Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Geoscientists identify trigger for Earth's last big freeze

With the US election on going it seems as if we are in a holding pattern when it comes to the ME wars.
Today is the day for something different

Ok, so these scientists think they have a handle on what caused the last big freeze...
What is not mentioned is what caused the warming prior to the thaw that caused the freeze.
Can't blame that on the masses!
So, what warmed the planet? And could that same mechanism have been in play at this time?
 Or should I say, in the near past,  because it looks as if the planet is getting cooler, yet again.
 A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period. A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period.




For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode (what caused the warming that melted the ice?) on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.

Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth's climate would have remained relatively unchanged.

"This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future," says Condron of UMass Amherst's Climate System Research Center. Findings appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Events leading up to the sharp climate-cooling period known as the Younger Dryas, or more familiarly as the "Big Freeze," unfolded after glacial Lake Agassiz, at the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet covering Hudson Bay and much of the Canadian Arctic, catastrophically broke through an ice dam and rapidly dumped thousands of cubic kilometers of fresh water into the ocean.

This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have halted the sinking of very dense, saltier, colder water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation, the thermohaline circulation, that transports heat to Europe and North America. The weakening of this circulation caused by the flood resulted in the dramatic cooling of North America and Europe

Using their high resolution, global, ocean-ice circulation model that is 10 to 20 times more powerful than previously attainable, Condron and Winsor compared how meltwater from the two different drainage outlets was delivered to the sinking regions in the North Atlantic. They found the original hypothesis proposed in 1989 by Wally Broecker of Columbia University suggesting that Lake Aggasiz drained into the North Atlantic down the St. Lawrence River would have weakened the thermohaline circulation by less than 15 percent.

Condron and Winsor say this level of weakening is unlikely to have accounted for the 1,000-year cold climate event that followed the meltwater flood. Meltwater from the St. Lawrence River actually ends up almost 1,900 miles (3,000 km) south of the deep water formation regions, too far south to have any significant impact on the sinking of surface waters, which explains why the impact on the thermohaline circulation is so minor.

By contrast, Condron and Winsor's model shows that when the meltwater first drains into the Arctic Ocean, narrow coastal boundary currents can efficiently deliver it to the deep water formation regions of the sub-polar north Atlantic, weakening the thermohaline circulation by more than 30 percent. They conclude that this scenario, showing meltwater discharged first into the Arctic rather than down the St. Lawrence valley, is "more likely to have triggered the Younger Dryas cooling."

Condron adds, "The results we obtain are only possible by using a much higher computational power available with faster computers. Older models weren't powerful enough to model the different pathways because they contained too few data points to capture smaller-scale, faster-moving coastal currents.
"Our results are particularly relevant for how we model the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets now and in the future. It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached. In addition, our work points to the Arctic as a primary trigger for climate change. This is especially relevant considering the rapid changes that have been occurring in this region in the last 10 years."

When Condron says and I quote " It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached."

What is Condron suggesting?

31 comments:

  1. Either I'm going blind or you missed the link to the article, but anyway here it is- http://www.sciencecodex.com/umass_amherst_climate_modeler_identifies_trigger_for_earths_last_big_freeze-101489

    'Last Big Freeze' hmm, I think that's a bit misleading. On a geological timescale it was more of a cold-snap. From Younger Dryas - the 20 thousand year chart temperature record you can see it as a perturbation at around 13,000 years ago. Also you can see there was a warm spell for a short while just before. These warm and cold perturbations are relatively short compared to the full ice-age cycle of ~120,000 years.

    For a broader perspective see the 400Kyear Vostok record (note time axis reversed compared to prior). That makes it very clear we should be very glad indeed we are in a warm spell! Also you can see we are probably near the end of the warm period. Also previous warm periods have been significantly warmer.

    " It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached."
    Just business as usual in 'climate science' Penny. The Climate Gate leaked emails have made it quite clear that it is routine for these 'scientists' to fiddle their models to get the required (Politically Correct) result. This is 'Post-Normal' science - an invention of the usual suspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Freethinker

      I did forget the link, thanks for providing it.
      Made it easier and now it is fixed!

      Thanks for the links to other articles

      You mean 'climate science' where the evidence fits the agenda?
      Like fixed intel??

      Delete
    2. More like just business as usual with all the contrarian conspiracy believers.
      "It's all a giant conspiracy! (To some readers of climate blogs)
      Some of the climate skeptic community has bought into conspiracy theories.
      The resistance to the findings of climate scientists can be a bit difficult to understand. Most evidence points to a human role in driving climate change, and a large majority of scientists are convinced by that evidence. Do people think that the scientific community is making things up?

