Houston's chemical pollution and Trump's firing half the EPA will revive that debate after Harvey.

[strollingbones]

trump supporters....stupid anti science people then toss in the fundies who are hoping trump is the new savior and will bring on the end of the world.....

 

[SSDD]

trump supporters....stupid anti science people then toss in the fundies who are hoping trump is the new savior and will bring on the end of the world.....

Still waiting for that single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...to bad you will never deliver and do you know why?....because no such evidence exists. You are operating from a position of faith, not actual evidence.

 

[strollingbones]

and where did i say ....it was only man made? i didnt

 

[strollingbones]

poor trump supporters when all else fails try to put words into others posts

 

[SSDD]

and where did i say ....it was only man made? i didnt

I didn't as for evidence that the warming is "only" man made. I asked for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is even a statistically significant contributor to the global climate...you won't find any actual evidence that supports that claim either. We are so far from the boundaries of natural variability that there isn't even a trace of a human fingerprint in the global climate.

 

[Billo_Really]

I didn't as for evidence that the warming is "only" man made. I asked for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is even a statistically significant contributor to the global climate...you won't find any actual evidence that supports that claim either. We are so far from the boundaries of natural variability that there isn't even a trace of a human fingerprint in the global climate.

Arguing against climate change, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

 

[skookerasbil]

I didn't as for evidence that the warming is "only" man made. I asked for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is even a statistically significant contributor to the global climate...you won't find any actual evidence that supports that claim either. We are so far from the boundaries of natural variability that there isn't even a trace of a human fingerprint in the global climate.

Arguing against climate change, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

Unless you are one of tens of millions who knows its a hoax s0n. I'm with the stoopids...........and winning btw. Not to mention, anybody who actually thinks there is anything the fuck we can do about it needs a beer and a plan.

 

[deanrd]

Hurricanes and Trump/Russia collusion.

Today's most important story is tomorrow's fish wrapper.

And people quickly tire of the latest nothing-burger scandal.

Poisoning a hundred thousand people is a "nothing burger"?

Well, I guess to people who want to take away healthcare for over 30 million, you're probably white, er, right.

 

[fncceo]

Hurricanes and Trump/Russia collusion.

Today's most important story is tomorrow's fish wrapper.

And people quickly tire of the latest nothing-burger scandal.

Poisoning a hundred thousand people is a "nothing burger"?

Well, I guess to people who want to take away healthcare for over 30 million, you're probably white, er, right.

Identity politics... the key to winning elections.

Keep it up.

 

[fncceo]

Poisoning a hundred thousand people

President Trump poisoned 100,000 people? He has to be the hardest working president in modern history.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't as for evidence that the warming is "only" man made. I asked for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is even a statistically significant contributor to the global climate...you won't find any actual evidence that supports that claim either. We are so far from the boundaries of natural variability that there isn't even a trace of a human fingerprint in the global climate.

Arguing against climate change, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

Who is arguing against climate change...the climate is always changing....I am arguing against man's role in the natural process....maybe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...more likely you can't...because no such evidence exists.

 

[Billo_Really]

Unless you are one of tens of millions who knows its a hoax s0n. I'm with the stoopids...........and winning btw. Not to mention, anybody who actually thinks there is anything the fuck we can do about it needs a beer and a plan.

Home school did you no favors. You're a dumbass! And you're definitely with stupid. However, you're not winning. Idiots don't win.

95% of the science community agrees global warming is real and they have a mountain of data to back it up. You're just some fossil fuel bitch doing what you're told like a good little whore.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who is arguing against climate change...the climate is always changing....I am arguing against man's role in the natural process....maybe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...more likely you can't...because no such evidence exists.

Of coarse it does. NOAA has been monitoring sea levels and temperatures for years. We also have scientific instruments that measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And thanks to ice core samples, we can see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere going back 2000 years.





You look at that data and no wonder we get hurricane Harvey and Irma.

Then you have glaciers that have been around for 2000 years and all of a sudden, they disappear within the last 60 years.



Anyone who thinks that is natural, is fucking whack!

 

[SSDD]

Of coarse it does. NOAA has been monitoring sea levels and temperatures for years.

You think the rate of sea level rise and temperature of the oceans have been static since the earth formed? Evidence of change is not evidence of the cause of change.

We also have scientific instruments that measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And thanks to ice core samples, we can see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere going back 2000 years.

And through those proxy studies, we can see that CO2 follows temperature. Increased or decreased atmospheric CO2 is the result of temperature changes, not the cause. When the present ice age began, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were close to 1000ppm.

You have only managed to show evidence that the climate changes...that is not even close to providing evidence as to why.

You look at that data and no wonder we get hurricane Harvey and Irma.

No..you look at the news and don't wonder why we get harry and irma...I wonder why there have been no hurricanes hitting the US for over a decade...I wonder why such importance is placed on a minor storm when there have been much stronger, more destructive storms in the past.

Then you have glaciers that have been around for 2000 years and all of a sudden, they disappear within the last 60 years.[/quote]

Part of the warmer's problem is that you tend to only look at very short periods of time...and cry...look what's happening all the while having no idea what is really going on in the long term.



