Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 Next
Comments 33451 to 33500:
-
Tom Curtis at 03:22 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Michael Sweet @45, this may have been the article you had in mind, although as explained in the article, the original exposition (as an analogy for tackling climate) comes from Richard Alley in Earth: The operator's manual, which I highly recommend.
-
Ashton at 02:54 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
I'm at a loss to know how better to express my view on CO2 other than stating again "However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant". Prior to that I had said "CO2 per se is not a pollutant" Perhaps it would have been better if I had written "at low concentrations CO2 is not regarded as a pollutant but at high concentrations is regarded as a pollutant". I had thought my command of the English language was reasonable but it appears I was mistaken.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Philippe... That echoes Steven Schneiders words quite well, where he said, "“We also knew that you had to stop using the atmosphere as an unpriced sewer to dump your smoke stack and tail pipe waste..."
Also interesting is the fact that, at this point, what we're talking about is probably <2% of GDP. It's a very similar problem.
-
michael sweet at 02:35 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom@37,
I once read an article (sorry, no cite) that discussed when sewers were first installed in major cities (specificly London). Deniers at the time said sewers would be too expensive and the human manure was being used as fertilizer on nearby farms so it would be unfeasible to bild sewers to take it away. New Your did not treat all its sewage until 1986!
Do these arguments remind you about AGW skeptic arguments at all? Sewage costs about 3% of GDP but most people feel that is a good investment. If we invested 3% in combating CO2 pollution we would see great straides made in containing this problem.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:07 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny says " people wanting other people to pay."
That is not the meaning of the word "investment." I have no problem at all with fossil fuel companies getting a return on their renewable energy investments in the future. There has been discussions before on other threads of how utilities are run in the US, and it unfortunately boils down to private companies telling the public: "you buy me a power plant and then I'll run like it's entirely mine." Talk about having others pay.
It reminds me of a situation in which mega banks and investment companies mismanage their money so badly that they're all about to go under and wreak most of the World economies along with themselves. So, the only option is using the public's money to salvage the whole mess. Having others pay. Such a bad thing, that is.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:59 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton @38, as the full quote of John Cook indicates, he was arguing that it was quite appropriate to call CO2 a pollutant. You, however, quote him without quoting the second sentence and use that isolated quote to suggest that calling CO2 a pollutant was inappropriate. Hence you were quoting him out of context. To be more specific, you might reasonably quote Cook as supporting the view that it is a matter of indifference as to whether you call CO2 a pollutant, or not. But that indifference does not support a condemnation of the use of the term as inappropriate, as you clearly try to force it to do when you write "If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred."
I apologize for my sentence which has caused you confusion. I miswrote it, and had intended to indicate that it was entirely appropriate to call the third effluent polution. I attribute my failure of copy editing to a bout of insomnia that has afflicted me over the last 24 hours (as you could probably determine from my posting times).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:53 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
About Tom Curtis post #34, for those who did not follow the link, let's point out that the figure for research spending is on annual basis, whereas the oil companies profit number is a quarterly result.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:50 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... "That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."
That is true of every substance known. In certain concentrations it is harmless. At other concentrations it causes harm. It's all of function of how we humans are changing the concentrations.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... "Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth..."
Radioactivity at natural background levels is also safe. It's at increased levels that it becomes hazardous. CO2 at natural levels, seen over the past 10k years, is perfectly fine and necessary. But that doesn't mean that doubling natural concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is safe. In fact, it has been very clearly determined to have potentially severe consequences.
There is little doubt that a business-as-usual emissions path that takes us past 4C over preindustrial would be horrendous. All from a gas "without [which] the earth would not support life as we know it..."
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:46 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
"That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."
It does not do this at all. It shows unambiguously (not "suggest") that J. Cook is aware of the roles of CO2 on Earth and of its overall negative effect when massively released on a short time scale. Ashton's spin tactics are of rather low quality. It is abundantly clear to me what Tom Curtis' opinion on what constitutes a pollutant is.
