Conclusions from suppressed EPA report on CO2 Endangerment

And life on Earth radically altered the chemistry and climate of planet. I guess you weren't aware of that?

Denialists in their total arrogance/ignorance believe that man CANNOT alter the climate of the planet by spewing prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They take this on FAITH.

Science and climatologists on the other hand do NOT make the claim you did above. Rather than believing humans make the only contribution, they are trying to understand the magnitude of the contribution of humans and other sources. What you stated is just another common denialist lie. You have an extreme position, so you try to characterize your opposition as being just as extreme. Unfortunately for you they don't hold that position, but if you keep claiming they do often enough, those not paying much attention might believe your propaganda.

In the history of this planet, life has indeed altered the climate by altering the atmosphere. You don't think the oxygen rich atmosphere is natural do you? Humans as a life form can significantly alter key characteristics of the atmosphere. We are doing so now with CO2. We were doing so earlier with CFC's...fortunately we addressed that problem.

I suppose you also reject the notion that farming practices in the 1920's/1930's led to the Dust Bowl? Afterall, man can't alter his climate.

There is a lot more we could easily do to purposely alter our climate in negative ways, but as I've illustrated above it is also possible to unintentionally alter it. You've put your faith in an easily disproven theory.

I'm still waiting to find out what this "outragenousness" is. It's like watching someone chugging a bottle of rum at a party, suggesting they slow down/pace themselve a little, and being told that making such a suggestion is "outrageous!"

You are referring to denialists and conservatives of course.

 

Actually I am anti-religion, only times I stepped foot in a church was 1. to get married, it was my wifes wish, and 2. my daughters christening(Lutheran), again my wifes wish. I am one of the few who actually had the chance to choose, and by stepping back and looking at the whole picture, wars over religion, planes into buildings over religion, etc. I have come to the conclusion, that you do not need religion to believe.

What I express is good old common sense, something that is highly lacking in today's world at such extreme levels it is ridiculous. I don't drive a Hybrid because of the environment, I drive it for many reasons, first I use less gas, which is less reliance on foreign oil, second, I happen to like cruising through town on nothing but batteries, third I spend less money on gas, and finally because it spews less pollutants into the air.

Changing the way people use energy is great, something that needs to be done, but not in the way that the government is trying to force upon us. CFL's are a nice solution to saving energy, but each and every one of them contains a poison that causes brain damage if ingested, and if you break one, you now have a HAZMAT situation, where an incandescent bulb can just be swept into a bag, you now have to seal off the room and call in an expert to clean up the mercury. The Government wants to force everyone to have these bulbs in our homes now, so you will have no choice but to have these potential brain killers around our children. I have a few of them in my house, and guess what, they break real easy, especially if used upside down.

All the whackos saying the SUV's are causing global warming, lack common sense, first there is no hard evidence to base their claims on, second they try to force their insane beliefs that the world will burn up on everyone else, well I guess I should take up stock in Reynolds for the sale of all the Tinfoil hats they need.

To this date, no one, I repeat no one has come up with hard facts that CO2 sent out by tailpipe emissions is causing global warming. OTOH there are hard facts that what is happening with the climate has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future, and will continue to happen long after humans depart the planet.

Can anyone tell me what the water temperature of Lake Michigan was back in 1600, or 1000, or even 120 BC? Can anyone tell me what the air temperature was, on a daily basis, in Alaska 1500 years ago? Can anyone tell me what happened to the Sahara rain forest that turned it into a desert? Was it the SUV's and Industrial revolution that caused it? What caused the little ice age during the year 600-1800?

The answer to the above is NO, all they have is speculation.

Fact: computer models are based on information gathered on records of a very short time period, less than 200 years, and for the most part of those 200 years, they are incomplete records. Hence, garbage in = garbage out.

Fact: To get the overall picture of predicting climate change, you must have records that don't go back generations, but millenniums, and you must have accurate records. No one has that information, just a lot of guess work.

Fact: There is hard evidence that the earth cooled down to the point where there was 2 miles of ice over what is now Chicago.

Fact: There is evidence of a rain forest up in what is now the Arctic.

