Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[hog88]

Ugh..cap and trade..that literally does nothing to help stop emissions. Lets cap a companies limit on emissions BUT allow them to buy more allowances from others who are under their limits. Of course the brain dead left winger will think this could force companies to "innovate" and find better solutions with less emissions but it doesn't. Polluters keep on polluting while non polluters rake in the cash and sell their allowances.

I'm working on developing a massive dirt farm so I can start selling allowances to the highest bidder...

Get behind Al Gore and others promoting this.

 

[Rifleman]

Where do you get that Exxon is "agitating" for a carbon tax? Sounds to me that Exxon is saying that it would prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax over a cap and trade system as envisioned by Obama.

Why are they interested in having carbon taxed at all?

Makes no sense.

 

[MG1968]

Why are they interested in having carbon taxed at all?

Makes no sense.

You should rethink your reading comprehension. You seem to be smarter than Bart, I don't want to be proven wrong in that impression.

 

[McDad]

Why are they interested in having carbon taxed at all?

Makes no sense.

Why does Harrah's advertise for gamblers anonymous?

 

[Rifleman]

You should rethink your reading comprehension. You seem to be smarter than Bart, I don't want to be proven wrong in that impression.

Whose Bart? Simpson? I realize that most people see this issue though a political filter and that can make people very sensitive, but I really don't care who is right or wrong on that end.

Neither side has convinced me of their most radical claims and my experience is that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

I'm interested in data, causality, and predictive algorithms so climate perks my intellectual curiosity.

My reading comprehension can always improve, I'm sure. The CFC article you linked to looks interesting and I'll dig into that deeper, and I'll post anything else interesting I find.

 

[Rifleman]

Why does Harrah's advertise for gamblers anonymous?

That's usually part of the agreement with state/local guv went they drop a riverboat somewhere.

Hmmm. Not a bad analogy/explanation, though. Oil companies realize that some sort of tax is coming, so:

1) They won't get a consumption tax on the end user. We'd all freak out.
2) They want to avoid a cap and trade system.
3) They just go ahead and put it out there that they'll stomach a straight up carbon tax, which is the best of a few bad options.

I just figured they'd never even make that concession, but when you step back and consider that they are dealing with governments all over the globe . . .

yeah, it actually stabilizes investment when you know the parameters of a bad outcome and can get a bit of uncertainty behind you. Makes more sense in that light.

 

[MG1968]

Whose Bart? Simpson? I realize that most people see this issue though a political filter and that can make people very sensitive, but I really don't care who is right or wrong on that end.

Neither side has convinced me of their most radical claims and my experience is that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

I'm interested in data, causality, and predictive algorithms so climate perks my intellectual curiosity.

My reading comprehension can always improve, I'm sure. The CFC article you linked to looks interesting and I'll dig into that deeper, and I'll post anything else interesting I find.

You can't be serious.

 

[Rifleman]

Pro tip: We don't care about areas in red outside of America.

As best as I can tell from the map, I don't care about those areas in red within America.

If Florida and Bama went under tomorrow, I think the rest of us would have a parade.

 

[FLVOL_79]

As best as I can tell from the map, I don't care about those areas in red within America.

If Florida and Bama went under tomorrow, I think the rest of us would have a parade.

Its 49 out right now..we are about to turn into a tundra! Like..permafrost and sh!t.

 

[Rifleman]

Its 49 out right now..we are about to turn into a tundra! Like..permafrost and sh!t.

I've seen Floridians all but weep at 55, so my heart goes out to you.

We'll round up some tiny violins and wool-lined jorts and send them on down.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I've seen Floridians all but weep at 55, so my heart goes out to you.

We'll round up some tiny violins and wool-lined jorts and send them on down.

I'm still wearing shorts but if you saw people around here you would think a blizzard was coming.

 

[theFallGuy]

Its 49 out right now..we are about to turn into a tundra! Like..permafrost and sh!t.

The record low for November in Memphis was 9 degrees in 1950. Part of the impending ice age.

The record high was 86 degrees in 2000.

 

[Rifleman]

I'm still wearing shorts but if you saw people around here you would think a blizzard was coming.

:lolabove: When I lived in Iowa, I had a contract that took me to Florida every week for a year. People I worked with would show up shivering in parkas in Jacksonville and I'd be in a short sleeve shirt. It used to keep me in stitches laughing at them.

 

[BartW]

Ugh..cap and trade..that literally does nothing to help stop emissions. Lets cap a companies limit on emissions BUT allow them to buy more allowances from others who are under their limits. Of course the brain dead left winger will think this could force companies to "innovate" and find better solutions with less emissions but it doesn't. Polluters keep on polluting while non polluters rake in the cash and sell their allowances.

