Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[VOLatile]

The guy took more than a couple of days off. He disappeared for months at a time and was the highest paid person at the EPA. He belongs in a loony bin after getting out of jail

No crap? You can't call his a science fraud if his science work hasn't been found Ti be fraudulent, though. I'm not even sure why you hashtagged the words, either.

 

[VOLatile]

So, you think they thrive during a glacial period? Do you have any evidence to support that?

I stated no such thing. Provide me the evidence I asked for first.

 

[Sandvol]

I stated no such thing. Provide me the evidence I asked for first.

For crying out loud there are several sites on the internet. Don't understand some of you people. So, you're saying this is the first time you've heard of this? You do understand plants consume CO2? Simple Google search will pop several sites but you demand I show you evidence as if you've never read that. And, when I do you'll just say it isn't substantive or there's something wrong with it. Do your own search.

 

[Sandvol]

They thrive? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Because we're currently in the middle of the 6th, and largest, mass extinction event. Species are dying at unprecedented rates. I can't say that that's all man-made, but there's an undeniable amount caused by pollution and deforestation, among other factors. Humans are the only species on earth that are "thriving" and we'll eventually meet the carrying capacity and begin a decline. Maybe not in the near future, but it'll happen.

Fact or Fiction?: The Sixth Mass Extinction Can Be Stopped - Scientific American

So, this is what you are talking about? The 6th largest mass extinction? So 322 animals have gone extinct since 1500 and they are calling this a mass extinction? So, you're implying CO2 killed off the Do Do Bird, Mexican Grizzly Bear or the Passenger Pigeon? When we have another ice age this will look like child's play. I want it to stay warm so we won't have a mass extinction.

 

[BartW]

It means that the science isn't settled and the US is poised to destroy it's economy because people like Bart have politicized the debate.

Preaching to the choir, slick. Just try to convince Bart that the science isn't settled.

1. Science was wrong before. Science is never “settled”. But that doesn’t mean we can never make an informed decision about anything.

2. Much of the world already has some form of carbon pricing and everyone else figured out how to do it without ‘destroying the economy’. The exact same talking point was parroted by those attempting to thwart regulation on DDT, leaded gasoline, CFCs, SO2, etc. and those (dare I say) *alarmist* predictions never came to fruition.

3. I’ve asked SandVol before (and would still like to see his reply): when did the science become politicized? Was it a liberal plot when Joseph Fourier first wrote about the greenhouse effect in 1824? When John Tyndall experimentally demonstrated it in 1864? Or when Arrhenius first calculated climate sensitivity to CO2 in 1896? Or in 1917 when Alexander Graham Bell predicted the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming?

That was all 100-200 years ago. Climate denial didn’t go mainstream in the GOP until about 5 years ago. This used to be a bipartisan issue. What happened?

And what exactly do you think is my ideaological motivation? Rah rah science? I’m libertarian. I’m a geologist. The fossil fuel industry is the single largest employer in my field and I have good friends in O&G. We do business with O&G.

Look I admit we all have our biases, but it truly breaks irony meters everywhere when y'all blame me for politicizing the debate.

 

[BartW]

The latest global warming bill and the Republican conundrum

The senate proposed a new bill to establish a revenue-neutral carbon tax which would replace Obama's cap-and-trade executive order. This is the sort of bill republicans should get behind and work with!

Climate change is real and some sort of legislation is coming, like it or not. Everyone knows it, even big oil knows it. So if conservatives want to further their political interests they'll have to engage in honest and open discussion. Sadly I expect we'll be hearing a lot more "I am not a scientist" rhetoric in the near future.

 

[BartW]

Introducing the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act

Good read, found this part particularly relevant to a point I was making earlier...

George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson gave the same message earlier this year, saying, “A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure.

“Republicans must not shrink from this issue,” he continued. “Risk management is a conservative principle.”

Hank Paulson is not alone. Conservative figures like George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, emphatically support a carbon fee as the best way to address carbon pollution.

Art Laffer, one of the architects of President Reagan’s economic plan, had this to say about a carbon tax and related payroll tax cut: “I think that would be very good for the economy and as an adjunct, it would reduce also carbon emissions into the environment.”

In a 2013 New York Times op-ed, four former Republican EPA Administrators—Bill Ruckelshaus, Christine Todd Whitman, Lee Thomas, and William Reilly—wrote, “A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.” I ask unanimous consent that their op-ed be entered into the Record.