Fact: The sun has a drastic effect on earths climate, and runs in cycles that produces temperature swings such as what we have seen.

Fact: People are pigs! We trash everything! We screw up the Ozone layer, We screw up the water tables, We screw up air quality. What we can't do though is change the weather, we may be able to get it to rain, maybe, but we cant control the weather, hence we cannot control the climate.

What gets me the most over so called "Global Warming", or "Climate Change", is how whackos go around telling everyone we are doomed and must do something, Here's your hat!

What we can do , as a citizen of the planet, is clean it up. Simple enough. We can all do our part without the wackos trying to scare everyone, or the government forcing people to do things they "THINK" will reduce "Climate Change". In reality, all this "Climate Change" BS is nothing more than a money maker.

What can we do, lets start by recycling more, cleaning up the environment, be less wasteful of our resources. Really, it is nothing more than using plain old common sense. We don't need Cap and Trade, or as i call it Crap and Change, which is nothing more than more taxes forced upon us. The government has pissed away trillions of dollars on junk, GM and Chrysler did not need to be bailed out, they still wound up going bankrupt, instead those billions wasted on them could have been used to help utility companies, and factories reduce the amount of pollutants they put out. That would have been a better investment in our tax dollars.

Invest in programs that are already out there that will reduce our dependence on oil, while improving the environment at the same time, like using Algae to absorb CO2 from power plants, converting the exhaust to O2, while at the same time growing a resource that can be converted into Bio-diesel, Ethanol and fertilizer. Again, common sense.

There is technology available today that can be retro fitted to existing power plants to help reduce emissions, while at the same time providing resources that can further reduce pollution. Instead of the trillions wasted on failures, it should have been granted to those fields which would benefit us all.

To sum this all up.

Are humans causing "Global Warming/Climate Change"? The answer is NO, emphatically NO!!!

Are we polluting?

Oh hell yes we are, and that is something every single one of us CAN do something about.

 

The farming practices didn't alter the Climate, Climate altered their farming practices.

Here's your hat!

The methods used for farming were to strip the land of the grasses that held the soil down, in doing so, in periods of drought, the soil stayed in place. By removing the roots and planting corn, when the drought did happen, the soil dried out to the point it can be picked up by the wind since the grass roots no longer held it together.

Their farming methods did NOT cause the drought, the drought caused their farming methods to produce the Dust Bowl. Did the dust bowl cause the drought to linger longer? No one can answer that, because there are no records going back far enough to support or deny it.

Get your facts straight.

Granted, it has been PROVEN based on FACT that CFC's were causing holes in the Ozone layer.

The verdict on CO2 is still out there, it has yet been proven by hard known facts as to the impact of the CO2 levels humans are contributing to in the atmosphere, from what I have seen out there, no more than 4% is human based, leaving 96% being contributed by Nature.

Can an increase be contributed by the cutting down of rain forests? Possibly, and that is something I can agree with.

CAP and TRADE!!!!! Need I say more? The house passed a bill without even reading the damned thing!!!!!

 

How creative an interpretation by you, but wrong. Droughts are part of the natural variation, the Dust Bowl was not. The farming practices combined with natural varition (drought) produced the Dust Bowl. The farming practices actually altered the climate. Farmers had to alter their practices as a result of the Dust Bowl. Or perhaps you think the massive storms of dust are normal parts of the Plains climate? And you also believe that there was no feedback that worsened the Dust Bowl?

You've got cause and effect backwards. Absent man, the Dust Bowl would not have occurred when/where it did. Man altered farming practices to prevent a recurrence.

Well, I'm pleased to see you admit this, many denialists are still tilting against that windmill. (Same ones that oppose clean air, clean water, etc.)

No. That denialist defense line was overrun at least a decade ago. There is indeed a loop of carbon cycle, but what we are doing is on top of that loop. It's no accident that what we pull out of the ground correlates with the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere. (Doing this calc by hand was how I recognized that there was merit to the global warming concern back in the early 90's. We know where the sequestered carbon is coming from that we are putting back in the atmosphere.) There was a time when many believed/hoped that the Earth/lifeforms would be able to quickly absorb this CO2 in the form of more lush plant/marine life, etc. That ship has also sailed.

What you are claiming is akin to looking at a recirculation pump moving 100 gpm of water around in a tank and concluding that if I add 4 gpm to the tank (burning fossil fuel that was not previously in the tank) it will have no impact on the level in the tank. Yet I can calculate based on the size of the tank how much the level will rise (CO2) if I add the 4 gpm...and we have decades of data illustrating the predictable rise.

Great, but it pales in comparison to other sources.

For example Section3Group2: Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforests and CO2
"Our calculations suggest that deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon accounts for 0.397 Pg annually, an increase of only 0.0529% of the 750 x Pg C in currently in that atmosphere. We found that the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon is a surprisingly small contributor to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere"

Yes, you need to say a lot more, because I don't see how this will have an overall negative impact. Not paying the cradle to grave cost of fossil fuels and using the "drill, baby, drill" approach? That IS having a large negative impact. Spending trillions on wars over fossil fuel supplies...that is having large negative impacts. Not paying the nation's bills and pretending like it is the 1950's forever...that is having a major negative impact. Becoming more efficient with fossil fuels and investing in sustainable sources is not negative.

You've swallowed the babble from conservatives/denialists that actually becoming more efficient is a negative rather than a positive. Funny thing is everything I know about economics screams that the opposite is true. Being more efficient and leading rather than following is how you come up out on top in competitive markets. It's long term investment vs. short. Get rich quick schemes have been destroying our economy and you think long term planning is outrageous? What I find outrageous is your short term thinking. Who cares whether or not you make an extra 1% a year for a few years...if you end up bankrupt 10 years down the road because you failed to put that 1% toward improving competitiveness? There in a nutshell is the past decade of business in the U.S.

 

Yes, that works great for explaining lasers, nuclear reactions, the atom, relativity, quantum mechanics and everything else. The Romans should have been detonating H bombs as it is all just a matter of common sense...rather than building on our knowledge base.

If you applied common sense then it wouldn't be hard to recognize the rapid increase in CO2 and the corresponding rise in global average temperature and ocean acidity. Common sense might also prompt you to consider what happens to CO2 concentration in a room if you take a carbon source from somewhere else (fossil fuels in the ground) and burn them in the room.

What a load of crap. So much for your demonstration of any common sense. Here is your hat. See the other threads on this. You've been eating excrement fed to you by clueless conservatives.

Completely false! The source of rising CO2 in our atmosphere is easily demonstrated. First principles of mass balances apply. Take something out of the ground that has been locked away for millions of years, put it into the air via that SUV (or Prius.) CO2 source established.

CO2's molecular structure and bond lengths have been measured (annoying facts). These and the nature of the light striking the planet determine whether or not it will trap more than say nitrogen or oxygen.

So we have a source and driver established. What we don't understand fully is how everything interacts. This makes specific predictions in a complex system very difficult (other than things like CO2 will continue rising as we burn fossil fuels.)

Just because you don't understand them does not make them any less true. So what you are really doing is not using common sense, and instead dismissing inconvenient facts. While you are free to make such assumptions, it doesn't mean your assumptions are any good.

You have zero proof of that very bold claim and plenty of evidence to the contrary. What you want to believe doesn't necessarily match reality.

It is unfortunate that you can't apply common sense to recognize the absurdity of your absolute statement above.

 

NASA Satellite Confirms Urban Heat Islands Increase Rainfall Around Cities : News

It seems people can change the climate.
If a million people can change the local climate, I think we can change the planet's climate.
Are we entirely responsible for global warming? I don't know that we are, but it would be nice to think we are a major factor, IMO. If we are responsible for a major part of GW, then we can stop it or slow it down. If we aren't responsible and can't fix it, then all we can do is find ways to deal with rising temperatures (I hate hot weather) and rising sea levels around the World. Just think how much it will cost us to build a dike around Florida.

 

The real question is not whether CO2 addition changes the climate, but by how much? There is no right answer to the "how much" yet. The system is too complex and variable with too many feedbacks to be certain of the exact impact of any one change. There is plenty of room for skeptics and study in the "how much" debate. That is afterall the crux of the problem. If we had an indisputable way to say how much (with interactions), then focus would shift to what should we do about it.

