Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[otto105]

At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution.. No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon...

1. You're self-impeaching yourself acknowledging the rate only SINCE the Industrial Revolution!

2.

3. And even your post/admission is a LIE.
It is accelerating, with 80% of the gain in the last 60 years.

You Dishonest clown.
You have a 3 digit IQ so You must know better after all these years/research.
I knew immeddiately it was.

`

Before Mauna Loa --- ALL the ancient CO2 estimates came from tree rings, preserved vegetation and ice cores.. Literally HUNDREDS of studies that could only have the ability to produce mean readings and without resolution to SHOW variance over relatively short (less than a couple hundred years) periods of times.. So tacking on a MODERN INSTRUMENTATION record to these "long term averages" is NOT a science ploy any academic could get away with....

It's for "show" and to (as Al Gore put it) to "play on YOUR FEARS"....

And if you actually look at HIGH RESOLUTION Ice Core studies, NOT just ANY ice core study, you WILL SEE large amounts of variance and uncertainty.... Just reproducing the MEANS of these studies -- is fully dishonest...

Ancient proxies are tricky deals. And their uselfullness to draw comparisons of ancient CO2 to modern instruments is extremely iffy...

Fig. 14) Kouwenberg (2004) Figure 5.4: Reconstruction of paleo-atmospheric CO2 levels when stomatal frequency of fossil needles is converted to CO2 mixing ratios using the relation between CO2 and TSDL as quantified in the training set. Black line represents a 3 point running average based on 3–5 needles per depth. Grey area indicates the RMSE in the calibration. White diamonds are data measured in the Taylor Dome ice core (Indermühle et al., 1999); white squares CO2 measurements from the Law Dome ice-core (Etheridge et al., 1996). Inset: Training set of TSDL response of Tsuga heterophylla needles from the Pacific Northwest region to CO2 changes over the past century

A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based onBetula nana(dwarf birch)leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The recordis of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollenzone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene(Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher thanusually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO
2 evolution through the studiedtime period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved frominterstadial to stadial state and vice versa

A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxyfor temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2]records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concen-trations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the mainclimate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered

So be a good Doobie and go track down EXACTLY WHAT STUDY was used for the ancient data in the graph you provided..... As specially about ice core studies of past CO2 see E.G.


Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

What you GET out of an ice core study depends on WHERE you took it (Greenland or Antarctica) and how many slices you took to study over the period of time you're studying...

So just dummying up a SCARY LOOKING one doesn't sway science in the least SpongeBob...

So, after this post there's a scientific organization ready to find that CW/CC is not happening due to man-made emissions...I mean you put the facts (as you cut and paste) them out there....


When can we expect that this organization will read your posts?

 

[flacaltenn]

It's ALL bunk and speculation, NOT science. BuT -- responsible leaders around the world are echoing the NOT SETTLED 1.5DegC "tipping point" that will kill the planet if not fixed in 12 years... There is SO MUCH wrong with this radical "theory"... That's not MY problem... It's yours...

Go back to that video and LEARN what the "tipping (or trigger) point theory of planetary destruction is all about.. Go to about 2 minutes in...

Then realize how much news cycle coverage the Green Raw Deal got because of mental midgets ECHOING this largely unsupported claim... And how it's used around the world to justify $TRILLs in "reparations" for 3rd world countries in the UN..... And in the US it's now being used to justify Fed Govt take-over of more than 1/2 of the economy....

"No one is claiming this" --- you just can't be honest.. MAYBE because you don't follow this issue closely... OR MAYBE because you think this is a POLITICAL problem and not a "science" issue....

Actually all scientists and every political party in the world except you brainwashed functional morons agree on man-made global warming.

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.



3. Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!




You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.


A research group by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the Kyoto Protocol to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

This petition reads, in its entirety:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

the petition bore 31,487 signatures as of October 2016: The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?


This unintentional humor from the Snopes attempt to marginalize the petition: “Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification…”

That pretty much describes the global warming scam.