I'm working on developing a massive dirt farm so I can start selling allowances to the highest bidder...

Hmm then how come Ronald Reagan successfully employed cap-and-trade to fight lead pollution and ozone depletion? And what about Bush Sr. using it for acid rain?

I do agree with Exxon though - a revenue neutral carbon tax would be preferable.

 

[BartW]

Interesting thread.

It seems to me that any successful argument against human-made climatological effects would need to show that atmospheric carbon is NOT a contributor to the greenhouse effect. Agreed?

You may also want to argue that methane released from warming permafrost is not a potential contributor, but if you can establish that carbon is not a greenhouse gas this argument is over.

It seems on the surface that atmospheric carbon concentrations link to global temperature changes is very basic and unimpeachable science, but I assume there are some complications to the science I have not considered.

From my understanding Earth never would have been able to sustain life without the greenhouse effect as all the water on the surface would be ice otherwise, so it is a planetary fact critical to our survival long before any scientist ever pondered the issue.

Is there anyone here who can provide to a strong scientific explanation for why atmospheric carbon has no effect on climate? I appreciate input.

:good!:

That is excellent, news! This thread and this argument are over, then.

Are we just warming as a part of a natural cycle?

Where can I find a full explanation of the science that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

I'll pepper it out to all my contacts, asap.

These are excellent questions with, I'm sure, *excellent* answers. Maybe MG1968 can educate us more about how physicists have had it all wrong for the past 150+ years.

Can anyone link us a paper from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Or that greenhouse gases don't exist? Thanks in advance!

 

[FLVOL_79]

Hmm then how come Ronald Reagan successfully employed cap-and-trade to fight lead pollution and ozone depletion? And what about Bush Sr. using it for acid rain?

I do agree with Exxon though - a revenue neutral carbon tax would be preferable.

I'm not a scientist but I am pretty sure lead pollution and ozone depletion was reduced due to phasing out products that caused those things, like CFCs, lead based products, etc.

Cap and Trade is hocus pocus. Want to pollute more? Ok, buy credits from someone else who hasn't reached their cap yet. Why is this hard for people to get?

The whole trade part is BS. The idea is that instead of buying credits the polluter will find alternate ways of doing business with less pollution. The reality is they don't and just buy up credits from my 0 emission green dirt farm. Want to stop pollution? Have Cap and Fine.


$ = innovation, not high fives from hippies.

 

[FLVOL_79]

:good!:

These are excellent questions with, I'm sure, *excellent* answers. Maybe MG1968 can educate us more about how physicists have had it all wrong for the past 150+ years.

Can anyone link us a paper from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Or that greenhouse gases don't exist? Thanks in advance!

If I fart in my homemade greenhouse (yes I have one) does that count?

 

[MercyPercy]

My feet were cold when I woke up this morning. Checkmate, climate change loons.

 

[Rifleman]

:good!:

These are excellent questions with, I'm sure, *excellent* answers. Maybe MG1968 can educate us more about how physicists have had it all wrong for the past 150+ years.

Can anyone link us a paper from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Or that greenhouse gases don't exist? Thanks in advance!

MG1968 provided a link referencing a paper by Dr. Qing-Bin Lu from Univ of Waterloo which seems to indicate CFCs have a greater impact in current warming than previously understood.

This was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B, a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal. In fact, the early version of the paper received some criticism from climate scientists which Dr. Lu addressed in the peer review process as a prerequisite to publication and that conversation is shown on this non-partisan site created in response to the Bush administration's meddling in climate science:

Response by Qing-Bin Lu to

He is obviously a Physicist, not a climate scientist, so I think some of the rejection of his calculations on preliminary reading are a little territorial. He also isn't trying to quantify other possible negative effects of CO2 like ocean acidification, so he isn't trying to make the silly rah rah CO2 argument that I've seen those with an agenda try to make.

In short, this is perhaps the first interesting paper I've seen that provides an alternate explanation versus CO2 concentrations to recorded global warming. I imagine there are complicating factors which have not been considered, but this line of investigation deserves exploration.

 

[Rifleman]

If I fart in my homemade greenhouse (yes I have one) does that count?

Why do I suspect that you have already investigated this line of inquiry vigorously?

 

[BartW]

I'm not a scientist but I am pretty sure lead pollution and ozone depletion was reduced due to phasing out products that caused those things, like CFCs, lead based products, etc.

Cap and Trade is hocus pocus. Want to pollute more? Ok, buy credits from someone else who hasn't reached their cap yet. Why is this hard for people to get?

The whole trade part is BS. The idea is that instead of buying credits the polluter will find alternate ways of doing business with less pollution. The reality is they don't and just buy up credits from my 0 emission green dirt farm. Want to stop pollution? Have Cap and Fine.


$ = innovation, not high fives from hippies.