-
Ashton at 01:27 AM on 30 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom Curtis, the piece to which I refer is titled "Is CO2 a pollutant?" You could hardly class that as being "out of context" when I'm commenting on the conversation beteen you and Donny on CO2 It is in fact far more appropriate as a posting place for Donny than the article to which you refer.
The entire quote from John Cook in "Is CO2 a pollutant" is:
"How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity"
That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant
I cannot see what I have quoted out of context for, as you will notice, John Cook uses the adjective "increasing" to define what constitutes CO2 as a pollutant. That is exactly what I have done. Perhaps you might prefer the example of commensals and pathogens where a commensal, or a "non-pollutant" can become a pathogen, "a pollutant" if it translocates to an inappropriate place or is present in the appropriate place but in overwhelming amounts.
Finally I am entirely mystified by your comment "Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward" Surely that comment should be directed to the EPA raather than to me? As I thought I had made plain whether or not CO2 is classed as a pollutant largely depends on its concentration. In addition, it seems a total non sequitur to your comment "I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted". It is very unclear, at least to me, whether you regard CO2 as a pollutant or not.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:13 AM on 30 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
BarbaraB... The challenge here is that it's a little more complex than things just getting a little warmer. A small increase in global mean temperature actually increases the number of hot and extreme heat days per year, which can have strong negative impacts on crop production.
Then you have to add in what's known as arctic amplification, where the poles heat up faster than the equator.
Consider how challenging it is today, with good crop production, to feed 7 billion people on this planet. Up that number to 9 billion and throw in reduced crop production, now you have the recipe for political unrest, wars, and refugees attempting to escape those conditions.
Suddenly, a little bit of warming becomes a very big problem.
-
John Hartz at 00:44 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Moderator's Comment
Donny:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
BojanD at 00:37 AM on 30 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
Tom Curtis @6, exactly, you can go in circles forever if you concentrate on short term trends.
Tony @8, interesting point and I actually saw a denier response to this. They feign that 0.2 increase is nothing special since you sometimes see this kind of volatility on per-month basis. They think in trends when that suits them but quickly turn to noise when it doesn't. -
John Hartz at 00:33 AM on 30 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Moderator's Comment
Please refrain from responding to Donny's future posts until a Modrator has had time to review their content. Given Donny's propensity to repeatedly violate the SkS Comments Policy, his future posts are likely to be deleted. If they are, your responses to them will be deleted as well.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:08 AM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj,
My reply to your comment @49 has led me to come up with a different way of presenting my current best understanding of what is going.
Science and other fields of investigation into improved understanding of what is going constantly question what has been done before to improve on previous investigations. That constant challenging of what has already been studied and developed, and the conclusions made based on what was studied, is a miracle of humanity.
Nature does a similar thing through the random creation of new types of organisms that may find a 'niche' in the overall diversity of life on the planet. Organisms that try to dominate but do not limit their impacts ultimately fail to 'find a niche they can be sustained in' because they consume the finite resources for their way of living. However, such organisms typically only meet their inevitable failure after causing massive damage to the diversity of life in the locations they affect.
Humans have a rather unique ability to evaluate a current situation and try to determine what is likely to happen in the future. That ability could be used to strive to develop the best understanding of how to develop humanity to be a sustainable part of the diversity of life on this amazing planet, a planet on which the developed diversity of life is the reason for each human's amazing opportunity. That ability could be used to identify and curtail human development that is not going to be sustainable before too much damage is done.
The ability to try to understand what is likely to happen in the future could also lead people who have decided to strive to thrive through unsustainable and damaging ways to realise their pursuits and interests are threatened by any expanded better understanding of the unacceptability of what they are doing among the rest of the population. They will then fight to protect themselves with a shield of created but ultimately usustainable popularity. And the higher profitability of the ways they are willing to pursue profit, their competetive advantage over more considerate people, can result in them having more resources to significantly delay the development of the spread of better understanding among the population of the planet.