      According to a study that has been accepted (but not yet published) by Psychological Science, the answer is yes, at least for some of those who frequent climate blogs. The study finds, as other studies have, that a strong free-market ideology correlates with a lower acceptance of climate change. But it also finds that, among readers of popular climate blogs, a tendency toward conspiracy theories plays a role in fostering doubt of the scientific community."

      http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/its-all-a-giant-conspiracy-to-some-readers-of-climate-blogs/

      Delete
    3. Anon, is there some part of the Vostok record that you don't understand? It shows 4 ice-age cycles over the past ~450,000 years. It is clear that there is nothing anomalous about our present age and it is equally clear that we will soon (in geological terms) plunge into another ice-age - there is no reason to suppose we won't.

      Perhaps Anon you are suggesting that the perpetual climate change over the last 400,000+ years was somehow man-made. Must have been those industrious Anunnaki, eh? ;)

      The Climate-Gate(1&2) email leaks proves that there was indeed (and presumably still is) widespread conspiracy within 'climate-science'.

      Delete
    4. "contrarian conspiracy believers"

      nice name calling
      ad hominems "conspiracy" abound with the man made global warming believers
      always

      one wonders why the 'believers' can accept that the government lies to start wars, to win elections, to abuse taxpayers
      BUT: the believers cannot believe that "man-made" global warming is just another lie
      A means to extract wealth and control the lives of the masses
      Where is the disconnect for the these believers?
      Why?
      Is it fear that causes the level of irrationality often seen amongst these individuals?
      I don't know?

      Delete
    5. Freethinker

      " are suggesting that the perpetual climate change over the last 400,000+ years was somehow man-made"

      the believers never have an answer to those questions
      thought the answer would most obviously be the sun, for starters.
      It is lost on the believers that here in the northern hemisphere, now that the sun has moved away, we are all heading into winter.
      When the sun moves closer to us, again, it will be spring and summer
      Because the sun affects our climate. Along with other factors of course, such as water currents
      Why has the earth cooled and warmed on several occasions?
      when mankind was but a speck of dust on this planet
      Never any answers as to what factors were at play in all those previous occurrences
      Just labels used out of fear

      Delete
    6. The idea that the vast majority of scientists are complicit in perpetrating a hoax is just ridiculous and the product of suspicous minds that obviously aren't well schooled in science. Scientists dedicated to climate science have been warning for decades about the consequences of raising atmospheric levels of CO2. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical. The observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) is warming, but the levels above, from the stratosphere up, are cooling, as less radiation is escaping out to space. This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion. The only explanation that makes sense is greenhouse gases. CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going down as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.
      We are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence).


      Delete
    7. anonymous: thanks for making my point so well for me
      No answers to the questions posed
      lots of name calling though.
      "the vast majority"?
      The article I posted had scientist who presented an alternative
      What is a 'vast majority'?
      A vast majority that get their money from government to build the case around a conclusion already chosen

      "This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion. "

      Well that's not true,cause why is it so dam cold right now?
      It is because we are heading to winter and the sun is not shining as directly on my little piece of the planet as it was.

      So how is it that the sun warms the entire atmosphere in "uniform" fashion

      Because that should indicate that the entire planet has the same climate all the time
      which is nonsense

      Then of course there is the role of water vapour?
      And how to explain all of the earths previous cooling and warming....
      I am waiting

      Delete
    8. You accuse skeptics of being the "product of suspicious minds."

      But aren't you describing the scientific method and critical thinkers? Is there no room for debate or questions in your view of the scientific method? Seems like you just want people to accept your conclusions without question by mocking those that even dare to question. Why not simply rebut the arguments or explain your position instead of mocking?

      Btw, I had previously shared your view . . . I am no scientific expert so I trusted the scientific consensus. But now, since I have evidence of other large 'conspiracies' (for lack of a better word), involving academia and the media, I am open to this being a conspiracy as well.

      For instance, look at WWII history. Academia is mostly sitting by quietly as historians serve time in jail for questioning the victor's version of history. They literally admit to burning books and evidence and engaging in propaganda (the "denazification" of Germany). The authority of academia was used to hide the truth. They are complicit and there is a forced yet subtle consensus imposed on historians.

      I'm applying logic when I suspect there are other areas of accepted wisdom that are false. It's illogical and unscientific for you to shout down skepticism.

