Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[FLVOL69]

oh, and by the way, the data doesn't give them the results they wanted so they adjusted it. How scientific.

sop

 

[Weezy]

So if I understand the new EPA rules right, existing nuclear went from being credited an absurd 6% to 0%. The only energy source denting current carbon emissions is not being counted. How is that possible? Gov't is so stupid. This plan encourages the early closure of nuclear plants, which will result in increased carbon emissions. I hope when this all happens, we ignore the government data, and use actual, un-fudged, emissions data.

 

[Weezy]

Devil's in the details: What's in the EPA's final Clean Power Plan | Utility Dive

The states and nuclear-heavy utilities took special exception to that part of the rule, and the agency responded, allowing the states to get credit for in-construction nuclear plants under the final plan. But the EPA stopped short of including calculations for nuclear plants in their baseline emissions rates for each state. While existing nuclear generation does keep CO2 emissions lower than they would otherwise be, the EPA said in its rule that the existing plants do not further reduce emissions. Because of that, it would be “inappropriate” to use existing nuclear generation to lower the carbon targets for states

.

That's BS. If existing plants is the issue, then why credit solar and wind or anything at all. That's not a reason at all. This should be really simple. Target = [CO2(today) - CO2(future) ]/ CO2(today) ...anything else is government nonsense.

 

[theFallGuy]

16 States Ask Obama Admin to Put Power Plant Rules on Hold - ABC News

 

[Sandvol]

16 States Ask Obama Admin to Put Power Plant Rules on Hold - ABC News

Love to see the states say no.

 

[FLVOL69]

Love to see the states say no.

$$$

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

According to an article at Townhall.com....those wildfires out in California is all due to climate change says President Obama. He says much of that is because of Global Warming causing higher temps & diminished water resources. I'm surprised California is not a desert by now w/sand dunes 30-40 feet high & camels running loose from their Arab owners that have invaded the state illegally.

 

[BartW]

What proof do you have that China is indeed cutting coal emissions ? Other than their economy has slowed down I can't see them doing it out of a sense of goodwill towards us or the environment.

China's coal use falling faster than expected

Some of it is economic slowdown (same goes for the US) but there is definitely a shift occurring in their energy market. The Chinese people are fed up with the pollution. Their government has been implementing new clean energy policies and is working on a national carbon market. They also made that historic climate agreement with Obama last year. And honestly, I think it’s more likely that they follow through on it than we do.

 

[BartW]

So no anthropogenic green house gases or aerosols and the Earth's temperature is static? How'd all those ice ages happen?

(Also, what about that deep ocean heat sink you guys keep clamoring about?)

Take another look at the figure. The tiny blue sliver (NAT) is the long-term cycle driving natural climate change. And ocean heat exchange falls under Internal Variability.

Both are pretty small, huh?

I've heard of Swiss cheese. Never heard of Dutch cheese.

Gouda? Limburger? Green Bay Packers?

If you're going for the full stereotype you mustn't forget the cheese

 

[BartW]

It's even better to watch Bart supporters like yourself come up every now and then to cheer on your champion while he is made to look like a fool over and over again. Bart wouldn't know true scientific data if it smacked him in the face. But hey, every Curly needs a Moe and Larry to help him out so, congrats.

After reading this post it's quite obvious where you stand. Oh and BTW, rebutting Bart's posts are a waste of time because anything that questions or refute his "data" he ignores. If anything refutable is posted and Bart doesn't agree, he inevitably posts silly retorts about science denialism, conspiracy theories and the tobacco industry. So there is that. But feel free to pop in and support Bart, he actually needs it.

I usually ignore these childish antics, as Kletus put it, but from you it's such grade-A irony I just have to call it out. Come on BOT, you’ve been cock-slapped up and down this entire forum on all things science. Whether it be climate change, vaccines, evolution, GMOs, or even HAARP, to name a few, you always find yourself on the wrong side of the ‘debate’. It’s not even politically motivated; you seem to buy into red and blue conspiracy theories just the same. And you yourself claim to be some sort of scientist?

 

[BartW]

So if I understand the new EPA rules right, existing nuclear went from being credited an absurd 6% to 0%. The only energy source denting current carbon emissions is not being counted. How is that possible? Gov't is so stupid. This plan encourages the early closure of nuclear plants, which will result in increased carbon emissions. I hope when this all happens, we ignore the government data, and use actual, un-fudged, emissions data.