Ultimately those who are not interested in the development of better understanding to more rapidly develop a sustainable better future for all humanity, humanity adapting to become a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet, have no future and will produce no sustainable good thing. Those type of people being successful is therefore a significant threat to the future of humanity.
That is all just a theory and would be difficult to examine parts of it analytically and consolidate the understanding of the isolated parts into an integrated whole, but I believe it best explains the extensive observed behaviour of people related to climate science, global warming, and climate change and the policy changes that the science is clearly indicating are required for humanity to adapt to develop to become a sustainable part of this planet, to deveop a better future.
-
billthefrog at 00:03 AM on 30 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
@ Tom Curtis (#44 and #46)
Thank you for the pretty comprehensive attribution of the "science is settled " quote/misquote/non-quote debacle.
This is yet another classic example from the plethora of accidental or disingenuous "quotes" that so many are prepared to accept without the slightest hint of genuine scepticism. (There is, of course, nothing new under the sun. Carl Sagan had to deal with this sort of thing billions and billions of times.)
Sort of gives more emphasis and support to the comment "I do wish people would please read what is actually written ", doesn't it?
Cheers Bill F
-
Tony Noerpel at 23:10 PM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
An interesting observation is that there is a 0.07 degree gap between the red line and the orange line in Figure 1 in 1998. If we were to accept this story that the warming slowed down after 1998, then that gap has to be explained by some physical mechanism. This is much worse for the "global warming stopped in 1998" canard because now a denier has to explain about a 0.2 degree instantaneous warming.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:07 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton @36:
"Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle."
Oddly, faeces and urine are also (indirectly) essential for life as we know it, and are certainly natural products of mammalian existence, just like CO2. I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted. Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward. Quoting John Cook out of context does not change those facts.
-
MA Rodger at 19:55 PM on 29 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
BarbaraB@25.
It can be said that being "quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer" puts you in good company. Some eminent climatologists have also reached that conclusion. Svante Arrhenius (often credited with discovering AGW) and GS Callender (AGW was called the Callendar Effect once-upon-a-time) both thought the world would benefit from warming. Arrhenius (or perhaps a colleague of his) even toyed with the idea of setting fire to coal mines to help it on its way. Then if you live in chilly Sweden you probably would think 'warm' was 'good'. And I'm told it can be nippy in Sussex during an Ice Age, which was Callendar's concern.
Of course, both are now long dead so their views on the outcome of AGW are a particularly outdated. So maybe they are not such "good company" after all.
-
Ashton at 19:42 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
The arguments above regarding whether or not CO2 is a pollutant seem to be due to imprecise use of English. Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle. However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant. This topic was covered extensively in Skeptical Science in 2010 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-CO2-a-pollutant.html)
As John Cook said then "How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics". If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred.
-
cosmicomics at 18:39 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
“For example, as Lee Papa has pointed out, McConnell had no hesitations in expressing his opinions about dealing with the threat of Ebola and deferring to the experts at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
I’m not an expert on this, but it strikes me that it would be a good idea to discontinue flights into the United States from that part of the world ... I think we ought to listen to what the CDC thinks they need either in terms of financing or certainly they’ll decide the procedures for travel and all the rest. I think we need to follow the advice of the experts who know how to fight scourges like this"
The post wrongly gives the impression that the Republican Party defers to expertise in areas other than climate change. The above quote would indicate that the experts recommend discontinuing flights from affected areas. There are no direct flights to the U.S. from these areas, and the experts have been quite clear in opposing travel bans. Climate change is not an outlier. It is completely justified to say that Republicans exist in an alternative reality that is driven by ideological expediency, rather than respect for facts.
