSI is 1366 w/m^2; and with luck we can get a max of 1000 out of that at some places on earth. And agriculture is about the least efficient way of collecting on that kiloWatt.
Yes it’s renewable but it just doesn’t renew anywhere near fast enough to supply our needs. and about 735 of the total surface area is quite unsuitable for collection anyway; so we start out with access to only about 1/4 of what is available.
George
______________________________________________________________
George,
Sorry I was not clear. Using food for fuel is the most idiotic idea I have heard from the idiots in DC and that is saying something. That is why I included the link to the information about the physics of renewable energy. http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469
Since the whole scam of “renewable energy” falls apart when you look at the physics I will cut and paste it here so it is very clear.
“The formula for kinetic energy is
E= 1/2(m1-m2) (v) squared or E=m(v)squared
Kinetic energy is the energy of moving objects, “E” once again standing for energy, “m” indicating mass and “v” representing the velocity of the moving object. If you throw a baseball across a room, for example, its energy is calculated by multiplying the mass of the ball times the square of its velocity – perhaps 50 miles per hour.
The two formulas are essentially identical. When brought into juxtaposition, two things emerge:
1. For any given amount of energy, mass and velocity are inversely related. For an identical amount of energy, the higher velocity goes, the less mass is required and vice versa.
2. When compared to the velocities of moving objects in nature – wind and water, for instance – the co-efficient in Einstein’s equation is fifteen orders of magnitude larger – the same factor of one quadrillion.
How is this manifested in everyday life? Most of what we are calling “renewable energy” is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature. Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy. Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.
Let’s start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.
The largest dams – Hoover and Glen Canyon on the Colorado River –stand 800 feet tall and back up a reservoir of 250 square miles. This produces 1000 megawatts, the standard candle for an electrical generating station……
Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-½ MW apiece, so it takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles. Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations.
Tidal power, often suggested as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate 1000 MW.
What about solar energy? ….Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. “Thermal solar” – large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid – can convert 30 percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt light bulb per card table….”
Nuclear is the only non-carbon source of energy that is reasonable but the environuts are against it. If they had not killed nuclear in the seventies the USA would have a much smaller “carbon foot print” AND would not have lost its industry to Maurice Strong’s beloved communist China. (France is buzy selling her nuclear power to the rest of the EU)

evanmjones says:
July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“[…]But let’s not kid ourselves about CO2. It does cause a modest warming (with diminishing returns).[…]”
You mentioned negative feedbacks yourself, so be careful. CO2 causes a measurable change in down- AND upwelling LWIR; whether this results in a warming depends on the system dynamics. Especially the nature of the temporal response of the system depends nearly entirely on the feedbacks and the associated lag times.

Arno Arrak: July 20, 2010 at 11:47 am
What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real. They seem like nice people deceived by the global warming propaganda machine.
It’s also a pretty blatant wealth redistribution scheme, they are just using evil(Tm) Energy Corporations to collect the punitive taxes instead of the Government. I guess instead of letting Atlas shrug, the nice(Tm) people is going to break his knee caps.

Allright, we have :
-Senator Maria Cantwell
-Senator Susan M. Collins
So, whats the conclusion? Do we need all these morons?
In Norway whe had a female minister of defense who’s only background was within pottery. (You don’t believe it? Thats your problem)
We had a minister of transportation who didn’t have a drivers license. (Yes, it is true)
So, how do we get rid of all the morons now? They suck your blood every night and day. For nothing.

I’m strictly in favor of helping those with developmental disabilities; but dog-gone it, how do they always end up in Congress?

Paul Jackson says:
July 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“[…]It’s also a pretty blatant wealth redistribution scheme”
________________________
DirkH says:
July 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm
It should be noted that the net redistribution effect will be from poor to rich as rich people do not have to use their entire disposable income for consumption …
__________________________________________________________
Your forgot getting mega rich on the carbon trading derivatives market. Approximately 95% of the total volume in the European carbon market are seen in derivative trades (forwards, futures and options) with the remaining in spot trades. and of course getting out of the market before the whole thing collapses.
“You’ve heard of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Are carbon default swaps and subprime offsets next? If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn’t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown….” click Even some of the Greenies can see WUWT.
This does not include all the corporations sucking down government grants, subsidies or what ever for going “green” or producing “green” products.
Yes it is the typical wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, luckly only some of the activists wearing green colored glasses do not see that.

Redistribution of wealth with a 25% vig.

The fools are in the process of creating thousands of Enrons. Al Gore will be an Enron. There is going to be a market in “AGW credits.” Yet there are no reasonably confirmed hypotheses which explain the so-called “forcings” in cloud behavior and related matters that are necessary if warming is to exceed the harmless level of one degree this century. There is no confidence among the public in the claims of AGW. As public confidence waxes and wanes, so will the values of the shares on the market. Al Gore will be really busy making new movies to shore up public confidence and keeping the bucks rolling in. If public confidence plummets, and we are likely to learn in November that it has, then the market crashes. So, who will be to blame? Won’t it be our Senators and Congressmen?
This situation is truly extraordinary. It is as if a nuclear weapon hits Baltimore, a bunch of senators are yelling that it came from Russia, so on incomplete evidence we nuke Russia. The point here is that this situation is unprecedented yet senators are willing to take irreversible risks. There has to be a bigger story behind this. This is not expected human behavior by a legislative body, not in all of human history.