We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”


What's their motive, you dunce?

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Include NASA in the mix who believe in Global Warming

NASA Climate‏Verified account @NASAClimate Jul 25
Focusing on any short-term global temperature trend can be misleading. Here’s why it’s important to look at the big picture: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/ …



Also NASA

Useless effort.. NONE of those orgs ever polled or asked their membership to approve those statements. Other than maybe the IPCC which as I posted has a mission statement BIASED from the get-go...

A little story that's true about "organization endorsements".. You listed the AGU... THere's an Australian equivalent of the AGU that put their mission statement up for membership review.. The fight lasted almost a year, and in the END -- they dropped the update and revision because there WAS NO AGREEABLE position for the majority of members that weighed in... True story...

One of the 2 professional groups I belong to has a GW/CC statement. NOBODY was ever polled or contacted. We just shake our heads and take the reduced insurance, and breaks on rental cars and travel and other perks and attend the conferences and write the papers...

BTW -- US Global Change Research Institute?? It's a POLITICAL org started by Obama to get top placement in Google searches on GW/CC...

well I do not know the charter for each of these organization, I just responded to the political chic rant about something but I can remember what it was but it was probably about consensus. I don't know how they reached there decision but a decision was reached. If you don't agree then hey that what democracy is about. If u do not buy global warming that your prerogative but it is obvious other do and that is there prerogative.

How they ARRIVED at the decision to weigh in about "feelings" of GW, WITHOUT the review or support of their actual scientist members, is that their FIELD is HIGHLY funded by govt bucks. And the Admin types in the front office think it's VERY GOOD business to please the folks who fund the science.. Scientists are more skeptical about money in exchange for patronage...

 

[Kilroy2]

Man can affect his environment

No shit...

Ocean levels are rising

At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution.. No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon...

Burning coal put additional Carbon Monoxide in the air by burning a solid and turning it into a gas.

Nature (land and ocean) puts 20 TIMES the amount of CO2 into the atmos every year than man does.. And COAL is not the only culprit... Nature also sinks somewhat MORE than that and so the total effect of man's CO2 is even less than 1/20 of nature.. The KNOWLEDGE of these numbers have more uncertainty to them than what man does contribute.. And there is NOT a LINEAR relation between additional CO2 and increased surface temp.. The warming power of CO2 is LIMITED by the fact it's contribution to the GreenHouse is already pretty much saturated out...

And PLEASE, it's NOT Carbon Monoxide.... Coal COULD be just as "clean and green" as the "BIOMASS" option on the enviro-naut "alternative list".. But the Feds won't allow because of CO2... CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. You do realize that right? And it's not EVEN CLOSE to be the largest contributor to the GreenHouse that keeps our asses warm enough...

Do you KNOW what the MAJOR GreenHouse gas is??? Hint -- it's ALSO "not a pollutant".....

Get off that political bandwagon that exist simply exist for denial.

Can't.. That political bandwagon is the ONLY THING that keeps this circus rolling. It's become a tool for demagogues and no-nothings to increase their control and power on damn near EVERYTHING...

Post your sources if you have none then don't forget the pointy hat

I've sourced so MUCH material in this thread that you have NEVER read or commented on, I really don't BLAME folks for not sourcing... It's hard to expect much actual discussion from folks that confuse CO and CO2....

↑
Man can affect his environment
No shit...

well we can agree on something

↑
Ocean levels are rising
At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution.. No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon...

Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising. I guess it really how you put it.


So I guess people dying in Katrina has no significant meaning other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was man that decided to drain the swamp and build there and put up levees to keep the water away. Lasted for a while


↑
Burning coal put additional Carbon Monoxide in the air by burning a solid and turning it into a gas.
Nature (land and ocean) puts 20 TIMES the amount of CO2 into the atmos every year than man does.. And COAL is not the only culprit... Nature also sinks somewhat MORE than that and so the total effect of man's CO2 is even less than 1/20 of nature.. The KNOWLEDGE of these numbers have more uncertainty to them than what man does contribute.. And there is NOT a LINEAR relation between additional CO2 and increased surface temp.. The warming power of CO2 is LIMITED by the fact it's contribution to the GreenHouse is already pretty much saturated out...

