A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

[Nostra]

Oh, because China sucks The gop gets a pass on poluttling the earth. Got it.

How is the GOP polluting the Earth?

 

[ding]

Everywhere. Especially the major cities where we have a lot of industry and cars putting up pollution.

I live in the suburbs. 30 minutes away in the city the air quality isn't as good. And it's about 3 degrees warmer. That's where cancer comes from. They say.

Sounds like we should ban cities.

 

[sealybobo]

How is the GOP polluting the Earth?

Dumbest question of the day. You are now winning Nostra. It was that other idiot but now you're asking such stupid questions. What are we in 3nd grade? LOL

 

[sealybobo]

Sounds like we should ban cities.

Or fix all the residents who are of child bearing age and broke.

 

[sealybobo]

How is the GOP polluting the Earth?

Well where do we start.

In the past, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to address heat-trapping gas pollution. But this week, Republican state officials and members of Congress are asking the Court to gut the Clean Air Act, throwing families under the bus at the behest of coal company executives.

Republicans have shamelessly become the party of polluters, putting the profits of oil, gas, and coal CEOs above the health of the folks who sent them to Congress. Through dubious legal arguments in an amicus filed in West Virginia v. EPA, Republicans essentially are asking the Supreme Court to let coal companies pollute without limits. And if they are successful, they will pass on the costs of that pollution to American families. By pushing the Court to side with coal companies, Republicans also are brazenly trying to make an end run around Congress, asking the judicial branch to dismantle legislation that they have been unable to weaken through the legislative branch. The fact is the Clean Air Act was passed and amended by lawmakers of both parties — and it was reaffirmed on a bipartisan basis last summer, through a vote to strengthen safeguards against methane pollution.

Time and time again, Republicans have claimed that it is impossible to keep our economy growing while cleaning up the air we breathe and addressing climate change. But this argument does not hold water. In the five decades after the Clean Air Act was passed, the United States reduced the combined emissions of the six most common pollutants by nearly three-fourths — all while continuing to lead the world economy and meeting the energy needs of Americans.

The Republican argument also belies the fact that inaction is becoming costlier every year. Four decades ago, the United States experienced, on average, less than three so-called billion-dollar disasters a year. That means that between 1980 and 1989, the United States spent a combined $190 billion addressing the damages caused by climate-fueled disasters. Those days are long gone. Just last year, Americans faced 20 climate disasters — and communities faced a whopping $145 billion in damages in a single year. We know what’s fueling these disasters: heat-trapping gases are making heat waves more intense, strengthening monster storms, and putting lives at risk. This is not the time to kneecap our ability to keep these gases in check and reduce global temperatures.

Republicans don’t have a plan to reduce pollution. If it was up to them, America would go back to the days when polluters wrote their own rules and recklessly endangered the health of the American people. They also have no plans to lower the cost of energy, or to do the work needed to urgently solve the climate crisis. Democrats do. In fact, our Democratic majority in the House of Representatives already passed important provisions to reduce air pollution and electric bills through the Build Back Better Act. These include converting 60,000 diesel school buses and more than 100,000 postal trucks to clean electric vehicles; banning new drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; and upgrading living conditions in public housing to lower costs and make life better for more than 800,000 Americans.

We need every single tool in the toolbox to solve the climate crisis — especially the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court must dismiss this bad-faith attempt to gut one of our keystone environmental safeguards, and Republicans need to stop playing politics with the health of American families.

 

[ding]

Or fix all the residents who are of child bearing age and broke.

Seems harsh. You have a hard eye.

 

[ding]

In the past, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to address heat-trapping gas pollution.

What’s the name of that case?

Have you read the Clean Air Act? Because the CCA does not authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate control.

If you want a climate act, pass a climate act. Fair enough?

 

[Redfish]

A new study uses AI and machine learning to examine data from archaean lipid membranes providing surface temperature, CO2 levels and oxygen isotope content correlation over the past 45 million years.

ABSTRACT
Cenozoic evolution of the Antarctic ice sheets is thought to be driven primarily by long-term changes in radiative forcing, but the tectonic evolution of Antarctica may also have played a substantive role. While deep-sea foraminiferal oxygen isotope records provide a combined measure of global continental ice volume and ocean temperature, they do not provide direct insights into non-radiative influences on Antarctic Ice Sheet dynamics. Here we present an Antarctic compilation of Cenozoic upper-ocean temperature for the Ross Sea and offshore Wilkes Land, generated by membrane lipid distributions from archaea. We find trends of ocean temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen isotopes largely co-vary. However, this relationship is less clear for the late Oligocene, when high-latitude cooling occurred despite interpretation of oxygen isotopes suggesting global warming and ice-volume loss. We propose this retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred in response to a tectonically driven marine transgression, with warm surface waters precluding marine-based ice-sheet growth. Marine ice-sheet expansion occurred only when ocean temperatures further cooled during the Oligocene–Miocene transition, with cold orbital conditions and low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our results support a threshold response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, below which Antarctica’s marine ice sheets grow, and above which ocean warming exacerbates their retreat. "

Climatic and tectonic drivers of late Oligocene Antarctic ice volume - Nature Geoscience (Sorry, but this is a Nature Geoscience paywall)

This study supports the earlier study finding a high likelihood that CO2 levels above 400 ppm are likely to completely eliminate the Antarctic ice shelves which will lead to massively increased glacial ice sheet loss and large rises in sea levels.