      Delete
    9. Uniform heating refers to the upper and lower atmosphere, not the "entire" atmosphere encircling the globe. The widening differential in temperature when the sun shines directly, as in Summer, or obliquely, as in Winter, is the elephant in the room for AGW deniers. Funny how so many of your anti- AGW people are the very elites who you claim are foisting a hoax upon us all about climate change. Most of the funding for AGW Denial comes from Fossil Fuel lobbies and Industrialists who see any efforts to curb CO2 emissions as a threat to their profits. Never mind all the mind numbing arguments for or against, just look at the hard evidence that grows every year for the extremes in climate that were predicted decades ago when climate scientist started ringing alarm bells. There is no other industry more aware of the changes that are taking place than the Insurance Industry, who have to pay up for the increasing damage done by the long ago predicted outcome of changing the atmospheric chemistry.
      Scientists are already calling the era we live in The Anthropocene Era, because in many millions of years into the future the changes wrought by man will be evidenced in the geological strata. These are changes unprecedented in the entire 4.7 billion yrs history of the earth.

      Delete
    10. "Funny how so many of your anti- AGW people are the very elites who you claim are foisting a hoax upon us all about climate change. Most of the funding for AGW Denial comes from Fossil Fuel lobbies and Industrialists who see any efforts to curb CO2 emissions as a threat to their profits."


      This nonsensical claim has been debunked previously here
      And many other places
      The simple fact that big oil is right behind the carbon sequestration scheme...
      As just one example
      That is also a deflection or a strawman
      Waiting for you to answer the question on just what caused the earth to got through it's multiple cooling and warming periods when man was not a factor

      "These are changes unprecedented in the entire 4.7 billion yrs history of the earth."

      "unprecedented"? more nonsense.

      No matter what you promote the agenda of the elites

      You can repeat that there is 'hard evidence' but, there isn't
      There are claims and contradictions
      There are falsified emails and computer models
      'hard evidence' is lacking

      Delete
    11. http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/InvestorStatement_ClimateChange.pdf


      I am sure new zealand troll, you have already seen this???

      Delete
    12. " because in many millions of years into the future the changes wrought by man will be evidenced in the geological strata"


      yah, so? how is that anything different then what can be seen presently?

      What happened millions of years ago is evidenced on earth presently-
      the climate change
      the freeze
      the melt
      changes that were wrought not by man, so what brought them on?

      Perhaps in a million years, there will be no one to measure the blip of humanity in the life span of the planet
      One never knows?

      Delete
    13. There is indeed evidence for prehistoric climate changes caused by natural and cosmic influences. To believe that present day industrialized humans and their activities couldn't possibly have any influence on the delicate balance that is required for maintaining an environment suitable for our populous civilization is just ignorance. Would you deny that humans are responsible for mass extinctions, desertification, dustbowls, air and sea pollution, the creation of persistent molecules detrimental to nature etc etc.??? Being a person who maintains that Syrians involved in military actions against Assad are "practically non-existant" indicates you live in some alternative reality, outside the reach of the intellectual honesty and common sense required to understand the consensus of scientific argument for AGW. .

      Delete



    14. "There is indeed evidence for prehistoric climate changes caused by natural and cosmic influences"

      So how about now?


      "Would you deny that humans are responsible for mass extinctions"

      Humans are not responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs.


      Your muddying the waters. Is that all you have?

      Delete
    15. The part played by atmospheric CO2 in trapping heat and preventing the Earth from freezing over completely, as it has done in the past, is a well established scientific fact. Volcanic CO2 emissions rescued the Earth from one of its major freezes many millions of years ago. A lot of Science is about measurement and the increase in CO2 is by far the most likely suspect for the present warming we are witnessing.
      "Humans are not responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs."?????????? Duh, of course not, humans didn't exist 65 million years ago.

      Delete
    16. That's right. We didn't cause the extinction of dinosaurs.
      And likely lots of other creatures who became extinct for reasons unknown.

      You were muddying the waters. I wasn't running with it.

      Yah, I have something here about Co2 increases prior to previous warmings but humans weren't a factor then, you mention volcanoes.
      Therefore, how do we know for certain humans are a factor now?
      Answer: we do not.

      You know, I chuckled at this claim you made yesterday
      The utter absurdity of it.
      That it is big business pushing against AGW
      What a laugh
      As if government, anywhere would defy business, if that were really the case, which it isn't!
      -Governments wage wars, destroy, wantonly kill, run drugs and generally look the other way at all manner of trafficking so that their cronies can make profits.
      -Governments lie about the efficacy of vaccines and the safety of drugs so that pharmaceutical cartels can make money and harm people
      And you actually use such a nonsensical claim, business is against (funds) AGW (deniers), to prove your point?
      Patently absurd.