I know the big carbon polluters want this issue ignored. They want to squeeze one more quarter, one more year of subsidy from the rest of us. Lunch is good when someone else picks up the check.

But I still believe this is a problem we can solve. Mr./Madam President, not long ago, this would have been a bipartisan bill. Not long ago, leading Republican voices agreed with Democrats that the dangers of climate change were real. Leading Republican voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit. And leading Republican voices agreed that Congress had the responsibility to act.

One Republican senator won his party’s nomination for president on a solid climate change platform. A number of our Republican colleagues in the Senate introduced, cosponsored, or voted for climate legislation in the past. Some of the proposals were market-based, revenue-neutral tools, aligned with Republican free-market values.

The junior Senator from Arizona, a Republican, was an original cosponsor of a carbon fee bill when he served in the House of Representatives. That proposal, introduced with former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, would have placed a $15-per-ton fee on carbon pollution in 2010, more than $20 in 2015, and $100 in 2040. At the time, our colleague from Arizona had this to say: “If there is one economic axiom, it’s that if you want less of something, then you tax it. . . . Clearly it’s in our interest to move away from carbon.”

We simply need conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work together, in good faith, on a platform of fact and common sense. We know it can be done, because it’s been done.

 

[508mikey]

Thanksgiving Storm Leaves 248K in Darkness From West Virginia to Vermont - NBC News happy thanksgiving Bart W

 

[Sandvol]

1. Science was wrong before. Science is never “settled”. But that doesn’t mean we can never make an informed decision about anything.

2. Much of the world already has some form of carbon pricing and everyone else figured out how to do it without ‘destroying the economy’. The exact same talking point was parroted by those attempting to thwart regulation on DDT, leaded gasoline, CFCs, SO2, etc. and those (dare I say) *alarmist* predictions never came to fruition.

3. I’ve asked SandVol before (and would still like to see his reply): when did the science become politicized? Was it a liberal plot when Joseph Fourier first wrote about the greenhouse effect in 1824? When John Tyndall experimentally demonstrated it in 1864? Or when Arrhenius first calculated climate sensitivity to CO2 in 1896? Or in 1917 when Alexander Graham Bell predicted the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming?

That was all 100-200 years ago. Climate denial didn’t go mainstream in the GOP until about 5 years ago. This used to be a bipartisan issue. What happened?

And what exactly do you think is my ideaological motivation? Rah rah science? I’m libertarian. I’m a geologist. The fossil fuel industry is the single largest employer in my field and I have good friends in O&G. We do business with O&G.

Look I admit we all have our biases, but it truly breaks irony meters everywhere when y'all blame me for politicizing the debate.

What did Tyndall demonstrate in 1864?

 

[Sandvol]

1. Science was wrong before. Science is never “settled”. But that doesn’t mean we can never make an informed decision about anything.

2. Much of the world already has some form of carbon pricing and everyone else figured out how to do it without ‘destroying the economy’. The exact same talking point was parroted by those attempting to thwart regulation on DDT, leaded gasoline, CFCs, SO2, etc. and those (dare I say) *alarmist* predictions never came to fruition.

3. I’ve asked SandVol before (and would still like to see his reply): when did the science become politicized? Was it a liberal plot when Joseph Fourier first wrote about the greenhouse effect in 1824? When John Tyndall experimentally demonstrated it in 1864? Or when Arrhenius first calculated climate sensitivity to CO2 in 1896? Or in 1917 when Alexander Graham Bell predicted the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming?

That was all 100-200 years ago. Climate denial didn’t go mainstream in the GOP until about 5 years ago. This used to be a bipartisan issue. What happened?

And what exactly do you think is my ideaological motivation? Rah rah science? I’m libertarian. I’m a geologist. The fossil fuel industry is the single largest employer in my field and I have good friends in O&G. We do business with O&G.

Look I admit we all have our biases, but it truly breaks irony meters everywhere when y'all blame me for politicizing the debate.

It is a constant moving target with the liberals but it was longer than 5 years ago. It is difficult to keep up with the statists desultory approach. It is from one cause to the next. When the democrats won control of Congress and the White House and threatened carbon taxes that is what kicked into full gear. We don't want this to happen and any of Obama's executive orders can be rescinded in two years.