-
BarbaraB at 15:38 PM on 29 October 2014Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Just a psychologist so I'm sure I don't count here, but I do know something about people and the herd instinct which I think is working here to a large extent. There is also, I am not a theologist, some evidence of the sin of greed. So many billions of dollars changing hands over a theory, really just a theory which looks more like a religion since you can't oppose it without retribution. Wise men should be skeptical.
I am quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer, I like summer better than winter, don't you? The people with coastline properties are probably those terrible "rich" people anyway whom we have all been told are sucking on our vital juices for their own benefit. Terrible people.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Welcome to SkS (psychologists are most welcome). Please take time to read the comments policy, SkS is intended to be a site for productive discussion of climate science and closely related topics, but it is not a forum for the sort of trolling that is all too common on climate blogs. Further comments of this nature will be deleted. If you disagree with the mainstream position on climate science, then I would encourage you to pick a specific argument (see the list of climate myths on the bar to the left) and explain your objection clearly. I'm sure you will find plenty of people here willing to discuss the science with you in a rational and friendly manner, provided that you behave in a similarly mature manner.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:32 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny @168 and 169, increasing CO2 decreases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal. Increasing surface temperatures increases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @24:
"take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations. Let's just assume that we are going to have a .1 or .2 per decade temperature rise and start solving the issue."
That is really two suggestions. The second, assuming that temperature increase will not be greater than current mean rates of increase and are likely to be half of that over the forthcoming century simply ignores the relevant science.
The former, is even more absurd. The current investment in climate research in the US is $2,658 million annually. Much of that is used for launching satellites, and a fair portion is already used in research on "renewable innovations", but we can ignore that.
The current profits of US oil companies are $20 billion for the top three alone. They already, no doubt, spend significantly on research for more efficient extraction, and to find new reserves, money that is counted as business expenses, and hence not taken out of profits, but we will ignore that. It follows that for the top three oil companies alone to match the proposed research into renewables, they only need to commit 13.3% of their profits which a small price to pay. And that is just the top three oil companies.
GE has announced an intention to spend $10 billion through to 2020 on energy research. That is 54% of the climate change research budget from just one company. Other energy companies will also be spending. Although GE calls the funding part of its "ecoimagination" budget, it will be spent on making gas turbines more efficient, and improving fracking technology (ie, on fossil fuels).
The idea that problems with climate change can be solved just by throwing research money at renewable energy is already close to magical thinking. It makes the task harder from the get go by setting a higher bar for a successful solution (ie, one that undercuts fossil fuels in price). To pretend that doing so on current federal research budgets, which are already massively out spent by fossil fuel and energy company research budgets is fanciful. If just throwing money at research will generate a successful solution (the assumption in such suggestions), then throwing more money at research by fossil fuel companies will generate a counter solution.
Consequently it is far better to raise the price of carbon emissions. That way the private enterprise research money will be preferentially directed at solving the problem rather than making it worse.
-
Donny at 15:27 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Especially if you do find rising global temperatures?
-
Donny at 15:24 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
In an ever increasing co2 environment shouldn't the OLWIR decrease as the co2 increases?
-
Donny at 15:08 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Well said Mr Curtis. ... I agree with your breakdown.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:08 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Donny @166, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere initially decreases the outgoing LWIR. Changes must then occur at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere to either decrease incoming SW radiation, or increase outgoing LWIR radiation until the two again match, reestablishing equilbrium. Until that occurs, the imbalance will result in additional energy being stored in the Earth's surface systems which will result in rising temperatures. Further, raising surface temperatures is the simplest and most direct means restore the balance. Further, for any other change than raising temperatures to occur, some physical change at the Earth's surface must occur to drive that change, and as that physical change is driven by the imbalance (otherwise the Earth would not reestablish equilibrium), the physical change that drives the other changes will be a change in temperature. Ergo, increasing CO2 will raise temperatures. Tracing the most obvious physical pathways show that it will rise by a significant amount (as do other direct observations, and the paleo record).