Is florida under water yet? is all the polar ice gone? will winter no longer happen? the climate of our planet cycles up and down over time, we have nothing to do with it

 

[sealybobo]

What’s the name of that case?

Have you read the Clean Air Act? Because the CCA does not authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate control.

If you want a climate act, pass a climate act. Fair enough?

Well the Supreme Court just took the EPA's power away. KNOWING that Congress has enough Republicans that it will never act. So basically, Republicans and the cons on the Supreme Court don't want an Environmental Protection Agency.

And we all know Republicans will never pass Green legislation.

Oh well. This will be just another reason why young people don't vote Republican.

 

[sealybobo]

What’s the name of that case?

Have you read the Clean Air Act? Because the CCA does not authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate control.

If you want a climate act, pass a climate act. Fair enough?

You really don't know what you are talking about. You get your shit straight from websites that lie about global warming. Dig deep enough, and know what all this stuff means, your shit is easy to debunk.

What’s the name of that case?

Have you read the Clean Air Act? Because the CCA does not authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate control.

If you want a climate act, pass a climate act. Fair enough?

You think you know what you are talking about but you don't.

The Supreme Court curbed EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. What comes next?

Harvard Chan School experts discuss the implications of a Supreme Court ruling limiting the EPA’s power to curb power plant emissions.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress.

See idiot? The Right leaning Supreme Court knows Mitch ain't gonna do shit. So the environment is screwed. Happy now?

 

[Dagosa]

How is the GOP polluting the Earth?

Obviously you know nothing about science or you wouldn’t make such a stupid statement.

 

[ding]

Well the Supreme Court just took the EPA's power away. KNOWING that Congress has enough Republicans that it will never act. So basically, Republicans and the cons on the Supreme Court don't want an Environmental Protection Agency.

And we all know Republicans will never pass Green legislation.

Oh well. This will be just another reason why young people don't vote Republican.

No. SCOTUS ruled that congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate control. That’s it. If you want a climate bill then pass a climate bill. You have no one to blame for this failure except the Democrats. They could have passed a climate act during Obama’s administration. They had control of the house and senate. They are playing you.

 

[ding]

And we all know Republicans will never pass Green legislation.

Why should they. They don’t believe in it. It’s dumb. You are an idiot for falling for it.

Democrats could have easily passed a climate act during the Obama administration but they didn’t. Wake the fuck up.

 

[ding]

Oh well. This will be just another reason why young people don't vote Republican.

I’m retired. Set for life. So I kinda wish you would get your wish so you could experience the idiocy of your delusions.

 

[ding]

You really don't know what you are talking about. You get your shit straight from websites that lie about global warming. Dig deep enough, and know what all this stuff means, your shit is easy to debunk.

I do know what I am talking about. I know that when you wrote that, “In the past, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to address heat-trapping gas pollution,” that it was full of shit. Never happened. That is why I asked you for the name of the case. And instead of you being honest that there wasn’t one and that you misspoke, I get this bullshit response instead.

Let me know when you want to debate AGW with me in the Bull Ring. I will make you my bitch.

 

[Dagosa]

son, I have no clue what that has to do with china polluting the globe and you ignoring it.

You wouldn’t. You know nothing about pollution.

 

[ding]

You think you know what you are talking about but you don't.

The Supreme Court curbed EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. What comes next?

Harvard Chan School experts discuss the implications of a Supreme Court ruling limiting the EPA’s power to curb power plant emissions.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress.

See idiot? The Right leaning Supreme Court knows Mitch ain't gonna do shit. So the environment is screwed. Happy now?

All I see is everything I have already explained to you. Are you drunk?

 

[Dagosa]

The innerweb irony meter just exploded.

Oh, the meter set on Trump saying he was a greater president then Washington or Lincoln ?

 

[jc456]

You wouldn’t. You know nothing about pollution.

what do you know about it exactly? do you know china pollutes more than us?

 

[jc456]

Oh, the meter set on Trump saying he was a greater president then Washington or Lincoln ?

how is that irony example? do you know what the word means?