Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,176
#3,176
daysbtCat3plus2014-1024x662.jpg



Hurricane Season starts on Sunday

Atlantic hurricane season begins Sunday: Will record streak without major hurricane landfall end?

As of the start of this hurricane season, the span will be 3,142 days since the last U.S. major hurricane landfall. The previous longest span is about 2½ years shorter!
Click to expand...
 
#3,177
#3,177
BartW said:
SandVol, do you really not see the irony in calling a Republican idea Marxist? Republicans were pro- cap-and-trade even just a few years ago, before they began pandering to the Tea Party.

Cap-and-trade and the carbon tax are free market solutions because the government doesn’t tell companies how to reduce their pollution, a la the democrats’ command & control style environmental regulations of the 70’s. It allows companies to decide for themselves how to most efficiently cut emissions. This requires far less regulators than C&C systems, thus shrinking the EPA. Revenue would be returned to the public through tax cuts or rebates. This ensures that the necessary pollution cuts are made at the lowest possible cost to the economy. It’s a tried-and-true policy. If you have a better idea we're all ears, but denying the problem exists is not a solution.

Calling cap-and-trade Marxist is loony Tea Party propaganda and reveals just how desperate the climate denial campaign has gotten.
Click to expand...


Articles: Cap and Trade: The Big Con
 
#3,178
#3,178
govols/cc said:
Isn't climate based on the pattern of weather in an area? When you have variances in both directions but still remain fairly constant overall what exactly is changing?
Click to expand...
Climate shapes weather, not the other way around. Climate is based on planetary scale heat exchange.
Sandvol said:
If they're free-market solutions then Congress doesn't need to get involved then. Right?
Click to expand...
You serious Clark?
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Hurricane Season starts on Sunday

Atlantic hurricane season begins Sunday: Will record streak without major hurricane landfall end?
Click to expand...
It should be a quiet Atlantic hurricane season this year with El Nino brewing. The US has been lucky with hurricanes lately (except Sandy) but it’s hardly part of a larger trend. Last year we saw the strongest storm to ever make landfall in Typhoon Haiyan, killing over 6000. Our time will come again...
BigOrangeTrain said:
Articles: Cap and Trade: The Big Con
Click to expand...
Impressive waste of internets, I see where SandVol gets his rhetoric. Does yall’s BS sensor not tingle even a little when you read pieces like this?
 
#3,181
#3,181
So have we had an El Nino for the past 3143 days?

Also Global Cyclonic Activity is near all time lows, and would have broken record lows if not for Haiyan. The trend is clear, cyclones are getting weaker. There were multiple typhoons that were stronger than Haiyan
 
#3,182
#3,182
VolsNSkinsFan said:
So have we had an El Nino for the past 3143 days?

Also Global Cyclonic Activity is near all time lows, and would have broken record lows if not for Haiyan. The trend is clear, cyclones are getting weaker. There were multiple typhoons that were stronger than Haiyan
Click to expand...

The last El Nino was 2009-2010. It is well-established that El Nino diminishes hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin. Wind shear and science and such. Just sayin.

Haiyan was the strongest storm ever to make landfall. It is incorrect to say that "Global Cyclonic Activity", whatever you mean by that (PDI, ACE, # named storms?), is decreasing. And it's rather misleading to trot out that "no major US hurricane landfalls since 2005" statistic when there were numerous such storms in 2005 and more borderline (non)major yet extremely costly storms since like Ike, Irene, and Sandy.

All that said the impact of global warming on hurricanes is still a hotly debated topic. The reality of AGW, on the other hand, is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,183
#3,183
global_major_freq.png


Looks like we are getting less

global_running_ace.png


And they are getting weaker too

Also Sandy was a subtropic low, not a hurricane
 
Last edited:
#3,184
#3,184
BartW said:
The last El Nino was 2009-2010. It is well-established that El Nino diminishes hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin. Wind shear and science and such. Just sayin.

Haiyan was the strongest storm ever to make landfall. It is incorrect to say that "Global Cyclonic Activity", whatever you mean by that (PDI, ACE, # named storms?), is decreasing. And it's rather misleading to trot out that "no major US hurricane landfalls since 2005" statistic when there were numerous such storms in 2005 and more borderline (non)major yet extremely costly storms since like Ike, Irene, and Sandy.

All that said the impact of global warming on hurricanes is still a hotly debated topic. The reality of AGW, on the other hand, is not.
Click to expand...

Sigh. The strongest in the last 100 years. The earth has been around a while.
 
#3,185
#3,185
BartW said:
I’m surprised nobody’s shown up to ***** about the EPA’s new climate change plan. Look what happens when you lead by example:

One Day After U.S. Announces Emissions Target, China Says Carbon Cap Is On The Way
U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change
Click to expand...

Anything this tyrannical Executive Branch does can be easily reversed when we get a conservative President. If I were the States I wouldn't comply with any of their new rules.

P.S.-Too bad the people of China have no say. That's what you get when you live in tyranny.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,186
#3,186
Fabulous article by Dr. Spencer:

It’s hard to find anything new to say about the new EPA rules being announced by the Administration today that seek to lower CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by 30% by 2030.

