What are the Solutions?

[gnarlylove]

The business press tends to be forthright since their audience already knows environmental degradation is real and encroaching on national security. So here is a recent article on a wave of pollution that will continue to waft its way towards the US.

China Wakes Up to Its Environmental Catastrophe - Businessweek

"Premier Li Keqiang suitably declared a “war on pollution” at the National People’s Congress (NPC) in early March."

"China’s new leaders, including President Xi Jinping, haven’t embraced environmental protection by choice. They’ve been compelled by a new political reality: an informed Chinese public."

“There has been a long-term buildup to the problem,” he said in January 2013, “and the resolution will require a long-term process.”

"A July 2013 study found that air pollution in China’s north reduces life expectancy by an average of five and a half years."

"Overall, environmental degradation and pollution are estimated by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning to cost the $9.3 trillion economy the equivalent of 3.5 percent of gross domestic product annually."

Believe it or not, coal, cars etc. can be a real threat. Albeit we lack severe air quality problems in the US, we are not immune to China's (and India's) major air pollution problem. There are no borders when it comes to air flow.

Do anti-AGW folks dismiss this story as fantasy? Or can they see pollution has immediate effects? Putting aside greenhouse gas debate, is there anything wrong with a "growing" economy when it kills a over a million/yr due to its growth? Do we think we can continue to consume fossil fuels without issue?

The article notes the "country's wealthy...have left or plan to leave...environment one of their most frequently cited reasons."

Does the anti-AGW crowd think this can continue?

 

[westwall]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

 

[Mr. H.]

If the rest of the world would abide by U.S. standards of environmental stewardship (both voluntary and legislated), we'd be a much cleaner planet indeed.

But that's not enough for Obama. He's STILL hell-bent on shuttering coal-fired electric generation plants, blocking the Keystone pipeline, raising vehicle MPG, denying access to public-lands hydrocarbons, and protecting "endangered" species by piling on onerous and duplicative rules and regulations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult needs to open a branch in China

 

[westwall]

The AGWCult needs to open a branch in China

Oh, they did! And their solar manufacturing firms are failing too!

 

[gnarlylove]

So far I'm hearing "Yes pollution is real."

I've also heard a great proposal: limits on pollution.

This sounds reasonable enough. So in theory anti-AGW folks AND AGW folks agree, "pollution can become hazardous and we must limit it to prevent hazards."

So no matter ideology, we all think breathable air is important. On matters of policy sounds like AGW and anti-AGW are not that different. I am pleased with the agreement. And none of this had to do with greenhouse gases!

 

[elektra]

All that Green energy manufacturing has consequences. Finally you admit the truth.

 

[Old Rocks]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

Now once again we see Walleyes engaged in outright lying. Here is a real Phd geologist, and one of the world's foremost glacialogists on this very subject. A lecture presented to the annual AGU convention;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

Now once again we see Walleyes engaged in outright lying. Here is a real Phd geologist, and one of the world's foremost glacialogists on this very subject. A lecture presented to the annual AGU convention;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

600,000 year data set says you're playing with the wrong knobs

 

[Abraham3]

Frank, you should have listened better.

Again, that warming the planet causes CO2 to be released to the atmosphere does NOT even suggest that CO2 does not absorb IR and cause the planet to warm. And since all but the last fraction of a pixel of your graph took place prior to the Industrial Revolution, there is no point on your graph analogous to the current situation.

Do you understand what I'm saying Frank? If you do, you will not put that graph back up as evidence that CO2 does not cause warming because it shows no such thing. Do you understand THAT Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you should have listened better.

Again, that warming the planet causes CO2 to be released to the atmosphere does NOT even suggest that CO2 does not absorb IR and cause the planet to warm. And since all but the last fraction of a pixel of your graph took place prior to the Industrial Revolution, there is no point on your graph analogous to the current situation.

Do you understand what I'm saying Frank? If you do, you will not put that graph back up as evidence that CO2 does not cause warming because it shows no such thing. Do you understand THAT Frank?

You're saying 2 different and contrary things: CO2 is a GHG and CO2 drives warming.