      Delete
    17. "Therefore, how do we know for certain humans are a factor now?
      Answer: we do not."

      Yes we do. I have already explained this, but obviously you didn't have a science based education. The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that the increase has come largely from fossil fuels and is consistant with estimated quantities of oil and coal burnt since the Industrial Revolution.

      You can chuckle all you want about my claim that it is big business pushing against AGW because no amount of chuckling can nullify the well known and documented truth of the lobbies that spend millions to influence politicians and cast doubts in the public's minds about human induced global warming.

      "Electric utilities, oil, gas, and mining industries spent over $500 million on lobbying between 2009 and 2010. That is big money but it pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars out there to be made in these industries. Exxon Mobil alone made over $40 billion in 2010.

      With this much at stake these industries will not stop telling us that we must accept their pollution if we want jobs, prosperity, and energy security.

      The fossil fuel industry uses any number of methods to keep their world intact including untruths, savvy PR and spin campaigns, paid scientists, generous contributions to elected officials — all intended to cast doubt, raise fear, and when in doubt, obfuscate.

      It is an ongoing war with numerous skirmishes and battles. The oil and gas industry spent $179 million in 2011 to ensure that legislation designed to fight climate change failed. Koch Industries, one of the largest fossil fuel conglomerates in the world, owned and operated by the Koch brothers, also paid scientists and others $24.9 million from 2005 to 2008 to deny climate change."
      http://blueocean.org/issues/opposition-to-clean-energy/
      Btw, dictators are known to spend big money on PR firms and the so called "Alternative Press" to influence the minds of the gullible by spreading outright lies. Now isn't that something that should make you truth seekers suspicious?.
      "Syria is another nation which has spent heavily while killing its citizens – and the story isn’t headline news as it should be daily. As has been previously reported, NY PR firm Brown Lloyd James has worked with Syria extensively to help Assad get away with murder (as they did with Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi.)"
      http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ronn-torossian/without-pr-firms-could-mideast-dictators-remain-in-power/


      Delete
    18. I'm sorry "front page mag"

      Front Page magazine
      had to check, just to make sure
      And yes, it is that front page magazine
      News from the Israeli lobby??? rofl
      seriously?
      don't waste my time

      Sorry the business angle has been debunked already
      I am not buying what your are selling
      Still waiting for the concrete evidence
      Not the concocted evidence

      Delete
    19. What more could one expect from a person who naively believes that "Syrians fighting against Assad are practically non-existant".{Truth exists; only lies are invented.}

      “Battle For Syria: View from the Frontline” – An Alternative Perspective. Russian Documentary

      "Yet, it is quite obvious that this project was developed in a very one-sided way. All these – often random – information was put together to make a case against the FSA. To be sure, the FSA is a western proxy! And Islamist groups do exploit its struggle. But to admit those things is one thing, and to diminish the struggle of the Syrian people against a repressive regime, is another. The FSA is only a reflection of the struggle – an armed reflection. To be calling all those who oppose the regime, or all those who participate in the FSA, insurgents, terrorists, mercenaries, bandits, and so on, is unacceptable. If we take a step back, we can see that the dead bodies of the snipers in the documentary do not look very much American or European – rather Arab. The voices on the radio were Arab too. The Turkish mercenary who was allegedly connected to Al-Qaeda was never proved to be a member of the FSA – nor a member of the Al-Qaeda, nor Turkish, for that matter.

      So, is there western propaganda on the Syrian conflict? Yes there is. Should one consider a twenty six (26) minute mini documentary made by a Russian[2] TV channel, to present the regime side of things, objective? I do not think so. It is certainly an important piece of alternative information and one should take it seriously under consideration when examining the facts. However, propaganda can only be cured with the truth. Anti-propaganda is not the truth."

      Delete
    20. Anonymous

      It is not a "belief"as you know. It is a conclusion based on all evidence gathered via msm reports, it is fact
      And backed up ample times by me, to you
      You simply ignore it

      Anti-propaganda is much closer to truth, despite your spin
      If you don't like it here, don't read and don't comment
      You never offer anything substantive anyway
      You promote endless reams of official doctrine and lobbyist propaganda.

      I am still laughing at the front page magazine reference
      OMG!

      Delete
  2. An aside: once when I had another piece up questioning the Agenda 21 promoting global warming/ global control and enforced austerity narrative
    there was someone leaving regular ad hominem/appeal to fear comments, it was not lost on me that the comments were left by someone at the Australian Tax office- governmental.
    Just couldn't wait for the extraction of money, I guess?