 

[Sandvol]

I stated no such thing. Provide me the evidence I asked for first.

What prescient news!

Colorado mastodon bones show ancient warmer Earth

 

[VOLatile]

For crying out loud there are several sites on the internet. Don't understand some of you people. So, you're saying this is the first time you've heard of this? You do understand plants consume CO2? Simple Google search will pop several sites but you demand I show you evidence as if you've never read that. And, when I do you'll just say it isn't substantive or there's something wrong with it. Do your own search.

Fact or Fiction?: The Sixth Mass Extinction Can Be Stopped - Scientific American

So, this is what you are talking about? The 6th largest mass extinction? So 322 animals have gone extinct since 1500 and they are calling this a mass extinction? So, you're implying CO2 killed off the Do Do Bird, Mexican Grizzly Bear or the Passenger Pigeon? When we have another ice age this will look like child's play. I want it to stay warm so we won't have a mass extinction.

I did not imply that CO2 killed off anything. Animals are not the only thing going extinct. Plant species are going extinct at a much higher rate from various factors, including deforestation and pollution. Eventually that will lead to even more animal extinction, and who really knows how many unidentified species have gone extinct.

The bold is a ridiculous statement.

 

[tumscalcium]

What prescient news!

Colorado mastodon bones show ancient warmer Earth

Impossibly. Absolutely impossible.

 

[Sandvol]

I did not imply that CO2 killed off anything. Animals are not the only thing going extinct. Plant species are going extinct at a much higher rate from various factors, including deforestation and pollution. Eventually that will lead to even more animal extinction, and who really knows how many unidentified species have gone extinct.

The bold is a ridiculous statement.

So, you think if it cools 10 degrees Celsius we won't have a mass extinction?

 

[BartW]

What did Tyndall demonstrate in 1864?

Many things, but I was off on that date. Tyndall discovered the relative IR absorption properties of gases in 1859 and published his result in 1861.

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

It is a constant moving target with the liberals but it was longer than 5 years ago. It is difficult to keep up with the statists desultory approach. It is from one cause to the next. When the democrats won control of Congress and the White House and threatened carbon taxes that is what kicked into full gear. We don't want this to happen and any of Obama's executive orders can be rescinded in two years.

Ok, so the climate discussion really became politicized around the time Obama took office and the GOP flip-flopped on cap and trade (not carbon tax btw). Now who exactly was it that politicized the debate? And are the 150+ years of research prior to Obama still valid?

 

[BartW]

Thanksgiving Storm Leaves 248K in Darkness From West Virginia to Vermont - NBC News happy thanksgiving Bart W

Happy thanksgiving everyone. Stay warm

 

[Sandvol]

Many things, but I was off on that date. Tyndall discovered the relative IR absorption properties of gases in 1859 and published his result in 1861.

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on


Ok, so the climate discussion really became politicized around the time Obama took office and the GOP flip-flopped on cap and trade (not carbon tax btw). Now who exactly was it that politicized the debate? And are the 150+ years of research prior to Obama still valid?

You remember a movie the statists were trumpeting called "An Inconvenient Truth?" Also, so John Tyndall discovered CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, fluorocarbons, methane, NOX, along with some others probably. The thing is the absorption of IR by CO2 is negligible. We've done a good job with the fluorocarbons which were probably the predominant issue.

 

[BartW]

You remember a movie the statists were trumpeting called "An Inconvenient Truth?" Also, so John Tyndall discovered CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, fluorocarbons, methane, NOX, along with some others probably. The thing is the absorption of IR by CO2 is negligible. We've done a good job with the fluorocarbons which were probably the predominant issue.

That’s funny, I seem to recall you describing the Montreal Protocol as environmental whackoism and ‘the one blemish on Reagan’s record’. The thing is the absorption of IR by CO2 is not negligible. It's a precisely measurable quantity. And as you can see in this figure from AR4

CFCs only contribute a radiative forcing ~20% of the forcing due to CO2.