-
Donny at 15:01 PM on 29 October 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Question. ... will outgoing LWIR decrease as co2 increases? ???.... producing the greenhouse effect?
-
Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @31, here is another (less tendentious) definition of pollutant for you:
"In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria: (1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic). (2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem. (3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity. (4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal."
As you say, laws can be changed. Therefore despite the fact that CO2 meets standard dictionary definitions of "pollutant", and is so considered by the EPA and the Supreme Court, it really comes down to whether or not CO2 emission causes harm. What is obliquely claimed by those to claim CO2 is not a pollutant is that CO2 does not harm; whereas those who claim it is are obliquely asserting that it is. If, however, that is what you want to debate, don't hide it behind an apparent discussion of semantics. Argue the case directly on the appropriate thread, preferably after reading the articles involved and related comments.
-
Donny at 14:39 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Rob you are funny. ... you say laws aren't fluid I say they are. ... but it's me that is making something up? At least have a fair discussion.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Please everybody, lets get the discussion back to a less personal tone and keep the discussion factual. Any further content-free comments, such as this one, will be deleted.
-
Donny at 14:37 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Phil. ... we can't buy our way into more climate certainty..... only time can give us that.
-
Donny at 14:33 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Or we could take Phils money. .... this is exactly what I am talking about. ... people wanting other people to pay. Guess what Phil if the fossil fuel companies are making too much money then make it easier for more competition.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:33 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... "I thought you said it didn't matter if co2 was a pollutant or not."
That's not what I said. What I said was, "There is nothing specific that says they 'only regulate pollutants.'"
My mistake was thinking that the endangerment finding was separate from the definition of "pollutant." Tom and the EPA page showed I was incorrect.
And, no, law and science are not that fluid. You're making stuff up again just to suit your purposes.
-
Donny at 14:28 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
If we reduce our co2 emissions by reducing the amount of energy we use and try and institute new energy forms.... there will be sacrifices. ... fish with hydroelectric dams.... birds and wind mills. ... temperature related deaths will increase. I know people in my area are all talk... they don't actually want to sacrifice when it comes down to it.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:27 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
"take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations."
There's a load of dung if I ever saw one. That would disappoint skeptics, who are the ones claiming that the science isn't settled and that we need more research. How about diverting 20% of fossil fue companies net profits? Much more efficient, no doubt.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:24 PM on 29 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj,
My apologies if the way I presented my comment gave you that impression.
I am well aware "the science is settled" is quoted out of context from a speech he gave, but it might also be quoted out of context from one of his books. I was asking about the last line of your comment @43 "It also undermines Gores book, which is very good." I am genuinely interested to know which book you are referring to because I have read many but not all of them.
My addition of his book 'The Assault on Reason" was meant to build on your point, not critique it.
I am genuinely interested in feedback about what I presented. It may seem semi-religious and in many ways I consider it to be a set of values to be guided by. I developed my understanding of these values from the learnings shared by so many who have written in different ways about the improved understanding that is constantly being developed. There is a growing litany of reports regarding the 'harmful activities that have developed and become popular and profitable even though they are ultimately unsustainable and they are clearly causing harmful consequences for people who are not enjoying the benefits'.
-
Donny at 14:22 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Laws are funny things and so is evidence. ... both more fluid than you might think. Rob.... I thought you said it didn't matter if co2 was a pollutant or not. ..
-
Donny at 14:18 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 19.... take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations. Let's just assume that we are going to have a .1 or .2 per decade temperature rise and start solving the issue.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:17 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... The EPA's endangerment findings are there to read. You can disagree but they do have an overwhelming body of science and the full weight of law on their side.
-
Donny at 14:13 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Tom.... I know that. .... this is the reason I brought it up. I disagree with their take on co2.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:44 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Interesting. EPA Carbon Pollution Standards.
It's seems that Tom is right once again. The EPA regulates CO2 as a "pollutant."