Gail Combs says:
July 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
‘Yes it is the typical wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, luckly only some of the activists wearing green colored glasses do not see that.’
And more control by “crony politics” on an international scale, promoting one world governace and making the U.S Constitution more irrelevant. To bad it is illegal to tar and feather.
Again I ask: Since we are trying to become independent from foreign oil, why would we want to become dependent on foreign carbon credits?
Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country;(which is being done not only with the input side, but with the output of a byproduct, CO2) if you control food, you control the population;

Hmmm…
In one company I am involved with, we are discussing the eventual production site of a new construction product.
Our product consumes by-products of natural gas production.
If we are hit with a CLEAR tax, it looks as if the production will go to one of the following: China, Canada, or Mexico. If NAFTA is allowed to work, we will get our product into the US without the CLEAR tax.
Too bad for the people we would have put to work in Denver, Atlanta, and two other locations in the US.

Oil companies love cap and trade.

Despite leaving U.S. CAP, BP officials — including CEO Tony Hayward — have generally voiced their support for cap-and-trade legislation and the company was expected to attend the formal unveiling of a bill from Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in April.
“BP still firmly believes that the best way to move this process along and tackle man-made climate change is by putting a price on carbon,” said BP America President Lamar McKay in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday. “A price reflecting tightening constraints on carbon would both drive energy conservation and make lower carbon energy choices more cost competitive.”

See http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/17/17climatewire-conservatives-work-to-tar-cap-and-trade-bill-42785.html
Now why would BP want cap and trade? Because it will increase the cost of oil and no one will notice the little price hikes included for additional profits after the taxes have been added.
Greenpeace and BP sitting at the table and breaking bread.
Sounds almost Biblical.

Richard Telford says:
“Hansen has advocated stabilizing CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.”
You suggest a contest – Let’s have one! You assert 280ppm CO2 to be the “natural” level for our earthly atmosphere. I challenge you to provide a definition of “natural CO2 level” that meets a statistically rigorous measure (something approaching at least +/- 5ppm), as derived from historical CO2 levels over the last 600 million years, and is agreed to by a majority of scientists skilled in paleogeology, ice core gas measurements, and the necessary related fields to determine CO2 levels over this entirely natural time span. If we really want to determine the “natural” CO2 level, we need to establish a strong baseline before anthropomorphic interference. Anything less would be cherry picking, of course. Hansen, Jones, and the ClimateGate cabal et. al. and all of their unreliable work are excluded from consideration, due to their established participation in various “nature tricks” to hide the decline” schemes, etc.
Show your work, include measures of accuracy and precision, and cite your data sources. Extra credit will be provided for any rationalizations attempting to show the derived “natural CO2 level” to have relevance to today, the last century, or any century within the last 600 million years of natural climate and atmospheric change.
Then we can move forward to the “natural” sea level height, the “natural” height of mountain ranges, the “natural” amount of precipitation, and the “natural” amount of cloud coverage for the planet and get these stabilized as well. I’m sure Jim Hansen would agree……….

Water Hammer Example:

Is it an example of overunity?

Okay, this is good news for the two senators. It’s something I am sure they care about;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1292843/Could-carbon-dioxide-injections-skin-new-secret-young-face.html

Well I think that we should file a law suit against the EPA; calling for them to control the emissions oa ALL greenhouse gases; not just CO2; on the theory (sound) that GHGs do nothing but heat the atmosphere through the capture of LWIR radiation from somewhere else; and that any global warming is a consequence of that warming of the atmosphere; and is quite independent of whatever GHG gas or mechanism caused the atmospheric heating.
The subsequent global warming contains no information of any kind about the GHG species that caused it; only that the atmosphere warmed up first.
In particular they should regulate human emissions of H2O as well as CO2, since all burning of fossil and other fuels and human respiration results in the emission of more H2O than CO2 (coal MIGHT be an exception).
The AGW crowd cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim as Stephen Schneider recently did; that H2O is a weak GHG compared to CO2; and at the same time claim that H2O acts as a feedback enhancer of CO2 induced warming. Both are permanent constituents of earth’s atmosphere and have been so since at least as long as anything that is any sort of Primate has been on earth; and moreover; there is nowhere in earth’s atmosphere where weather/climate occur (like say clouds); where CO2 abundance in our well mixed atmosphere has ever exceeded the corresponding H2O abundance.
The atmospheric warming induced by CO2 or H2O vapor can eventually result in warming of the ocean surfaces; and that in turn will add to atmospheric H2O vapor via evaporation and also to increased atmospheric CO2 due to Henry’s Law outgassing adjustment. So arguably either one is a feedback enhancer of the other and of itself.
So any distinction between CO2 and H2O based on primary atmospheric heating or feedback enhancement; is purely arbitrary; and has no scientific justification at all (for the distinction).
So let’s sue the EPA to regulate H2O Too.

Footnote to my posts:
The byproduct of hydrogen fuel cells, beyond all the energy they make, is CO2 and water. So add a greenhouse to Professor Nocera’s design (see Faces of the Recovery Act video) for the fuel cell exhaust and you can grow some veggies year round as well.
Starting to understand why we should not regulate CO2 with a carbon tax? Actually, make the technology available immediately with homeowner loans and I’d be happy to pay off mine with my monthly power bill ; )

kirkmyers says:
July 21, 2010 at 7:55 pm
=============
Actually kirkmyers,
If Congress read the following two they would understand.
I honestly hope Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) aids do.
NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/
Wegman Report:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf