New EPA head Scott Pruitt rejects CO2 as primary cause of global warming

[Vandalshandle]

Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago, The last three tenths of one percent of the Cenozoic, pretty much in the rightmost pixel of that graphic. CO2 levels were about 230 ppm and temperatures were about 3.8C LOWER than todays temperature. CO2 has NEVER been higher than it is currently in the last million years, much less in human history.

And, let me get this straight, you claim to have a degree in geology?

I'm pretty sure that these guys are chartered members of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' Money

Have you hugged your tree today? Nature is a pretty sight only to those who are sitting pretty.

 

[RollingThunder]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' Money

Have you hugged your tree today? Nature is a pretty sight only to those who are sitting pretty.

Meaningless drivel! Are you insane? Or just sitting there with your had up your ass, like most rightwingnuts.

 

[Markle]

Do you have data showing increasing levels of atmospheric water vapor to coincide with the observed warming?

I take it that you are aware that Global Warming frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2.

Are you aware that other planets in our Solar System are warming? SUV's?

 

[Markle]

It is a undeniable fact that co2 is a green house gas. Period.

Don't like it...Well, get a phd and write a paper proving otherwise.

Is water vapor?

What percentage of our entire atmosphere is CO2?

 

[Markle]

Now tell me something I don't know.

Question......what does a plant need to survive?

Answer....Sunlight and CO2

While not as much, what do plants emit at night?

 

[Markle]

And then does nothing to clean up anything.. And then no one is held accountable..

As I understand, the EPA also refused to take economic responsibility for the cleanup.

 

[Markle]

UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

But Pruitt cannot affect this trend one whit. He is a useless Luddite that will last, at the most, 4 years in that position. A complete failure as a human being, and a useless parasite on the system.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If it isn't, then what is? Regardless of the answer to that question, it is a contributor. If not, Pruitt needs to explain what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs and why the increase in CO2 seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution wouldn't also increase absorbed energy.

I let out a ripping bean fart in response.

 

[Markle]

Isnt that the guy Drumpf appointed that has sued the EPA like 16 times when he was governor of Kansas or something? This guy is deep into the oil industry. What do you expect him to say?

AT LAST! SOMEONE who sees the EPA and their minions for the disillusioned people they are.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If it isn't, then what is? Regardless of the answer to that question, it is a contributor. If not, Pruitt needs to explain what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs and why the increase in CO2 seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution wouldn't also increase absorbed energy.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist.
Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million —
climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

So what is so bad about having Megatooth Sharks and the world's seas 100 feet higher?
More inland construction it sounds like for me in Florida!
Wow the Gulf of Mexico will be right out my back porch! GREAT!!!

Were you there? Was the guy that wrote the article there? That's a ton of speculation going on there.


Possibly, if you bought beachfront property too close to the water in an erosion zone.

 

[mamooth]

I take it that you are aware that Global Warming frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2.

Yes. I take it you're aware that bringing up that red herring doesn't reflect well on your ability to use logic. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions at the present time are different, and conditions are different.

Are you aware that other planets in our Solar System are warming? SUV's?

Are you aware the sun is cooling, and that we thus know with 100% certainty the warming is not caused by solar changes?

Probably not, as apparently your political cult didn't see fit to inform you of that. They withheld information from you, a form of dishonesty. Why would they do that, do you think?

And why do you ask so many irrelevant questions? Is that how your were trained to deflect from the actual topic?

 

[mamooth]

Here's my question for Lefty:

You understand the question revealed that you're not very smart, right?

When are you going to march in the streets to protest Beer Bubbles and demand Americans drink Flat Beer, Flat Sodas, Flat Champagne, Eat Flat Bread, and demand the banning of all cheese, cake, yogurts and other foods with active cultures or that require CO2 as part of the process of their being made?

So, why did you think that question wasn't retarded? Because it was.

All those things you listed are insignificant CO2 sources. Nobody except you denier cranks have ever demanded an end to all CO2 emissions, and nobody knows why you make such stupid demands.

 

[healthmyths]

Here's my question for Lefty:

You understand the question revealed that you're not very smart, right?

When are you going to march in the streets to protest Beer Bubbles and demand Americans drink Flat Beer, Flat Sodas, Flat Champagne, Eat Flat Bread, and demand the banning of all cheese, cake, yogurts and other foods with active cultures or that require CO2 as part of the process of their being made?

So, why did you think that question wasn't retarded? Because it was.

All those things you listed are insignificant CO2 sources. Nobody except you denier cranks have ever demanded an end to all CO2 emissions, and nobody knows why you make such stupid demands.

I'm waiting for your explanation of this.

Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa's spine: It used to be downright balmy.

In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.
Study: North Pole Once Was Tropical

 

[polarbear]

H

Here's my question for Lefty:

You understand the question revealed that you're not very smart, right?

When are you going to march in the streets to protest Beer Bubbles and demand Americans drink Flat Beer, Flat Sodas, Flat Champagne, Eat Flat Bread, and demand the banning of all cheese, cake, yogurts and other foods with active cultures or that require CO2 as part of the process of their being made?

So, why did you think that question wasn't retarded? Because it was.

All those things you listed are insignificant CO2 sources. Nobody except you denier cranks have ever demanded an end to all CO2 emissions, and nobody knows why you make such stupid demands.

I'm waiting for your explanation of this.

Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa's spine: It used to be downright balmy.

In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.
Study: North Pole Once Was Tropical

He won`t give you nothing but b.s. as an answer.
I`ve been up there myself and posted pictures of stumps that are what was remaining of a huge forest of equally huge trees that have been sheared off by the glaciers that killed them later.
They are all along the Nares Straight both on the Ellesmere Island side and on the Greenland coast.

 

[The Original Tree]

Your worthless carcass exhales more CO2 than an automobile!

CO2 has no IR translation properties. AGW is a hoax.

There really is no debating it except in religious terms.

Here's my question for Lefty:

You understand the question revealed that you're not very smart, right?

When are you going to march in the streets to protest Beer Bubbles and demand Americans drink Flat Beer, Flat Sodas, Flat Champagne, Eat Flat Bread, and demand the banning of all cheese, cake, yogurts and other foods with active cultures or that require CO2 as part of the process of their being made?

So, why did you think that question wasn't retarded? Because it was.

All those things you listed are insignificant CO2 sources. Nobody except you denier cranks have ever demanded an end to all CO2 emissions, and nobody knows why you make such stupid demands.

 

[skookerasbil]

Fascinating stuff........the response from the AGW k00ks is to go back to a science debate.........as if it matters!!

All the AGW genius' in here might be brilliant in some science stuff but have a profound level of ignorant on real life stuff. Like ODC........which is a mental disorder. Falls under the umbrella of depression as do all mental disorders. OCD doesn't allow the dots to connect in the thinking.......its a serotonin thing, specifically, a lack of it. This explains the inability to be able to see the big picture. Think of a hamster wheel........in the brain. Its a pathology in the thinking process. Since Im in the field, I can spot it 5,000 miles away.......there are pharmacological remedies s0ns.. You'll be a lot more productive in life.........a certainty.

 

[mamooth]

I'm waiting for your explanation of this.

The explanation is you're terrible at logic, which is why you were so easily bamboozled by your cult.

Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa's spine: It used to be downright balmy.

In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.

So, your awful logic there is "Climate changed naturally in the past, therefore humans can't change climate."

That's every bit as dumb as saying "Forest fires occurred naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Climate changing naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing it now. An average second grader could grasp that. You and polarbear can't. You two shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your childish prattle.

 

[mamooth]

Your worthless carcass exhales more CO2 than an automobile!

Don't be absurd. You have no concept of the scale of the various emissions sources.

A human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 a day.

A gallon of gasoline, when burned, creates about 20 pounds of CO2. Most people burn multiple gallons a day.

Moreover, CO2 from people originates in plants, which pulled the CO2 out of the air in the first place, so there's no net change in atmospheric CO2.

In contrast, fossil fuels burning takes permanently stored carbon and puts it into the atmosphere, so there's a big net gain of atmospheric CO2.

CO2 has no IR translation properties. AGW is a hoax.

And now you're denying the basic physics that has been known for centuries. You've become a completely delusional cultist.

Oh, I see you a central theme of yours is that you want a lot of people removed from the planet. That's a scary hallmark of the denier cult, your wish to commit mass genocide.

 

[The Original Tree]

There are more people & animal life on Earth than automobiles. It's not even close. All that damn breathing, and let's not even get in to Volcanoes. Nothing can match the amounts of CO2 they expel.

Besides CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

That's a red herring, and is nothing but a ploy as if to say "prove God exists."

There is no actual evidence for manade climate change. It's all theory and models and out of the 120 models used over the past 20 years they have had 100% failure rate in predicting climate based on the models.

The reason being is that

1.) We cannot model global climate accurately and tie it to manmade activities. That is s double barrier that no one can conclusively overcome based on limited computer generated models that are missing a large swath of data that has had to be ommitted to even make the models work. There are too many variables.

2.) Because they have had to dumb down the models and try to tie CO2 to climate change they will never be accurate.

3.) The Earth's climate systems are too vast even with our modern technology to make it predictable. Weather models and climate trending is woefully inaccurate the further in time you try
to predict it.

4.) To simplify the Climate Models they have had to manipulate some data and omit other data. The following is list of data omitted.

A.) Solar Minimum and Maximums. Because we have only been able to measure solar output for a few decades we do not have an accurate record of how much solar output vacillates between maximums and minimums.

B.) Cloud Cover.
Because we cannot predict a realistic cloud cover on any given day year Era, Epoch, or Period in a model, they cannot even incorporate this in to the climate simulation models.

C.) The Jet Stream.
The Jet Stream greatly affects the climate on a large scale in the various regions on The Earth. Because this cannot be accurately predicted what The Jet Stream is going to at any given moment this variable cannot be included in any simulations aka climate models.... or if you like "video games".

D.) Paleo Climate CO2.
You cannot measure paleo climate CO2 with any accuracy. There is always an area of uncertainty. Scientists often remove the "area of uncertainty" in their graphs which is intellectually dishonest and misleading to the public. They do this because it often weakens or defeats their arguments. So much for "settled science."

People have tried to use ice cores, and tree rings but both can only provide ranges because you can only go back so far with ice cores and they continually leach CO2 in to the atmosphere. Again exponentially inaccurate the further back in time you try to go.

This is not an accurate measure. Cores from carbon dated rock is more accurate but again Carbon Dating becomes more innaccurate as you go back in time. Any graphs I post are based on rock cores as they provide a more accurate picture but again you have to include the " area of uncertainty" to be intellectually honest, and these are projections and educated guesses which are exponentially and increasingly more inaccurate as you go further back in time.

Tree Rings are used in some studies. This is like throwing chicken bones on an animal hide and trying to read the past. You cannot use "tree rings" to read or Attempt To Divine a single factor (CO2 Levels).

Rainfall in given year, the length of a growing season in a given year, the frequency of rainfall in a given year, the amount of sunshine in a growing season, the amount of nutrients in the soil and the average temperature in a growing season all affect the width of a tree ring.

E.) Data.
This is the biggest obstacle for climate models. The Earth is too vast. Even with satellites we cannot measure temperature on every square inch of the Earth. We cannot measure temperatures at various depths in our oceans and lakes and rivers and streams. We cannot measure microclimates.

We try but we just can't and it's a myth to make people believe we can.

We have only had the technology to look at The Earth from space for about 40 years, and even now it still looks like a grainy photograph compared to the actual data needed to make a simulated climate that has any accuracy.

Go back a 100 years and you have NO Accuracy at all when trying to make educated guesses about our climate.

None!

Man Made Climate change is an interesting theory. But it's only a theory. People are invested in it. Their careers, their income, their political power.

It's a multi trillion dollar business.

I am fine with Lefty making a lot of money, and even getting truckloads of our tax dollars delivered to him to do research, but you should not be re-engineering our economies and politics based on a molecule that only makes up 0.04 percent of our atmosphere and absorbs as much IR as it reflects making it Climate Neutral.

Paleo Climate measurements of CO2 are not only innaccurate regardless of the method you use but the cause & effect assigned to CO2 is theoretical and misleading.

CO2 levels rise and fall with natural climate change and this is tied to solar minimums and maximums and is a marker indicating these vacillations and is not the cause of them.

Below are three graphs. First two are without the area of uncertainty and one with (the third). Both are based on paleo geology (rock cores)

Note the shaded area below in the sameness graph and how wide the range is. These areas of uncertainty are always removed from graphs being shown to the Public.