Here, have a little bit of a longer look. In the graphic below, the Muir and Riggs glaciers can be found in the upper quadrant slightly to the right of center. Your photos from 1941 and 2004 create quite the image of incredible ice loss and if that were all you ever saw, you may go on believing the impression those photos deliberately created...a false impression, but one that you would believe none the less.

Your photos approximate the change from 1948 to 2004...but look on down....see the orange line representing the position of the glacier in 1907...more ice was lost between 1907 and 1948 than has been lost from 1941 to 2004. Then look on down to 1892...as much ice was lost between 1892 and 1907...a period of 15 years as was lost between 1941 and 2004...a period of 60 years. Now look on down the graphic at historical dates and ice lost...

The fact is, that when you look at the actual history of those glaciers, you see that the ice is retreating now at a rate considerably slower than it was back in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's when CO2 was in the "safe" zone...and when you look at the history of the ice retreat in that area, the idea that we are causing the ice to retreat now is simply silly. You got your panties in a knot over a couple of photos...which was exactly the intent of whoever provided them to you...

You should be asking yourself why they provided those photos to you and not the graphic below which calls into question the claims based on those photos of yours. If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you were duped...you were used...you have played the part of useful idiot because you didn't bother to look at the longer picture to compare more time to the short period of time you were concentrating on. Anyone who thinks that this is not natural is the one who has been duped.

The fact is that nothing that is happening in the climate today is even approaching the outermost fringes of natural variability...which is why I can confidently continue to ask you for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and be sure that you will never be able to provide it...because it simply doesn't exist.

Your belief in man made climate change is a result of smoke and mirrors...belief, and a bought and paid for consensus...and not the first shred of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence.

 

[Billo_Really]

You think the rate of sea level rise and temperature of the oceans have been static since the earth formed?

I didn't say that.

Evidence of change is not evidence of the cause of change.

Until you combine it with other evidence.

And through those proxy studies, we can see that CO2 follows temperature. Increased or decreased atmospheric CO2 is the result of temperature changes, not the cause. When the present ice age began, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were close to 1000ppm.


You have only managed to show evidence that the climate changes...that is not even close to providing evidence as to why.

And that climate has changed dramatically in the last 70 years.

No..you look at the news and don't wonder why we get harry and irma...

That makes no sense.

I wonder why there have been no hurricanes hitting the US for over a decade...

Global warming doesn't stop at US borders. There have been hurricanes during that period of time.

I wonder why such importance is placed on a minor storm when there have been much stronger, more destructive storms in the past.

Are you calling Irma and Harvey minor storms?

Part of the warmer's problem is that you tend to only look at very short periods of time...and cry...look what's happening all the while having no idea what is really going on in the long term.



Here, have a little bit of a longer look. In the graphic below, the Muir and Riggs glaciers can be found in the upper quadrant slightly to the right of center. Your photos from 1941 and 2004 create quite the image of incredible ice loss and if that were all you ever saw, you may go on believing the impression those photos deliberately created...a false impression, but one that you would believe none the less.

Your photos approximate the change from 1948 to 2004...but look on down....see the orange line representing the position of the glacier in 1907...more ice was lost between 1907 and 1948 than has been lost from 1941 to 2004. Then look on down to 1892...as much ice was lost between 1892 and 1907...a period of 15 years as was lost between 1941 and 2004...a period of 60 years. Now look on down the graphic at historical dates and ice lost...

The fact is, that when you look at the actual history of those glaciers, you see that the ice is retreating now at a rate considerably slower than it was back in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's when CO2 was in the "safe" zone...and when you look at the history of the ice retreat in that area, the idea that we are causing the ice to retreat now is simply silly. You got your panties in a knot over a couple of photos...which was exactly the intent of whoever provided them to you...

You should be asking yourself why they provided those photos to you and not the graphic below which calls into question the claims based on those photos of yours. If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you were duped...you were used...you have played the part of useful idiot because you didn't bother to look at the longer picture to compare more time to the short period of time you were concentrating on. Anyone who thinks that this is not natural is the one who has been duped.

The fact is that nothing that is happening in the climate today is even approaching the outermost fringes of natural variability...which is why I can confidently continue to ask you for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and be sure that you will never be able to provide it...because it simply doesn't exist.

Your belief in man made climate change is a result of smoke and mirrors...belief, and a bought and paid for consensus...and not the first shred of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence.

It's a little hard having an intelligent conversation on a complex issue with someone who uses cartoons as proof.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't say that.

You seemed to be saying exactly that. You apparently claimed that since the temperature and sea level were changing that it somehow must be us that is causing it and in order to make that claim based on nothing more than the fact that the numbers were changing, you would have to be assuming that they had never changed before and therefore, we must be the reason.

Until you combine it with other evidence.

What other evidence? More evidence of change with the assumption that it must be us tacked on? Newsflash..that isn't evidence that we have anything to do with climate change.

And that climate has changed dramatically in the last 70 years.

What "dramatic" change are you claiming over the past 70 years and what sort of evidence do you have that equally or more "dramatic" changes haven't happened in the past in the same time frame or less. Ice core data show that past temperature increases and decreases of far more than anything we have seen have happened in shorter periods of time than our own instrument record.

