I'm all for it! Congress has single digit approval and they can assure by raising taxes that the two year experiment of trusting Dems will come to an end.

Can you imagine the debates on the floor? What a gift to the Republican party!

This is merely political posturing on the part of Dingell. Most Democrats don't support this plan. He is trying to take Congress' attention off of increasing Detroit's CAFE standards.

As I've stated previously, many conservatives have come out in support of the idea of carbon taxes.

One of the very rare instances of bipartisanship that you'll see is the phasing out of the incandescent bulb. Both Republicans and Democrats support phasing it out by 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised if they passed it before the end of this year. I, for one, will be glad to see incandescents where they belong -- in the Smithsonian -- with a placard stating that only the wondrous free market could keep such an archaic, inefficient piece of technology in existence for so long.

Andrew,

only the wondrous free market could keep such an archaic, inefficient piece of technology in existence for so long.

Like it or not, religion and economics (i.e. self-interest) are the two strongest motivators known to the universe. Government regulations and mandates are useful, but pushing even good ideas too quickly has a tendency to result in a backlash.

A few good reads -

Bill Krabill, a geoscientist at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, measured an inland gain of up to 1 meter of snow and up to three times average snowfall in some areas of Southeast Greenland between 2002 and 2003. In 2005, Ola Johannessen, from the University of Bergen's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, measured a gain of 2.4 inches per year from 1992 to 2003 for elevations above 1,500 meters
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Greenland/greenland.html

Dirty snow warms Arctic more than greenhouse gases: study
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/06/06/tech-sciencedirtysnowclimatechange-20070606.html

The transfer of energy between the sun, Earth, and space remain in constant equilibrium as dictated by thermodynamics (i.e. energy cannot be created or destroyed). Energy coming into this system is supplied by the sun, 98% of which is in the wavelength region of ~0.3-3.0 um. Solar irradiation, furthermore, is only partially absorbed by the Earth while the rest is immediately reflected back into the sky. The fraction of solar irradiation reflected back into space is termed the "albedo" and is highly variable depending on the surface type and intervening atmosphere (e.g. clouds). Earth maintains equilibrium with the absorbed irradiation by emitting longwave radiation back into space. The Earth's "radiation budget" is thus calculated as the absorbed shortwave radiation minus the outgoing longwave radiation
http://cires.colorado.edu/~maurerj/albedo/albedo.htm

The boys over at real climate believe they have found a way to make incoming radiation greater than outgoing radiation. They call this stratospheric cooling, AKA converting UV to BS and it's associated methane.

One of the very rare instances of bipartisanship that you'll see is the phasing out of the incandescent bulb. Both Republicans and Democrats support phasing it out by 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised if they passed it before the end of this year. I, for one, will be glad to see incandescents where they belong -- in the Smithsonian -- with a placard stating that only the wondrous free market could keep such an archaic, inefficient piece of technology in existence for so long.

REPLY: Yeah, great idea there, bunky! So tell me, once your swirly light bulbs are mandated by your heros in big government, tell me who I can sue in the government should one of my swirly lightbulbs breaks accidentally and exposes me an my family to the murcury it's loaded with once it seeps out? After all, aren't you guys for the trial attorney's too???

SAVE THE PLANET FROM HOT AIR. MUZZLE A LIBERAL!!!!

I agree that raising taxes will not be a popular idea and that Dingall may simply be trying to distract our representatives from raising fuel efficiency standards.

Outlawing incandescent light bulbs and non energy star appliances are two measures that would be much easier to pass. Similarly, everyone buying a gas guzzler ought to pay an extra tax. The same goes for luxury yachts.

Finally, would suggest doing something with flood insurance. Global Warming does result in an increase in extreme precipitation events along with a minor rise in sea level.

The Gov't seems to always be looking at helping out all the different types of flood victims. So, why not add a Feb surcharge to any type of flood insurance

This is just silly!
How can taxes help AGW? What a cash grab!!!
.
Just follow the money! Most of the proposed recipents of the proposed taxes have nothing to do with AGW?????
.
But of course the whole purpose of these alarmists is to convince everyone to accept additional taxes supposedly for a REAL cause..Just follow the money.........Brett: maybe you have a pet project we could finance? How about "Global Dimming" .....too insignificant? Make a movie!

Bush Administration officially joins the ranks of the insane.

The world must cut emissions or sacrifice the planet, Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, told a meeting of governments on Thursday, in the most strongly worded statement on global warming yet made by the US administration.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fe5b5aa-6d33-11dc-ab19-0000779fd2ac.html

OK everyone, are now going to pass laws that you can only drive to work one day a week, only take a vacation once every five years, raise the price of gasoline to $4 or $5. The US has to cut it's food production in half. Baby production must be cut in half. Every individual must report their fuel usage to the UN every month. Individuals in violation of their CO2 limits will face an international tribunal with a rotating leadership. Currently headed by Iran, and next month switching to North Korea.