That is why statements such as "Are humans causing 'Global Warming/Climate Change'? The answer is NO, emphatically NO!!!" are so worthy of ridicule and tend to fire me up. The claim in effect says the impact is 0.00000 degrees (short and long term). If someone were to claim the result of man's activities was precisely 2.88670 degrees we would all consider it either a joke or a ridiculously unsupportable claim, not because of the magnitude, but because of the phony precision. Zero is a very precise number, no rounding is necessary.

Any time a denialist claims that man can't have any impact on the climate, they should be challenged until they learn to recognize the folly of the claim. It is a question of degree (or more likely degrees) rather than true/false (X as opposed to zero). Perhaps we will one day conclude the effect is only 0.1 degrees over the next century, and it is masked or overwhelmed by other things. Perhaps the hockey stick is just a coincidence. But to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that man is not responsible for the increase in CO2 are both provably false assertions.

 

OOKAAAYY, so you are saying the way they were farming caused the drought that lasted several years? It was a combination of the drought and open tilling that were the root cause of the dust bowl, however the dust bowl itself did not cause the drought, nor did it extend the drought. Do you think maybe, just maybe, a change in the jet stream was the root cause behind the dust bowl? What the dust bowl did do was changed how farmers tilled the soil, and what crops they grew to minimize the effects of drought on uncovered soil.

Please dont tell me the dust bowl changed the jet stream, actually please do, I need a good laugh!

 

If you want a good laugh, reread your own posts about CFL's and such.

 

Here is the part you fail to understand. The Government in its great wisdom, wants to BAN the use of incandescent light bulbs, forcing everyone to use the CFL's. In my child's play room, there are no windows as it is in the basement, and in order to provide sufficient amounts of light, it needs 8 lights in the ceiling. I installed 8 CFL lamps, of which 3 so far have cracked while in use, dispersing the mercury vapors into the room. Now granted, the amount in each build is very small, but as anyone knows, heavy metals such as mercury, once they enter the body, stay in the body. Since these bulbs have cracked during use and released the vapors, that means anyone in the room has breathed in some amount of these vapors.

Get the point? CFL's are a great idea, but if they can break on their own if mounted in a ceiling can, they do in fact pose a health risk. I am still using CFL's in other parts of the house, just not in my kid's playroom anymore, I dont feel it is worth the risk.

 

Honestly, instead of asking anonymous posters, why don't you ask an expert like Andrew Weaver at UVic.

First he'll tell you if there is no warming and second he'll tell you why:

Here are his publications: Publications - Andrew J. Weaver

I think it's clear he is up on the subject.

 

This is all very surrealistic, but unfortunately, it's real. The question is why political extremists want to distort information they must know isn't accurate. Don't they know they are hurting the country? And where is the media in all this? Copping out, it seems.

Climate change is not a political issue. It's a planet issue.

 

You want your questions answered and I'm honestly giving you the best man I know who can answer it. That's all. I don't know this Pielke guy but if you like him so much why don't you ask him too.

The point is stop asking us laymen the damn questions. I've told you several times I don't play armchair climatologist. I'm looking at the scientific consensus and that's the best I can do.

My question to you is: If you personally asked ten bonafide experts and and 9 of them gave you the IPCC line and explained how/why and Pielke was the only one who didn't, who would you believe?

You don't act like a reasonable person so I'm guessing you'd still not believe the IPCC's conclusions. But I think any reasonable person would and that's fine. We don't need to convince your ilk.

You don't have the power to stop the decarbonization of world's economy so feel free to stew in your own ignorance.

 

Actually that doesn't require use of CFL's. Something other than the incandescents will be required. This includes halogens, CFL's, and LED's.

Those are not normal failures. I've used CFL's for over 4 years and never had a spontaneous crack (although I have broken some by accidentally hitting them.) For an accurate discussion of mercury look here http://www.greenlightneworleans.org/pdf/slatearticlemercury.pdf

Ever worked with regular fluorescent tubes? Same issue there.

Did you use a Hazmat approach to the breaks as you claimed?

What a ban will do is force lighting product makers to address various issues.

As it is, CFL's REDUCE mercury emissions, rather than increase them.