-
Tom Curtis at 13:30 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny @17:
"pollutant (p-ltnt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."Further, as you relate the question to the EPA, the EPA is required by legislation to regulate noise pollution, and gases that destroy ozone in the stratosphere, neither of which are pollutants in the sense that you would have it. Clearly, therefore, your sense of the word is inapplicable to the EPA. Finally, the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court found that CO2 was a pollutant in the sense required by the EPA. Ergo you are also wrong in law.
-
scaddenp at 13:29 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny, I mean methods aimed at reducing CO2 emissions - political actions that would have this result.
I agree that interpretation of an Act means semantics, but what he said didnt mention EPA and was taking in general about the lessons learnt from mitigating hazards versus clean up later. If one Act isnt up to it, then government needs to write one that will or amend it.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:14 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny... The EPA is tasked with the protection of human health and the environment. There is nothing specific that says they "only regulate pollutants."
There is a large series of document written regarding the EPA's endangerment findings should you care to be interested.
-
Donny at 13:04 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 15.... mitigate what?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @298, let me first note how silly I think it for people who, having observed an effect that could alter the climate, then automatically assume it is more important than the enhanced greenhouse effect without comparison. In this case Steel concludes is essay for a hypothesis he has not presented for peer review, by saying:
"Ockham’s razor demands that the CSI theory be accepted as the working hypothesis for observed climate change, because it is the simplest explanation and is undoubtedly valid (unless someone can demonstrate that my calculations are wrong, along with those made using Berger’s software code) although the AGW mechanism is certainly a (smaller) contributing factor."
As it happens, he is claiming AGW is a smaller contributing factor because the difference in his calculation sprind insolation (on a particular day) over a 1000 years is greater than the radiative forcing over the last 250 years. The effect he calculates appears, however, to be linear over time. From his figures, the effect of the last 250 years is 0.6 W/m^2 on that particular day, ie, less than a third of the radiative forcing over that period. What is more, the effect is not an annual effect (as is the case with the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases). In fact, the total effect sums to zero over the course of the year so that the net forcing from his mechanism is in fact zero. Unless you wish to entertain a change in the laws of thermodynamics so that they only apply on the spring equinox, that alone refutes his conjecture.
Further, his theory does not even match the evidence. As noted, his theory predicts a near linear change over the last thousand years. Temperatures, however, have on average declined over the first 750 of those years - something AGW "skeptics" are famed for noting. The transition from the MWP to the LIA is a direct observational refutation of his theory. So also is the southern hemisphere warming which he is determined to neglect but which is certainly occurring.
That, however, may not be the worst part of his theory. He makes a very big point of the fact that Berger (1978), from whom he draws his algorithms, uses the equinoctial method to calculate daily insolation in preparing his daily insolation tables, often used by climate scientists. Berger, however, does not state that. He defines a method for determining the insolation using the equinoctial method, then provides formula to calculate the calendar day method (see section 3 of Berger 1978). That being the case, the majority of the effect Steel finds may simply be due to his using the wrong method, and therefore introducing a drift into his calendar. That is, he may be making the same error he accuses climate scientists of.
Regardless, his refusal to calculate a total year energy balance, inflation of the effect by using unequal comparison times, and neglecting of straightforward empirical disagreements with his theory render it an example of pseudo-science, not science. I would not waste my time on it.
-
Donny at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 14.... and why do you think he was making that point after reading this article? It's not at all semantics. The EPA can only regulate pollutants.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar @23, the total heat generated by condensation of water vapour is matched by the total heat absorbed by the same water vapour evaporating in the first place. As the absolute humidity is rising with rising temperatures, that the atmospheric water vapour has been a net absorber of heat over the last few decades, slowing down the pace of global warming rather than accelerating it - at least as regards its heat capacity. (Obviously the increase in water vapour increases the water vapour greenhouse effect, an important feedback that means anthropogenic global warming will raise temperatures more overall than would otherwise have been the case.
Prev 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 Next