Now we’re fudging emissions data? We don’t even know who the president will be if/when the plan goes into effect (in 2022), but there’s already a conspiracy afoot?

To clarify, the original 6% credit for existing nuclear was intended to rescue the 6% of our nuclear capacity that was considered at-risk of premature shutdown. The Clean Power Plan isn’t causing these early closures; they’re largely a result of low energy prices thanks to natural gas.

The fact that they’re not crediting existing nuclear is stupid though, don’t get me wrong. Nuclear (and all of us) would’ve been better off with a flat economy-wide carbon tax swap imo. $X per ton CO2 emitted – that’s simple, fair, and transparent. Use it to bargain for lowering other taxes. That’s been suggested in (and out of) Congress. States could still choose to do that, but it appears they're being encouraged to go the cap-and-trade route. There are more options still. But why debate the finer points of policy when we can keep playing charades, am I right?

It is nice that they decided to credit new nuclear though. Perhaps that will encourage the construction of more plants. It’s good news for Tennessee’s new nuclear plant, in any case.

 

[FLVOL69]

China's coal use falling faster than expected

Some of it is economic slowdown (same goes for the US) but there is definitely a shift occurring in their energy market. The Chinese people are fed up with the pollution. Their government has been implementing new clean energy policies and is working on a national carbon market. They also made that historic climate agreement with Obama last year. And honestly, I think it’s more likely that they follow through on it than we do.

Made a deal with Obama huh? I hope John Kerry and the Iranians aren't involved.. I trust those slant eyed bastards about as much as I trust the rag heads..good luck with that one

 

[Sandvol]

Gouda? Limburger? Green Bay Packers? If you're going for the full stereotype you mustn't forget the cheese

Yuk!

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I usually ignore these childish antics, as Kletus put it, but from you it's such grade-A irony I just have to call it out. Come on BOT, you’ve been cock-slapped up and down this entire forum on all things science. Whether it be climate change, vaccines, evolution, GMOs, or even HAARP, to name a few, you always find yourself on the wrong side of the ‘debate’. It’s not even politically motivated; you seem to buy into red and blue conspiracy theories just the same. And you yourself claim to be some sort of scientist?

This coming from a government stooge who believes creating graphs, posting links from salon.com and that everyone who even questions your "data" are science denialists and conspiracy theorists. I know you will keep up the fight there Al Gore Jr. Talk about being cock-slapped lol:lol:. You have looked worse than Obama taking a lie detector test about Benghazi in this thread. Kudos to you Gore Jr. Forgive me if I don't take any offence from you're comments.

 

[Sandvol]

Take another look at the figure. The tiny blue sliver (NAT) is the long-term cycle driving natural climate change. And ocean heat exchange falls under Internal Variability.

Both are pretty small, huh?

I thought the last ice age was pretty big?

 

[Sandvol]

China's coal use falling faster than expected

Some of it is economic slowdown (same goes for the US) but there is definitely a shift occurring in their energy market. The Chinese people are fed up with the pollution. Their government has been implementing new clean energy policies and is working on a national carbon market. They also made that historic climate agreement with Obama last year. And honestly, I think it’s more likely that they follow through on it than we do.

Genius. It's down 1.3% because of their economy. It has nothing to do with carbon reduction policies. Yes the story is a liberal conspiracy.

 

[Orangeslice13]

This coming from a government stooge who believes creating graphs, posting links from salon.com and that everyone who even questions your "data" are science denialists and conspiracy theorists. I know you will keep up the fight there Al Gore Jr. Talk about being cock-slapped lol:lol:. You have looked worse than Obama taking a lie detector test about Benghazi in this thread. Kudos to you Gore Jr. Forgive me if I don't take any offence from you're comments.

I found his delusional post humerus. So he's got that going for him.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I found his delusional post humerus. So he's got that going for him.

I am beginning to think Bart is on Obamas staff. I mean some of the things he has said are just beyond insane. But you're right, a lot of his posts are laughable.

 

[Weezy]

Now we’re fudging emissions data? We don’t even know who the president will be if/when the plan goes into effect (in 2022), but there’s already a conspiracy afoot?

To clarify, the original 6% credit for existing nuclear was intended to rescue the 6% of our nuclear capacity that was considered at-risk of premature shutdown. The Clean Power Plan isn’t causing these early closures; they’re largely a result of low energy prices thanks to natural gas.