The atmosphere naturally has CO2 and prior to the industrial revolution it was steady as the earth balances it naturally. The problem is when mans activities increase this CO2 content so if your argument is nature put it there and man puts it there then obviously man's contribution can unbalance what is natural. Please don't waste your time in repeating the obvious. This is a discussion about what man does. It is obvious man has procreated and his activities release more CO2 content into the atmosphere basically upsetting the balance of nature. Your statement NO SHIT attest to that.


And PLEASE, it's NOT Carbon Monoxide.... Coal COULD be just as "clean and green" as the "BIOMASS" option on the enviro-naut "alternative list".. But the Feds won't allow because of CO2... CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. You do realize that right? And it's not EVEN CLOSE to be the largest contributor to the GreenHouse that keeps our asses warm enough...

Yeah Yeah carbon monoxide carbon dixoide
It may be one day they will figure it out but right now it is economics. The government is making them be more efficient. Still it cost money and they may not be willing to pay that price. They would prefer not to but that what the government is for.

Do you KNOW what the MAJOR GreenHouse gas is??? Hint -- it's ALSO "not a pollutant".....

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated. Man has contributed to adding CO2 to the atmosphere due to it combustion of fossil fuel activities and as such I have no problem of EPA regulating it.
↑
Get off that political bandwagon that exist simply exist for denial.
Can't.. That political bandwagon is the ONLY THING that keeps this circus rolling. It's become a tool for demagogues and no-nothings to increase their control and power on damn near EVERYTHING...

Ditto but I would add it gives others the right to deny when control is necessary in a world where people are out of control.



.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, after this post there's a scientific organization ready to find that CW/CC is not happening due to man-made emissions...I mean you put the facts (as you cut and paste) them out there....

You are so stalled out on the VERY BASICS of this issue.. I've already CONCEDED that some warming is happening (actually a pretty trivial amount no matter WHO measures it) and that man does play a role.. Almost EVERY scientist goes THAT far --- including my denier ass....

But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?

Until you understand the arguments AGAINST the more catastrophic predictions that you are afraid of --- you're gonna just HAVE to buckle up and study some science and not get talking points from politicos and mainstream media.. It's NOT hard science to understand ancient proxy temp studies or examine temperature and CO2 charts critically.. There are about 20 different disciplines in Climate Science.. So a LOT of different skills are involved.. Not JUST folks with "climate science" degrees.

But reading these studies is NOT as difficult as reading medical or raw physics papers.. If you're gonna INSIST on beating up on "deniers" -- invest some time.. You'll be far less SCARED and frightened.. That's for certain...

Here's an example that I referenced above.. Details of using "stomatic frequency" as a proxy measuring ancient CO2 is VERY straight forward and easy... AND -- it's relatively new and SEEMS to be a much measurement than ice cores or tree rings. Try it..

Promise it won't hurt... LOL.....

In the graph below, notice the difference in the FINE DETAIL of CO2 fluctuations that you can find more easily with THIS technique than with ice cores...

Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth's carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low.


Nature's CO2 meter:

A standardized way of counting stomata-- called the stomatal index ( SI [%] )-- has been found to be a good way to estimate the CO2 content of the atmosphere when the plant was alive. The SI-CO2 relationship varies according to plant species, habitat altitude, and other factors.

Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth's past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.

As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.

A lot less difficult than general articles in Scientific American which has an EXTREMELY wide readership.. If you're concerned about GW/CC -- have at it...

 

[flacaltenn]

Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising. I guess it really how you put it.

3.6 of what? inches? millimeters? "20 something"??