That makes no sense.

You hold up those storms as if they were something unusual...science isn't saying that...the news is saying that...science places them somewhere in the top 20 storms, most of which happened back when CO2 levels were supposedly safe.

Global warming doesn't stop at US borders. There have been hurricanes during that period of time.

The frequency of hurricanes has decreased worldwide.


Observed and projected decrease in Northern Hemisphere extratropical cyclone activity in summer and its impacts on maximum temperature

“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America. Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected. Decrease in summer cyclone activity will lead to decrease in cloud cover, giving rise to higher maximum temperature, potentially enhancing the increase in maximum temperature by 0.5 K or more over some regions. We also show that climate models may have biases in simulating the positive relationship between cyclone activity and cloud cover, potentially under-estimating the impacts of cyclone decrease on accentuating the future increase in maximum temperature.”

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?


“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.”

Are you calling Irma and Harvey minor storms?

Yep...compared to the storms of the past that left vast areas leveled and thousands dead. irma and harvey barely make it to the top 20.

It's a little hard having an intelligent conversation on a complex issue with someone who uses cartoons as proof.

What? You want satellite photos from the 1700s, 1800's, and early 1900's. It is a graphic that depicts the retreat of the glaciers in glacier bay. No different than the graphics you provided in an attempt to demonstrate whatever you thought that they would prove. In fact, the entire AGW hypothesis is based on trenberth's 'cartoon" of energy movement through the earth system... If you have a problem with the information the graphic depicts, then state which part you don't believe. The graphic came from the US Geological Service...oddly enough, they no longer have the graphic on their web site since it doesn't support the narrative you believe in.


So the wait continues for you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

At Least 10 Houston Area Chemical Facilities and Oil and Gas Refineries Have Already Reported Problems With Dozens More Threatened

• The Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas is at risk of explosion due to refrigerators keeping them at stable temperatures losing power.
• The floating roof on one of the tanks at Baytown partially sank at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, causing more than 12,000 pounds of benzene and toluene, two carcinogens, and volatile organic compounds to be released.
  
  
• There were reports of gas leaking from a transmission pipeline in Ingleside.
  
  
• In La Porte, a 14-inch pipeline reportedly spewed anhydrous hydrogen chloride, a toxic gas, for several hours.
  
  
• The external floating roof at the Shell Oil Deer Park refinery had material on it, requiring the company to place foam on material to lower emissions.
  
  
• The cooling water pump at the Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant reported and unexpected issue, despite the company having performed a controlled shutdown of the refinery.
  
  
• Benzene and unspeciated volatile organic compounds got on top of an external floating roof and into a dike firewall at a Valero facility.
  
  
• At another facility, Chevron Phillips reported it had sent more than 766,000 pounds of chemicals to its flare for burning, releasing dangerous toxins into the air.
  
  
• A tank at Kinder Morgan’s Pasadena Terminal has tilted, releasing 279,500 pounds of chemicals into a containment dike. The company announced that a fire retardant foam had been placed over the exposed liquid, and that it was emptying the liquid from the tank and containment dike.

-------------------------------------

How long before people being poisoned make it into the news again? Remember, Trump dismissed half the EPA board.

Invisible Killer in Katrina Victims' Trailers

Remember when Republicans passed out toxic and carcinogenic trailers after Katrina? Who would do something so awful to unsuspecting disaster victims. Well, I guess we already know.

You mean the chemicals Obama left there of r 8 years? LOL!

Oh grow up.

What can Obama do about Texas state laws? You can't blame right wing Republican filth on Obama. Those days are gone.

Wait!

They can't blame Obama for what the GOP government did in Texas but you can blame Trump?

Also how many years have those Chemical Plants been in Texas and can you name the Governors of Texas during that time?

Also you claim the EPA was doing a fine job during Obama era so how the hell did they mess up so badly in Colorado that caused a river to be poisoned that went through Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona?

The fact is you blame the local government when Obama was President but now blame Trump, and that make you another partisan whore!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who is arguing against climate change...the climate is always changing....I am arguing against man's role in the natural process....maybe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...more likely you can't...because no such evidence exists.

Of coarse it does. NOAA has been monitoring sea levels and temperatures for years. We also have scientific instruments that measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And thanks to ice core samples, we can see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere going back 2000 years.





You look at that data and no wonder we get hurricane Harvey and Irma.

Then you have glaciers that have been around for 2000 years and all of a sudden, they disappear within the last 60 years.



Anyone who thinks that is natural, is fucking whack!

You really are ignorant of history and facts..

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

This is empirical evidence!

Now show me yours.. (you don't have it) Are you now insinuating that man is solely responsible for all warming since 1850? That is a significant departure from the IPCC meme..

 

[deanrd]

The debate over toxic filth is just getting started. Like what the GOP did in Flint. Only this is way, way bigger

Yes ... we see Flint in the news everyday and most Americans see it as their most worrisome problem. How could I not see how electrifying this issue will be and turn the electorate towards electing a much more suitable president.

Yea, Russia.

Speaking of Russia:

All roads lead to Russia

 

[Old Rocks]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.