The fact that they’re not crediting existing nuclear is stupid though, don’t get me wrong. Nuclear (and all of us) would’ve been better off with a flat economy-wide carbon tax swap imo. $X per ton CO2 emitted – that’s simple, fair, and transparent. Use it to bargain for lowering other taxes. That’s been suggested in (and out of) Congress. States could still choose to do that, but it appears they're being encouraged to go the cap-and-trade route. There are more options still. But why debate the finer points of policy when we can keep playing charades, am I right?

It is nice that they decided to credit new nuclear though. Perhaps that will encourage the construction of more plants. It’s good news for Tennessee’s new nuclear plant, in any case.

It's definitely fudging data. Let's say you are a heavy coal state with some nuclear. If you shut down the nuclear, and replace it with gas you have boosted your denominator, reducing the overall contributions of coal. Thereby increasing carbon emissions by replacing nuclear with gas while showing a decrease using the EPA guidelines. Government math.

In 20 years we will get to hear how the benevolent government saved our climate by reducing carbon emissions over 25% or whatever number they pull out of their asses. Meanwhile in the reality that most people outside of Washington live in, a majority of our nuclear capacity will have retired...resulting in a reduction of something far less than 25%.

But yeah, let's not worry about "future conspiracies," while regulations are written with bogus math.

 

[MG1968]

I am beginning to think Bart is on Obamas staff. I mean some of the things he has said are just beyond insane. But you're right, a lot of his posts are laughable.

He's on Obama's staff all right, but not in the way you think.

 

[FLVOL69]

He's on Obama's staff all right, but not in the way you think.

That's applicable to several other posters on here as well...

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

So was July the hottest eva? Or no?

 

[Sandvol]

So was July the hottest eva? Or no?

Hell no. Pun intended.

 

[BartW]

It's definitely fudging data. Let's say you are a heavy coal state with some nuclear. If you shut down the nuclear, and replace it with gas you have boosted your denominator, reducing the overall contributions of coal. Thereby increasing carbon emissions by replacing nuclear with gas while showing a decrease using the EPA guidelines. Government math.

In 20 years we will get to hear how the benevolent government saved our climate by reducing carbon emissions over 25% or whatever number they pull out of their asses. Meanwhile in the reality that most people outside of Washington live in, a majority of our nuclear capacity will have retired...resulting in a reduction of something far less than 25%.

But yeah, let's not worry about "future conspiracies," while regulations are written with bogus math.

I don’t think we’re on the same page. Based on your article it sounded like the dumb math is in regard to the specific emissions reduction target for each state. We're talking about the actual future emissions. Only time will tell whether the EPA’s plan will succeed, but the resulting emissions data are what they are. There is no fudging of the results.

When I was looking around the web the other day, nuclear folks generally appeared to be cautiously optimistic about the final rule. If we do end up retiring that 6-10% of our old nuclear as planned I don’t think it will hurt the emissions reductions scheme too much – especially if the new rules spur construction of new nuclear plants. I may be mistaken though. That’s the problem with these 1500+ page regulations: hardly anybody, including myself, is actually going to sit down and read it all (much less thoroughly analyze it). So far I haven’t seen anything beyond preliminary statements from nuclear officials. We’ll see I guess

 

[BartW]

So was July the hottest eva? Or no?

How'd you know?

Hottest July On Record Keeps 2015 On Track To Crush 2014 For Hottest Year

NASA reports this was the hottest July on record. So we are now in “bet the mortgage” territory that 2015 will be the hottest year in NASA’s 125-year temperature record.

In fact, 2015 is likely to crush the previous record — 2014 — probably by a wide margin, especially since one of the strongest El Niños in 50 years is adding to the strong underlying global warming trend.

Climate expert Dr. John Abraham updated this NASA chart to show how the first seven months of 2015 compares to the annual temperatures of previous years:

The gap between 2015 and all other years in that chart will grow since NOAA and many others project the current El Niño will keep growing stronger for many months. The soaring ocean temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, which are characteristic of an El Niño, just keep climbing.

As the journal Nature reports, this El Niño “could be [the] strongest on record.” It is projected to peak in the winter and last into the spring of 2016.

If the 2015-2016 El Niño does rival the 1997-1998 super El Niño, then just as 1998 crushed 1997 temperatures, we may see 2016 beat all the records set in 2015.