Of course, Russia and China will be exempt, because they won't sign on.

Most studies show that Russia actually benefits from a bit of warming—higher temperatures and longer growing seasons would be a bonanza for the grain-growing heartland. Global warming, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, would allow people to 'spend less money on fur coats and other warm things.'
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1258/

1984 coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Al Gore must be very pleased knowing that he has succeeding in paying us back for not letting him play President.

The level of taxation/cost increase to reduce carbon emissions any significant amount, will also, most likely, drive the economy into recession.

But that works out beautifully. Then less people will be working and will therefore no longer need to transport themselves to work. This will reduce carbon emissions even more.

This economic forcing will reach a tipping point resulting in no one emitting anything and then the planet will be saved.

Good thing the science is settled, or there would be no upside.

Patrick

We've talked about stratospheric cooling before. Real Climate considers it strong evidence of AGW. I know you disagree. But if it isn't caused by CO2 redistributing heat downward, what do you think it is caused by?

This tax money will go to what end? So Dingell can spend more money on more insanity and a global AGW Czar? Politicians do not spend my money better than I can.
What incredible hubris humans have! Folks, the earth is going to do what it wants no matter how much money we tax others and throw at it.

Phase out incandescent lamps! We need another fine layer of mercury in land fills and houses. This may be the next century’s equivalent of the current lead paint in old houses problem. Let’s leave another mess for future generations to laugh at. Another sweeping idea without thinking of all the ramifications and effects this can cause on people who don’t live in cities or down south. Forget the mercury spills and poisonings of babies, kids, the land and farm animals when they break, have any of you folks ever tried to get one of those lights to do more than glow when it is -25 below and you need instant light?
Can I have Rep Dingell keep my animals in his house when it gets that cold?
Actually I have replaced 95% of my incandescents but there are cases where that would just not be the prudent or thing to do. I want the choice.
Free choice and education are the best answer, not “Big Brother”. Big Brother is usually a self absorbed minor functionary with deep seated feelings of rejection and inadequacy from being picked on since the 4th grade. They reek their revenge on the rest of society by making insane regulatory rules on what we should do, say or act all in the name of regulations or saving us. Thanks but I don’t need another mommy.

Tax necessities, stop the incandescent and save the world…….And the nonsense just continues. The sad part is supposedly intelligent people actually listen to the manure……….. everybody should have a great weekend!

LOL....as expected, I'm really enjoying -- and laughing at -- the usual anti-government tirades by our fellow deniers. And the overly-dramatic descriptions of the resurrection of Communism and how we're all going to starve to death because of CO2 regulations.

You guys should really become comedians. You're wasting your time here.

cmbclean,

I don't have any problem with the theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes higher temperatures as a first order effect.

Heat flow (at it's simplest diffusive or radiative level) is E = K*dT/dx where E is heat flux, K is a constant of thermal conductivity. dT is the temperature difference and dx is the distance (height of the atmosphere.) Adding CO2 effectively lowers K which forces dT to increase in order to keep E (heat flow) constant. dx is of course fixed.

The problem I have with the stratosphere cooling theory is that heat flux is constant. You can't claim that the stratosphere is cooling due to less energy returning from the earth, because the atmosphere's outgoing energy budget is fixed by, and equal to, the amount of incoming solar radiation.

Increased troposphere temperatures should lead to increased stratosphere temperatures. Of course this model is oversimplified, because heat transports convectively, but the basic principles still hold true.

Think of how a greenhouse works. dT/dx inside the greenhouse is low. dT/dx across the glass is very high, and temperatures outside the glass, but close to it, are also elevated. All three regions have equal heat flow but have different values of dx and dT. Air and glass have different values of K.

The realclimate children are trying to claim that the temperatures outside the glass are cooled because the temperatures inside the glass are elevated. This is utterly absurd and they should be sent back to high school physics for some basic training.

PH

Yes, I agree that the air immediately surrounding greenhouse would warm due to conductive transfer from the heated air inside. However, wouldn't the average temperature of the rest of the universe outside of the greenhouse decrease due to the sequestering of extra thermal energy inside the greenhouse?

cmbclean,

Sorry I only gave you half the answer. The graphs of stratospheric temperature seem to indicate that temperatures drop after a volcanic eruption. Note the drop after the Pinatubo spike.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/upper_air_temps.gif

It looks like temperatures are about the same now as they were in 1970, so there may be nothing to the trend long term. It could also be due to decreased solar output or ozone depletion.