CO2 is a GHG, ok. But the 600,000 year data set shows it as a laggard and not a driver

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you should have listened better.

Again, that warming the planet causes CO2 to be released to the atmosphere does NOT even suggest that CO2 does not absorb IR and cause the planet to warm. And since all but the last fraction of a pixel of your graph took place prior to the Industrial Revolution, there is no point on your graph analogous to the current situation.

Do you understand what I'm saying Frank? If you do, you will not put that graph back up as evidence that CO2 does not cause warming because it shows no such thing. Do you understand THAT Frank?

How much "Warming", that is, how much of an increase in temperature is caused by a 100ppm increase in CO2?

Is there any lab work at all on this?

 

[elektra]

Richard Alley who advised Al Gore that our coastal cities would be destroyed by global warming last year?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

Now once again we see Walleyes engaged in outright lying. Here is a real Phd geologist, and one of the world's foremost glacialogists on this very subject. A lecture presented to the annual AGU convention;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

600,000 year data set says you're playing with the wrong knobs

Note the two separate CO2 spike of 100PPM (50%!!!!) increase in CO2....and it still did not DRIVE or FORCE the temperature

AGWCult Theory = Fail

 

[Wry Catcher]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

 

[gnarlylove]

If we can get anti-AGW and AGW to agree on something, namely setting pollution limits to maintain a semblance of a healthy ecology for humans, then we should be doing just that. There are plenty of WV coal fields that effect children's health since the plant is a mile up the road. Moreover, these companies have loopholes, so they first dump pollution then ask for forgiveness. We need to rein in such dirty tricks. The reason a plant can operate near a childrens school is the children are not coming from wealthy backgrounds so no one gives a damn but that's fucking sick to ignore people based on money. It's inhuman.

If we want quality air and ecology, we need to work together. It does not matter why we agree, since what matters is that we make sure China, WV and the like don't ruin our global ecology. Like I said, pollution knows no boundaries. The way to make other nations act is to take our hog of a nation in energy consumption and show the world, "yeah, we are not stupid, pollution is actually bad. Therefore we are doing something to limit pollution."

 

[westwall]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Yeah, you guys are all alike it seems. You trot out your single "study" and get all warm and fuzzy over it while real scientists look at hundreds of studies to make a determination of what is going on. As Franks graph so eloquently shows, CO2 is a non entity in global warming. It increases in the atmosphere AFTER warming has occurred, hundreds of years AFTER.

We have a multiple hundred thousand year data set that proves that. And you want to trot out a single study to counter that.

Good luck.

 

[westwall]

If we can get anti-AGW and AGW to agree on something, namely setting pollution limits to maintain a semblance of a healthy ecology for humans, then we should be doing just that. There are plenty of WV coal fields that effect children's health since the plant is a mile up the road. Moreover, these companies have loopholes, so they first dump pollution then ask for forgiveness. We need to rein in such dirty tricks. The reason a plant can operate near a childrens school is the children are not coming from wealthy backgrounds so no one gives a damn but that's fucking sick to ignore people based on money. It's inhuman.

If we want quality air and ecology, we need to work together. It does not matter why we agree, since what matters is that we make sure China, WV and the like don't ruin our global ecology. Like I said, pollution knows no boundaries. The way to make other nations act is to take our hog of a nation in energy consumption and show the world, "yeah, we are not stupid, pollution is actually bad. Therefore we are doing something to limit pollution."

Here I am in total agreement. Particulates are truly a problem. CO2 isn't.

 

[elektra]

China's pollution problems are very real. Particulates in their atmosphere are terrible beyond belief. However, CO2 has never been shown to have an effect on the global temperature. Let me repeat that. NEVER. If the "theory" of AGW were correct then the global temps would be increasing ever higher due to the continued increase in CO2 levels.

That has not happened and in fact the opposite is true. And of that, there is likewise no doubt now.

You may have no doubts, but others surely do. See (among other links)

Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds -- ScienceDaily

Always a press release never the study. Could you post the study.

 

[Old Rocks]

Richard Alley who advised Al Gore that our coastal cities would be destroyed by global warming last year?

Really? Link? Or be exposed as a crass liar.