I tried watching An Inconvenient Truth when I ran out of stuff on Netflix a few years ago. I only got about 30 minutes in; Al Gore's lecturing is unbearable. But still, many prominent republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, (the list goes on)... many republicans remained positive about cap and trade after Al Gore's film. It wasn't until Obama was elected imo when the climate discussion really soured in America. Either way, we agree it happened pretty recently right? Gore's film was 2006

 

[BartW]

Pope Francis backs global efforts to tackle climate change - Head of Catholic church says global warming is a “social justice” issue, confirms encyclical on environment due in 2015

China Plans National Carbon Market by 2016 Amid Emission Pledge

 

[MG1968]

Pope Francis backs global efforts to tackle climate change - Head of Catholic church says global warming is a “social justice” issue, confirms encyclical on environment due in 2015

China Plans National Carbon Market by 2016 Amid Emission Pledge

so?

 

[Sandvol]

That’s funny, I seem to recall you describing the Montreal Protocol as environmental whackoism and ‘the one blemish on Reagan’s record’. The thing is the absorption of IR by CO2 is not negligible. It's a precisely measurable quantity. And as you can see in this figure from AR4

CFCs only contribute a radiative forcing ~20% of the forcing due to CO2.

I tried watching An Inconvenient Truth when I ran out of stuff on Netflix a few years ago. I only got about 30 minutes in; Al Gore's lecturing is unbearable. But still, many prominent republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, (the list goes on)... many republicans remained positive about cap and trade after Al Gore's film. It wasn't until Obama was elected imo when the climate discussion really soured in America. Either way, we agree it happened pretty recently right? Gore's film was 2006

So, an increase from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 has caused all these problems? I don't believe CO2 has any negligible effect and the temperature versus CO2 plots seem to indicate this. However CFC's are starting to drop and temperature appears to be trending with them.

Yeah and so what? I told you the Republicans are just trying to keep track of the statists' moving target.

 

[BartW]

So, an increase from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 has caused all these problems? I don't believe CO2 has any negligible effect and the temperature versus CO2 plots seem to indicate this. However CFC's are starting to drop and temperature appears to be trending with them.

But why is an increase of 1 molecule CO2 per 10,000 negligible while an increase of <1 CFC molecule per billion is not negligible? Physics doesn’t care if you believe it or not. Again, their absorption properties are well documented:

Papers on changes in DLR

It’s utter nonsense to argue CFC’s cause global warming via the greenhouse effect and ignore the larger greenhouse warming due to the much larger increase in CO2.

Yeah and so what? I told you the Republicans are just trying to keep track of the statists' moving target.

I was refuting MG’s assertion that it was ‘people like me’ that politicized the debate. I contend it was the grand ole party’s extreme post-election butthurt 2008-2009 that made them flip-flop on cap-and-trade and spiral into science denial.

I was also just wondering if you think science was a conspiracy before Obama. And if so, since when?

so?

The world is moving forward on the climate issue with or without you

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

No crap? You can't call his a science fraud if his science work hasn't been found Ti be fraudulent, though. I'm not even sure why you hashtagged the words, either.

Hilarious. The EPA probably hasn't even looked into it. The man has shown to be a fraud so his work is probably a fraud too. Quit "hoping and wishing" it isn't.

 

[Sandvol]

But why is an increase of 1 molecule CO2 per 10,000 negligible while an increase of <1 CFC molecule per billion is not negligible? Physics doesn’t care if you believe it or not. Again, their absorption properties are well documented:

Papers on changes in DLR

It’s utter nonsense to argue CFC’s cause global warming via the greenhouse effect and ignore the larger greenhouse warming due to the much larger increase in CO2.

I was refuting MG’s assertion that it was ‘people like me’ that politicized the debate. I contend it was the grand ole party’s extreme post-election butthurt 2008-2009 that made them flip-flop on cap-and-trade and spiral into science denial.

I was also just wondering if you think science was a conspiracy before Obama. And if so, since when?

The world is moving forward on the climate issue with or without you

Science started becoming used as a political tool in the last few decades. When I went to college the progressives were just starting to kick into overdrive on the campuses and academia. Now, they are fully entrenched. There is nothing really great going on in science right now. Technology and medicine-yes. Pure science no. And, especially since Obama has pulled the rug out from under NASA. Look at NASA now. They're a joke. So, science started moving into the political arena to get its funding especially in areas of physical science like climate change and evolution research and also the social sciences. Look at all the great scientists wasting their lives being complicit with the UN's political agenda. Ridiculous. Do you actually think the UN has peoples' best interests at heart? Hell no.

 

[Sandvol]

Also, on your notion the world is moving forward on the climate issue-you mean China? That is a joke.