Interesting to note too that the Met graph doesnt really show any consistent trend since 1980 for surface data, other than a spike in 1998.

cbmclean,

Think about the heat flux through the atmosphere every day. Temperatures vary as much as 60 degrees between day and night. The amount of heat sequestered in the atmosphere by a 0.6 degree rise over 100 years is so incredibly small (relatively speaking) that it is completely lost in the noise. The daily flux through the atmosphere is at least an order of magnitude larger.

Imagine an idealized situation where the troposphere increased temperature by 0.6 degrees in one hour, and remained that way for the rest of the year. There would be a temporary imbalance in radiative transfer, but it would quickly go back to steady state with equal incoming and outgoing radiation. The result would be a temporary cooling of the stratosphere (for about an hour) but it should then increase due to the warmer neighboring troposphere and remain warmer for the rest of the year.

I hate political figures who think they know-it-all about are climate. Not going to say any names though...

Darren M,

Are you talking about Jim Inhofe? I agree with you -- I dislike him too.

Addressing Global Warming will be Painful, says House Chairman

bu... bu.... but I thought the IPCC said that it wasn't going to be painful. They couldn't have been lying could they? My faith in the IPCC is shattered. What a letdown!

I liked the estimate from the Harvard economist that it would only cost 50% of the world's GDP. I don't think starving half the world's population to death is too high price to ease US and European liberal guilt about CO2.

I'm also particularly fond of the idea of contaminating my community's water supply with Uranium and Mercury in order to protect us from deadly toxic CO2. Thanks for being so rational and considerate. Really. I mean it.

Some good news. I'm going to be flying over Greenland a couple of times the next two weeks. I'll be able to give you all a first hand report on the devastation. I'm expecting to see huge chunks of ice crashing into the ocean, desperate polar bears looking for US Congresswomen to snack on, and Inuits tanning on the tropical beaches.

It looks like temperatures are about the same now as they were in 1970, so there may be nothing to the trend long term.

Patrick,

Come now, you're comparing the lowest anomaly from the first 14 years of the graph to the highest anomaly in the past 13? I didn't expect that even from you.

How do you explain away the fact that there hasn't been a positive anomaly in the HadAT 2 line in the lower stratosphere since Pinatubo? If you're going to argue that the UAH and RSS data do (once and twice, respectively), you're on pretty shaky footing. All three agree that (by far) the lowest anomalies have occurred in the past dozen years.

Anomalies didn't touch -1C until 1987, but have been there or less half the time since 1996. I would call that a long-term trend.

So far as surface anomalies go, the anomaly has been positive since 2002. Surface anomalies had not been positive for more than two years at a time prior to then, much less for five years at a time. Pretty stable. The average anomaly for the past five years is about on par with most of the highest anomaly peaks prior to the strong El Nino of 1998. A short period of time, yes, but an event very worthy of note.

Significant trends in both graphs, and they don't even start at 1970 as is the common complaint. I would like to see what the surface temps were like prior to the spike in 1958 though.

It looks like temperatures are about the same now as they were in 1970, so there may be nothing to the trend long term.

Patrick,

Come now, you're comparing the lowest stratospheric anomaly from the first 14 years of the graph to the highest anomaly in the past 13? You know that's not giving an accurate picture.

How do you explain away the fact that there hasn't been a positive anomaly in the HadAT 2 line in the lower stratosphere since Pinatubo? If you're going to argue that the UAH and RSS data do (once and twice, respectively), you're on pretty shaky footing. All three agree that (by far) the lowest anomalies have occurred in the past dozen years.

Anomalies didn't touch -1C until 1987, but have been there or less half the time since 1996. I would call that a significant long-term trend.

So far as surface anomalies go, the anomaly has been positive since 2002. Surface anomalies had not been positive for more than two years at a time prior to then, much less for five years at a time. Pretty stable. The average anomaly for the past five years is about on par with most of the highest anomaly peaks prior to the strong El Nino of 1998. A short period of time, yes, but an event very worthy of note.

So we have noticeable trends in both graphs, and they don't even start at 1970 as is the common complaint. I would like to see what the surface temps were like prior to the spike in 1958 though.

The Detroit auto industry is dead when American consumer demand kicks the bucket in less than a decade. I've been trying to lobby Ontario's auto industry to build wind turbines or tiny cars for the Indian/Chinese market; Michigan should do likewise.

Oh yeah, welcome to the 20th Century US House of Representatives.

"Come now, you're comparing the lowest anomaly from the first 14 years of the graph to the highest anomaly in the past 13? I didn't expect that even from you."

That's why they call him Patrick 'Cherry Pickin' Henry.

LOL....as expected, I'm really enjoying -- and laughing at -- the usual anti-government tirades by our fellow deniers. And the overly-dramatic descriptions of the resurrection of Communism and how we're all going to starve to death because of CO2 regulations.