Job-killing, poverty-exacerbating, electricity rate-raising, unmeasurable temperature-benefitting. And with no demonstrable technology for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), there is no way to make coal-fired plants meet the new rule.

But these objections are just, so, you know…old school. I mean, we need nice shiny new energy technologies that don’t pollute. Technologies that aren’t promoted by tobacco scientists like me. That make our roadways clean, Green and hi-tech. Without all of that nasty “carbon pollution” (sounds dirty, doesn’t it?).

As some of us try to list all of the reasons why such regulations are not just a waste of time, but also damaging to human health and welfare, there is a sizeable fraction of people who are easily duped by what sounds good to them.

Carbon dioxide, contrary to what you might have learned in school many years ago, is now a pollutant. It doesn’t matter that recent warming and CO2 increases have also led to greening of the Earth since CO2 (now standing at 4 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere) is necessary for life on Earth. No, rather than real, demonstrated benefits of more atmospheric CO2, we instead have to worry about theoretical risks of more CO2.

I’ve met a whole new batch of these easily-duped people in the last few days who have left over 700 comments on my blog posts (here and here) where I pointed out that sane people shouldn’t be taking perfectly good solar collectors, normally tilted toward the sun to increase energy generation and kept reasonably clean and protected, and putting them in road surfaces to be repeatedly run over by heavy, dirty cars and trucks.

Apparently, I’m part of the problem rather than the solution. Part of the old, discredited way of doing things. Time to embrace the future, Dr. Roy.

So, I’ve been thinking about how this new EPA power plant rule will play out.

First of all, after an obligatory EPA 1-year comment period and then even more time for the states to decide how they might want to achieve the goals of the rule, it’s going to be after the next presidential election before we actually see substantial changes in coal-fired generation resulting from the rule.

How convenient. Old plants are already being shuttered in favor of gas-fired plants, which are currently cheaper. So what’s the point of the new regulations?

Well, what might well happen is this. Ten years down the road, “global warming” will turn out to be (surprise!) much weaker than predicted. Since we know the climate models that predicted much greater warming can’t be wrong, it must be those new EPA regulations back in 2014 that solved the problem!

We really can control the climate system! We did something…and it worked…retroactively!

It doesn’t really matter which came first, or what-caused-what. It didn’t matter for the ice core record of temperature changes coming before CO2 changes, and it won’t matter for this, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,194
#3,194
hog88 said:
Yes abolish the Fed EPA, let the states handle it. There's always the courts to resolve disputes.
Click to expand...

I agree; however, I consider that restructuring. There would still be an EPA over any given space to protect the environment.
 
#3,197
#3,197
PKT_VOL said:
I agree; however, I consider that restructuring. There would still be an EPA over any given space to protect the environment.
Click to expand...

The EPA doesn't protect the environment. They almost always act after the fact. It's our Constitution and free society that protects the environment. See what a crushed country will do for the environment.
 
#3,198
#3,198
phgt3w.jpg


Funny you mention “the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer” again. He made news writing another fabulous op-ed in the WSJ last week attempting to downplay the consensus. Roy’s co-author was tobacco shill Joe Bast: co-founder, president, and CEO of the Heartland Institute (the [un]thinktank that ran that infamous billboard campaign).

61.jpg


Roy “global warming Nazis” Spencer fits right in with Bast, Monckton, Singer, Watts, and the rest of the clowns over at Heartland. Maybe if you practice your rhetoric enough they’ll pay you too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,199
#3,199
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains How Republicans Blew It on Climate Change

And yet, many members of our species still deny that the globe is warming thanks to human activities—a point that Cosmos has not only made a centerpiece but that, the program has frankly argued, threatens civilization as we know it. Tyson is know for being fairly non-confrontational; for not wanting to directly argue with or debate those who deny science in various areas. He prefers to just tell it like it is, to educate. But when we talked he was, perhaps, a little more blunt than usual.

"At some point, I don't know how much energy they have to keep fighting it," he said of those who don't accept the science of climate change. "It's an emergent scientific truth." Tyson added that in the political sphere, denying the science is just a bad strategy. "The Republican Party, so many of its members are resistant to embracing the facts of climate change that the legislation that they should be eager to influence, they're left outside the door," said Tyson. "Because they think the debate is whether or not it's happening, rather than what policy and legislation can serve their interests going forward."

You can argue, in fact, that that is exactly what happened this week. One day after Cosmos' highly rated climate episode aired, the EPA announced its new regulations for power plant carbon dioxide emissions. The whole reason that the Obama administration went this route—regulating carbon via the Clean Air Act—was that climate legislation (the first option, and the more desirable option) was impossible. The legislative math didn't work. It would never pass.

Now, Republicans are extraordinarily upset by the EPA's rules, as the agency moves in to fill a legislative vacuum. But thanks to their denial, they may well have lost their chance to find a more ideologically desirable solution, like a carbon tax.
Click to expand...

NDT tellin it like it is

black_science_man_wallpaper_by_zaros_bobthecat-d7c6eg6.png
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top