There was a change in the sea level rise rate when SATELLITES became capable of measuring it.. Previous to that, the primary method of measurement was tidal gauges and the vast majority of those ONLY measured the sea level rise (SLR) at the shoreline..

With satellites, we're finding that virtually NO ocean is flat or statically flat.. And that some parts of the oceans are rising MUCH HIGHER than the shores where the tide gauges were/are.. The rate from the tide gauge era was 1.8 to 2.2mm per year.. LESS than 0.1 inch.. With satellites, the measurement in more like 2.8 to 3.2mm per year..

One could argue that measuring NEAR SHORE is MORE important than measuring speed bumps at the middle of an ocean basin..

But the important take-away is that using EITHER METHOD, does not show the accelerations that is predicted by the more catastrophic theories within the GW/CC field... You're not gonna reach the NY Times version of doomsday with 4 to 8 FEET of SLR by 2100 at these rates with NO appreciable accelerations in the data..

So NASA is probably quoting the satellite era only number because that's the SCARIER number. But it's still just over an inch/decade and like I said -- a huge chunk of that small number is not from MORE WATER.. It's from the natural expansion of volume due to the small temperature change in the past few decades...

 

[flacaltenn]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

If you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm laughing.....we have some people who think the public us sitting home at dinner chatting about a few millimeters if sea rise over 20 years! Oy....only those who tend to the hysterical go there. Absolutely on nobody's radar....the proof of which is overwhelming which I detailed a couple of pages back.

These people might just as well be standing in the middle of Siberia buck naked on a stool shaking a bananna at the world . Nobody is paying attention and let's face it....anybody consumed with sea level rise definitely needs some real responsibilities in life.

 

[Kilroy2]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

 

[Kilroy2]

Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising. I guess it really how you put it.

3.6 of what? inches? millimeters? "20 something"??

There was a change in the sea level rise rate when SATELLITES became capable of measuring it.. Previous to that, the primary method of measurement was tidal gauges and the vast majority of those ONLY measured the sea level rise (SLR) at the shoreline..

With satellites, we're finding that virtually NO ocean is flat or statically flat.. And that some parts of the oceans are rising MUCH HIGHER than the shores where the tide gauges were/are.. The rate from the tide gauge era was 1.8 to 2.2mm per year.. LESS than 0.1 inch.. With satellites, the measurement in more like 2.8 to 3.2mm per year..

One could argue that measuring NEAR SHORE is MORE important than measuring speed bumps at the middle of an ocean basin..

But the important take-away is that using EITHER METHOD, does not show the accelerations that is predicted by the more catastrophic theories within the GW/CC field... You're not gonna reach the NY Times version of doomsday with 4 to 8 FEET of SLR by 2100 at these rates with NO appreciable accelerations in the data..

So NASA is probably quoting the satellite era only number because that's the SCARIER number. But it's still just over an inch/decade and like I said -- a huge chunk of that small number is not from MORE WATER.. It's from the natural expansion of volume due to the small temperature change in the past few decades...

Quote - So NASA is probably quoting the satellite era only number because that's the SCARIER number. But it's still just over an inch/decade and like I said -- a huge chunk of that small number is not from MORE WATER.. It's from the natural expansion of volume due to the small temperature change in the past few decades



3.6 in is pretty s small over a 20 year period but it is obvious but it seem you really do like to argue over the small things

You say it caused by small temperature changes over the past decades of natural expansion which is partially true and you do admit that it is a small temperature changes but you do not mention the melting ice

Melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets such as in the Arctic where it is know that the arctic ice is thinning. Thus the first ship without an ice breaker was able to make it thru during the peak month of winter last year.

I wonder what will happen if this becomes a much traveled route as it is a shorter trade route between Asia and Europe than going the other direction

 

[Kilroy2]

But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?

These are question you cannot even answer all you can do is deny while other make the effort to understand how it will affect future generations

This is about the future and as such it is predictive

but your interested in me and now and what you predict

others disagree

 

[Kilroy2]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?