How do you think those products were phased out?
:yes:

The "Cap and Fine" system you suggest actually describes the democrats' Command and Control regulation of the 1970's. Emissions trading is a brainchild of the Reagan administration that largely superseded C&C. There's all sorts of crazy rhetoric out there nowadays but fact is many republicans supported cap-and-trade up until a few years ago. You seem confused about the nature of cap-and-trade, which is perfectly understandable considering that rhetoric. I advise you research it from an unbiased perspective... but good luck with the dirt farm!

 

[BartW]

MG1968 provided a link referencing a paper by Dr. Qing-Bin Lu from Univ of Waterloo which seems to indicate CFCs have a greater impact in current warming than previously understood.

This was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B, a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal. In fact, the early version of the paper received some criticism from climate scientists which Dr. Lu addressed in the peer review process as a prerequisite to publication and that conversation is shown on this non-partisan site created in response to the Bush administration's meddling in climate science:

Response by Qing-Bin Lu to

He is obviously a Physicist, not a climate scientist, so I think some of the rejection of his calculations on preliminary reading are a little territorial. He also isn't trying to quantify other possible negative effects of CO2 like ocean acidification, so he isn't trying to make the silly rah rah CO2 argument that I've seen those with an agenda try to make.

In short, this is perhaps the first interesting paper I've seen that provides an alternate explanation versus CO2 concentrations to recorded global warming. I imagine there are complicating factors which have not been considered, but this line of investigation deserves exploration.

Hmm not trying to be a butt, but I've read quite a bit of physics literature and I've never come across this journal. It turns out in 2013 (the year of publication), it's impact factor was the lowest of any physics journal (0.32). So it is in fact a pretty obscure journal. But hey, at least it is peer reviewed.

The comments at the bottom of the link you provided highlight some major flaws with the paper and provide references to more in-depth discussion. I could go into detail here, but I give it about a .002% chance that MG1968 actually read or even looked at the paper. I'll get into the nitty gritty if you're interested though.

Ultimately, however, it's all rather irrelevant to the posted question. The article does not address the IR radiative properties of CO2 which have been observed for >150 years.

 

[MG1968]

Hmm not trying to be a butt, but I've read quite a bit of physics literature and I've never come across this journal. It turns out in 2013 (the year of publication), it's impact factor was the lowest of any physics journal (0.32). So it is in fact a pretty obscure journal. But hey, at least it is peer reviewed.

The comments at the bottom of the link you provided highlight some major flaws with the paper and provide references to more in-depth discussion. I could go into detail here, but I give it about a .002% chance that MG1968 actually read or even looked at the paper. I'll get into the nitty gritty if you're interested though.

Ultimately, however, it's all rather irrelevant to the posted question. The article does not address the IR radiative properties of CO2 which have been observed for >150 years.

Go ahead, give us another link to wikipedia, Mother Jones, or Think Progress.

Again, you're pretty good at calling others out for using biased sources, but are all too willing to reference sources that regurgitate the same talking points that you do.

 

[BartW]

Go ahead, give us another link to wikipedia, Mother Jones, or Think Progress.

Again, you're pretty good at calling others out for using biased sources, but are all too willing to reference sources that regurgitate the same talking points that you do.

I'm not aware that "kofegeek" has a liberal bias. But it's not like I'm posting opinions here. Impact factor is a hard number. Cap-and-trade was implemented by Reagan and Bush to combat lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain. The greenhouse effect has been established physics since the 19th century. These are historical facts. If you wish to challenge my assertions you'll have to actually provide a counterargument. I'm perfectly willing to get into the nitty gritty of the nonsense y'all post and have done so on numerous occasions. All I ask is that you actually read the material you wish to discuss.

I post links to give you a little bit of background info and some key words so you can research all this yourself. That is my hope. Unfortunately Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart, etc. don't give due coverage to climate stories (such as the records we're breaking on a regular basis) so you're just going to have to deal with *liberal abominations* like wikipedia

 

[govols/cc]

I'm not aware that "kofegeek" has a liberal bias. But it's not like I'm posting opinions here. Impact factor is a hard number. Cap-and-trade was implemented by Reagan and Bush to combat lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain. The greenhouse effect has been established physics since the 19th century. These are historical facts. If you wish to challenge my assertions you'll have to actually provide a counterargument. I'm perfectly willing to get into the nitty gritty of the nonsense y'all post and have done so on numerous occasions. All I ask is that you actually read the material you wish to discuss.

I post links to give you a little bit of background info and some key words so you can research all this yourself. That is my hope. Unfortunately Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart, etc. don't give due coverage to climate stories (such as the records we're breaking on a regular basis) so you're just going to have to deal with *liberal abominations* like wikipedia

We just broke a record cold. Brrrrrrr