Temperature hits 49.3 C (120.7F)

If it's either we adapt or we perish, who cares how much it costs? $10.50 in California. $8.00 in New York. $1.50 everywhere else.

 

Let me rephrase optimum temp.

Take a point on earth at point X. At point X, the average temp today is 10 centigrade. If mankind hadn't existed, what would the average temp at point X be?

 

But that still begs the question, “what realistic steps can be taken to slow global warming that don’t involve massive transfers if money?”

 

Man is responsible for about 1.0C of warming so if man hadn't existed the temperature would be about 9C. However, keep in mind that this is for the global mean surface temperature. X and ΔX will be different depending on where X is.

Again, I ask...

What physical process that is naturally modulated do feel will cause the Earth to warm by 2C in the near future? The Sun? Volcanoes? Clouds? Water vapor? Something else?

 

I guessed 2, you confirmed it 1. Nothing would increase the 1. So it would be 10 v 9, then 11 v 10, then 12 v 11 and so on. All it is, whatever the earth does, we're 1 degree ahead. So if we removed the 1 degree, the earth will continue to warm .So that 1 degree means, mankind may have lasted an extra 50 years.

 

A carbon tax. Funds would be used to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. No transfer of money from one group of people to another occurs under this regime. This provides both an incentive to reduce the harm that is done and to provide a means to fix the harm that has occurred. The nice thing about it is that those who are doing the most harm to the environment are those that are paying the most to fix it.

Doing nothing (which is what is happening now) is probably the biggest wealth redistribution scheme in human history. The current generation is transferring (or should I say stealing) wealth from future generations to fund it today and we are harming the environment in the process and forcing our children to clean up our mess. And the longer it goes on the bigger the wealth transfer is and the harder it is for our children to clean things up.

 

Stop clear cutting the forests.

 

It's definitely about 1C most of which occurred after WWII when the anthroprogenically modulated processes/agents began ramping up with significance and inertial lags began responding.

If we removed the 1C of warming the Earth would continue to warm? Can you elaborate? What is going to cause the Earth to warm?

1C less of warming does not mean humans will last an extra 50 years. Global warming is not a humanity ending issue.

 

A carbon tax sounds like a transfer of money.

 

Quick, turn off all your AC's and stop driving to combat this.

 

If you collect it and give it to someone else for no good reason then yes. But, that's not what I'm proposing.

 

It means Australia is in danger of becoming mostly desert.

OH NO IT'S TOO LATE

 

I find it ironic that the people who are most concerned about “future generations”’ regarding global warming are the same people who are the least concerned about the national debt and how we’re asking future generations to pay the bill for what we spend today.

 

That was the faulty basis for the heavy fuel taxes and regulations in California. The result is California has the dirtiest air in the country. Taxing fuel didn't clean the air. Taxing carbon won't clean the air either. The polluters will continue to pollute and just pay the tax and we can only tax ourselves. China, India and whomever else will just be business as usual. Those imposing the tax know this but they don't care. They just want the money.

 

FWIW, I'm equally concerned about that as well. For example, I'm not a big fan of Social Security because it transfers wealth from future generations to pay for the current generation.

 

That's because there is no link.

 

Duly noted. One problem with a carbon tax is that while it does incentivize less carbon emissions in theory in practice it might only work to export carbon emissions to countries that cheat on their responsibility.

Like you said California is a good example of this happening. For example, the "green" movement in California has effectively forced the export of power generation to neighboring states. The pollution and carbon emissions in aggregate haven't been significantly reduced overall as a direct result of California's policies. They've just transferred it to other states.

That's why this is a difficult problem to solve. And it's not like we can expect China to play by the rules. Afterall, it was only just recently discovered that they've been cheating on CFC emissions for years.

 

​

 

Hottest day on record in the USA was on July 10, 1913

It is no surprise that the hottest temperatures in the U.S. have been recorded in the Desert Southwest. In fact, the highest temperature recorded in California, 134 degrees, is also the current hottest air temperature on record on Earth and was measured in Death Valley, California, on July 10, 1913.

Oh, what was the carbon dioxide problem in 1913 if you happen to know?
https://www.google.com/search?q=hot...rome..69i57.6959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Study the rich and income when you get a chance. You will get some huge shocks.

You can end tax cuts to the rich by appropriating only a fair sum from them. They and people like me only want them to be charged fairly. I suggest the FAIR Tax system.

 

How much would it help for Gore and Bill Clinton to lose 90 percent of their incomes?

 

yes, that is not happening right now sadly, the right thinks the rich need more and the people need less

 

Whooooh, that's hot!

 

Maybe you can produce a study linking income to climate? Maybe you can show proof climate is related to the well being of humans?

 

Taking me, i do not believe any group needs less. nor to i think tax treatment of the rich is proper and fair.

The government is like an alligator. i prefer it be smaller.