 

[flacaltenn]

.we have some people who think the public us sitting home at dinner chatting about a few millimeters if sea rise over 20 years! Oy.

And YOU haven't been sitting around chatting about it for a good portion of your life?? I've got the proof dude...

And you've chatted about less important things than a few mm of SLR in 20 years. LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

3.6 in is pretty s small over a 20 year period but it is obvious but it seem you really do like to argue over the small things

That's not really a small thing man.. Not with the media and politicos and a few activists in labcoats trying to PANIC the public and spinning yarns about cities underwater and massive relocations.. I take it ALL seriously.. And I decided to dedicate some time to KNOW the details.

That''s why it's important to think and know stuff on this BEYOND the useless questions -- like "is the Earth warming", "is man-made CO2 the culprit".. No sense arguing against the basics.. But it's the DETAILS and numbers and forecasts that really matter.. And you cannot DO THAT without following this circus and the science for a decade or more....

 

[flacaltenn]

Melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets such as in the Arctic where it is know that the arctic ice is thinning. Thus the first ship without an ice breaker was able to make it thru during the peak month of winter last year.

Melting of ice in Arctic, will not add an inch to the SLRise. Because all of that ice is ALREADY in an ocean. And ice is not a thermometer. You can melt as much ice in ONE day at 1Deg above freezing as you can with 100 days at 0.01Deg above freezing. The arctic climate is DIFFERENT from the world climate.. It's even different than Antarctic climate. Those important facts get LOST in all the huffing and shouting..

And ACTUALLY, when the ice MELTS up there -- it's a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK on GW that tends to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because all that open cold water sinks a GINORMOUS amount of atmospheric carbon into the ocean... Almost as good as a virgin rain forest at sinking "excess CO2"....

Back to the previous post... Arguing over just ONE question about GW is stupid because virtually NO ONE DENIES that the Earth is warming by a small tick and that man is partly responsible for it.. Even fucking Exxon Mobil KNOWS this.. That internal report their scientists wrote in the 70s (i think it was 70s) was BETTER PREDICTIONS of the future MAGNITUDE of the warning than all the UN IPCC reports have had in them since then.. The Exxon Mobil scientists NAILED the issue as a concern, but NOT an Armageddon.

And that's pretty much where the REAL science projections and predictions are headed today..

 

[skookerasbil]

But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?

These are question you cannot even answer all you can do is deny while other make the effort to understand how it will affect future generations

This is about the future and as such it is predictive

but your interested in me and now and what you predict

others disagree

Lol....s0n....you make the perfect point here.

Nobody can predict which is why nobody cares!

Nobody supports climate change action because they have determined there is waaaaaaaay too much we dont know about. Too, costs matter to most people.....not to progressives.

 

[abu afak]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO - UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE

KEY POINTS

• “The climate is changing. Are we part of the reason? Yeah, it is,” says Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
• Veering off the Trump administration message, Perry adds, “I’ll let people debate on who’s the bigger problem here.”
• Perry says that it’s worth developing Zero-Emissions technology and that the Trump administration has made great strides. (abu afak: LOL on that last point. He's gone backwards)

[......]
`

 

[Kilroy2]

The UN is the greatest supporter of global governance.

It was created by Jos. Stalin for exactly that purpose.

So U believe that the UN was created by Jos. Stalin

The UN was created by the Allies to fight the Axis governments during the war.

Enough said

 

[Kilroy2]

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?

How cap and trade works

The govenment uses a cap permit on greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming and is a firm limit on pollution set by the government using a carrot and stick approach. A limit is set and don't ask me how it is set and as long as producers are below that limit they get credits and if they go over they are penalized or tax. So they can emit under whatever the cap is but over time the cap is reduced. The idea is to give them time to literally clean up their act. The cost of the caps increase and is another way to encourage them to use cleaner technologies.