    Of course there are all those geo-engineering experiments that need addressing and no one ever does???



    ReplyDelete
  3. Western efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad shifted dramatically Wednesday, with Britain saying it will deal directly with rebel military leaders and Turkey saying NATO members have discussed protecting a safe zone inside Syria with Patriot missiles. British Prime Minister David Cameron, visiting a camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan, said the U.S., Britain and other allies should do more to "shape the opposition" into a coherent force and open channels of communication directly with rebel military commanders. Previously, Britain and the U.S. have acknowledged contacts only with exile groups and political opposition figures inside Syria.

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Nov-07/194256-obama-re-election-signals-new-phase-in-syria-war.ashx#axzz2BXoc39GH


    Oh and this
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-05/193927-briton-killed-in-motorcycle-crash-in-beirut.ashx#axzz2BXoc39GH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah anonymous 5:56 noticed the big shift in the news this am
      I was expecting it

      Delete
  4. The idea that the vast majority of scientists are complicit in perpetrating a hoax is just ridiculous and the product of suspicous minds that obviously aren't well schooled in science.


    adhominems galore
    How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously
    re-reading it
    good god, you create a narrative of personal slander right off the hop
    Are you a PR man/woman?

    That's not science your talking. That's slander.

    Scientists have been warning of ...
    global warming
    global cooling
    global dimming
    etc
    etc.,
    for decades
    Many, many times scientists are wrong.

    Scientists are easily influenced by who provides their funding
    Just a fact.
    Scientist have often been known and shown to lie to promote the agendas of their benefactors
    drug companies being one example that comes to mind
    For the drug companies have 'scientists' on their payroll who generate the results the drug companies want and hide the results that the drug companies do not want
    That is not "conspiracy" it is just a simple fact.

    Just as intelligence agencies have been known to make the intelligence fit the agenda

    Hopefully you can respond in a more concrete point by point manner?


    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And now Obama May Levy Carbon Tax. Of course there is no May-be about it - it is an important plank of the NWO agenda.

    I noticed in passing a reference to a 'Fiscal Cliff'. What Is the Fiscal Cliff? - the CFR is happy to explain.
    "The "fiscal cliff" is a term used in discussions of the U.S. fiscal situation to describe a bundle of momentous tax increases and spending cuts that are due to take effect at the end of 2012 and early 2013."

    Well if the CFR describes the tax increases as momentous I guess things are going to get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, I'm now seeing a flood of 'Fiscal Cliff' references. Did somebody open the sluice gates? That CFR article dates back to August have the MSM been keeping this quiet pre-election?

      Delete
    2. ah, a reason I overlooked for the re selection of Obama
      The "green" agenda
      Because carbon taxes are going to reduce Carbon how?
      Oh yeah, they won't

      An important plant of the NWO- indeed global impoverishment, control and global tyranny

      Delete
  7. Freethinker
    look another one

    http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/long-shot-us-carbon-tax-suddenly-part-of-fiscal-cliff-debate

    WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters Point Carbon) - A potential tax on big polluters, a taboo subject in the United States in recent years, has come back into the spotlight as some sense potential for a revenue windfall at a time lawmakers look for ways to the so-called "fiscal cliff" of tax rises and spending cuts due in early 2013.

    The aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated parts of the U.S. East Coast last week, has raised fresh questions about the links between climate change and extreme weather events, which also makes the idea of a carbon tax more appealing.

    A carbon tax is a mechanism to charge emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and oil refiners, for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit.

    Prospects for such a tax as a way to address pollution and climate are probably dim in a still deeply-divided Congress, but some analysts say the measure would be more attractive if positioned as a source of new revenue.

    In fact, a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, suggesting a $20 per ton tax on carbon emissions could halve the U.S. budget deficit over time.

    Such a tax would generate about $88 billion in 2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12 and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs, the report said.

    A handful of former Republican policymakers - ones most likely to reject new or higher taxes as a matter of principle - has been touting its potential to raise revenue for a cash-strapped federal budget.


    Touted by the Republicans? imagine that? ;)
    No seriously I bet you can't ;)

    In research notes after Tuesday's presidential election, analysts at global banks HSBC and Citigroup flagged a carbon tax as a program that could potentially emerge in President Barack Obama's second term.

    "One major fiscal possibility is a new carbon tax, which is likely to garner far more support this time around than at any time in the past and could become an appealing part of an emerging consensus on how to avoid the fiscal cliff," said a note from Citigroup's investment research group.
    ..............................

    I see the banksters are all hot for the carbon tax.
    And carbon trading
    Another market to bubble and burst,yah!

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS