Jeb Bush on Climate Change. WTF???

[ivwshane]

You really are a stupid man.

Awe how cute! You calling me stupid is like a three year old calling someone a poopy face, it's cute and even funnier when you say it with a full diaper. Is your diaper full reduguy?

 

[werepossum]

Awe how cute! You callings stupid is like a three year old calling someone a poopy face, it's cute and even funnier when you say it with a full diaper. Is your diaper full reduguy?

Clearly this inane and largely incomprehensible rant is your way of agreeing with rudeguy.

 

[ivwshane]

Clearly this inane and largely incomprehensible rant is your way of agreeing with rudeguy.

Lol! You do tend to not understand the simplest of things, so no surprise there

 

[bshole]

Actually, they both could be contributing to the ice formation, as neither is mutually exclusive.

Melting land ice creates more fresh water than can freeze. The winds that move the land ice away, open a void for the new fresh water to then freeze. They could be feedback loops that both contribute to ice formation.

I feel like this is pretty simple.

Out of curiousity was it the "scientifically" accepted amount of warming per year due to additional CO2 added to the atmosphere? Is it something like 0.01 degrees C per year? Is it true that we have already released about half of the available carbon stored in the earth? If so, aren't we on the waning side of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Once the carbon fuels run out, we can no longer put additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Isn't it a given that humans will burn all the available carbon? It just seems inevitable. We went through half of it in a century and the global temperature only went up 1 degree C; it is not apparent that the 2nd half of available carbon consumption would do much more than additional 1 degree C in a century. Gross oversimplification I know with assumptions galore.... but just saying....

 

[Genx87]

I think that is an oversimplification. The momentum of the atmosphere would prevent huge swings in temp unless the Sun varied wildly in output. I could see a cascading event that takes decades to produce results. And we have to factor in the oceans. Which could be a huge heat sink for the atmosphere until it gets too warm. Then the temperature could rise as well.

 

[realibrad]

Out of curiousity was it the "scientifically" accepted amount of warming per year due to additional CO2 added to the atmosphere? Is it something like 0.01 degrees C per year? Is it true that we have already released about half of the available carbon stored in the earth? If so, aren't we on the waning side of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Once the carbon fuels run out, we can no longer put additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Isn't it a given that humans will burn all the available carbon? It just seems inevitable. We went through half of it in a century and the global temperature only went up 1 degree C; it is not apparent that the 2nd half of available carbon consumption would do much more than additional 1 degree C in a century. Gross oversimplification I know with assumptions galore.... but just saying....

You asked a lot of questions that you seem to have answered, albeit incorrectly.
Your first question is a bit misleading because not all CO2 goes into the atmosphere. As discussed before, a lot of CO2 goes into the ocean, or is absorbed by pants ect. We now know that the ability for earth to absorb CO2 is much higher than previously though. So, even if we were to double the CO2 emitted, it would not be a 1:1 increase in the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.
"Since we don't know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it," Tans said. "We need to identify what's going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future."

The way CO2 increases global temps is not strait straightforward. The wavelength that comes from sun is not what is really absorbed. That radiation hits the earths surface, and is radiated back at a different wavelength that CO2 can absorb. Once the CO2 absorbs the energy, it can radiate it back to earth again. Greenhouse gasses is the reason earth is warmer than a planet like Mars. Mars long ago lost its magnetic field which allowed solar winds to blow away any greenhouse gasses. So, any solar radiation that hits the surface is mainly reflected back.

So, its not a question if CO2 holds in heat. The only question left to answer is how much can we release before we see negative effects that outweigh the benefits.

Also, I cant find anything supporting your claim that half of the CO2 stored on earth has been released. I would bet its likely because we simply dont know how much is out there. If you are trying to say that we will burn through all the fossil fuel before global warming would be a big issue, then that is probably the most dumb argument I have heard so far. its true that fossil fuels contribute to the vast majority of CO2 released, but its not the only source. Can you support your claim that we have only gone up 1 degree and have burned half of the fossil fuel supply?

 

[bshole]

You asked a lot of questions that you seem to have answered, albeit incorrectly.
Your first question is a bit misleading because not all CO2 goes into the atmosphere. As discussed before, a lot of CO2 goes into the ocean, or is absorbed by pants ect. We now know that the ability for earth to absorb CO2 is much higher than previously though. So, even if we were to double the CO2 emitted, it would not be a 1:1 increase in the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html



The way CO2 increases global temps is not strait straightforward. The wavelength that comes from sun is not what is really absorbed. That radiation hits the earths surface, and is radiated back at a different wavelength that CO2 can absorb. Once the CO2 absorbs the energy, it can radiate it back to earth again. Greenhouse gasses is the reason earth is warmer than a planet like Mars. Mars long ago lost its magnetic field which allowed solar winds to blow away any greenhouse gasses. So, any solar radiation that hits the surface is mainly reflected back.

So, its not a question if CO2 holds in heat. The only question left to answer is how much can we release before we see negative effects that outweigh the benefits.

Also, I cant find anything supporting your claim that half of the CO2 stored on earth has been released. I would bet its likely because we simply dont know how much is out there. If you are trying to say that we will burn through all the fossil fuel before global warming would be a big issue, then that is probably the most dumb argument I have heard so far. its true that fossil fuels contribute to the vast majority of CO2 released, but its not the only source. Can you support your claim that we have only gone up 1 degree and have burned half of the fossil fuel supply?

From real climate, the temp appears to have risen 1 deg in 1 century.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

Regarding the amount of fossil fuels left:

Apparently we have 50 years of oil and natural gas. 125 years of coal. So it would appear we are past the half way point. Of course, I would not put too much faith in these estimates. When I was in grade school, they were predicting the fossil fuels would run out by 2000. In any event, LONG before global warming becomes a problem, the availability of carbon fuels will probably become a problem. In our grandkid's lifetimes, there will probably be a major shift of necessity to other sources. This is why this whole global warming theory is a tempest in a teapot.... humans will shift off fossil fuels permanently within the next century and it will have nothing to do with global warming.

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

 

[Paratus]

From real climate, the temp appears to have risen 1 deg in 1 century.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

Regarding the amount of fossil fuels left:

Apparently we have 50 years of oil and natural gas. 125 years of coal. So it would appear we are past the half way point. Of course, I would not put too much faith in these estimates. When I was in grade school, they were predicting the fossil fuels would run out by 2000. In any event, LONG before global warming becomes a problem, the availability of carbon fuels will probably become a problem. In our grandkid's lifetimes, there will probably be a major shift of necessity to other sources. This is why this whole global warming theory is a tempest in a teapot.... humans will shift off fossil fuels permanently within the next century and it will have nothing to do with global warming.

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

Here's a good write up on how many tons of fossil fuel we can burn:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...about-how-much-fossil-fuel-reserves-cant-burn

The world is gradually waking up to the true nature of the climate change conundrum, and not a moment too soon. The situation boils down to this: fossil fuel is immensely useful, valuable and politically important, yet if we want to avoid taking unacceptable risks with the planet we need to leave most of that fuel in the ground – either forever or at least until there’s an affordable and scalable way to stop the exhaust gases building up in the atmosphere.....

.....So far so good, but McKibben’s article has been so influential that the very specific numbers it contains are now often cited as a kind of unchanging gospel truth. Those numbers are as follows. Limiting global warming to the agreed global target of 2C means staying within a ‘carbon budget’ of 565 GT (gigatonnes or billion tonnes). That is a fifth of the 2,795 GT that would be released if all the world’s proven oil, coal and gas reserves were burned. Therefore four-fifths of the fossil fuel must stay in the ground.....

.....Acceptable risk

Given the inherent uncertainties, the best that scientists can do is tell us the likelihood that any given carbon budget will cause any given level of warming. Picking a budget therefore involves choosing how much risk we’re prepared to take of overheating the planet.....

....This is unavoidably a value judgement as it entails weighing up the cost and inconvenience of reducing fossil fuel use against the risks of exceeding 2C (which itself splits scientific opinion: some experts think exceeding even 1.5C could be disastrous, while others are less nervous about overshooting 2C a little). The Carbon Tracker/Bill McKibben numbers are based on accepting a 20% chance of exceeding 2C. By contrast, the Nature paper is based on 50/50 odds, while the most recent IPCC report shows a 33% chance of failure. Changing the acceptable odds can make a big difference to the budget.....

....If we rapidly stopped deforestation and pushed down hard on the other drivers of global warming, we might be able to stretch our fossil fuel budget to 1,000 GT – which would let us burn around a third of proven reserves. Let deforestation and other warming agents run amok, however, while also aiming for better odds of staying below 2C, and we might have as little as 300 GT left for fossil fuels – which would be closer to a 10th of proven reserves.

In other words, while the familiar Bill McKibben/Carbon Tracker numbers are within the sensible range, nothing is written in stone. Everything from our view of risk to our efforts to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from cars and methane emissions from cows will determine how much of the world’s fossil fuel we need to leave in the ground. And that’s not to mention any disruptive carbon capture technologies that might come along to help us burn more of the fuel without cooking the climate.

For now, however, all of this detail remains academic. Political leaders negotiating at the UN have failed to even discuss a total global carbon budget, while fossil fuels companies (both state owned and private) continue to pump huge sums of money into finding and developing yet more reserves.

So while it is good to understand what factors will determine our carbon budget, it is much more important to call on politicians and investors alike to get a grip on this issue and face up to the simple and incontestable reality: there’s far more fossil fuel than we can burn, and the more of it that we take out of the ground, the greater the risk of an irreversible climate catastrophe.

TL;DR
We can only burn about %20 of proven fossil fuel reserves and still stay below 2C that most climate scientists agree is not catastrophic.

If we do other things, stop deforestation, limit methane, etc. we can increase the % of reserves we burn.

 

[realibrad]

From real climate, the temp appears to have risen 1 deg in 1 century.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

Regarding the amount of fossil fuels left:

Apparently we have 50 years of oil and natural gas. 125 years of coal. So it would appear we are past the half way point. Of course, I would not put too much faith in these estimates. When I was in grade school, they were predicting the fossil fuels would run out by 2000. In any event, LONG before global warming becomes a problem, the availability of carbon fuels will probably become a problem. In our grandkid's lifetimes, there will probably be a major shift of necessity to other sources. This is why this whole global warming theory is a tempest in a teapot.... humans will shift off fossil fuels permanently within the next century and it will have nothing to do with global warming.

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

http://knoema.com/smsfgud/world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels

This is probably the easiest argument to refute.

Here is a graph that should explain.

Fossil fuel consumption is not flat. That means year over year it increases. The amount of fossil fuel we are looking to consume in the next 50 years is more than we burned in the previous years combined. So, the amount of carbon added will be far more than the previous. If global temps have gone up 1 degree so far because of the amount of carbon that has been added, then it goes to reason that the next 50 years of carbon added would increase the temps more than an avg of 1 degree.

Models cannot yet tell us how much more than 1 degree, but the science is there to tell us it will be greater than 1 degree all other factors being held constant.

So, here is another graph.

Take note of the amount of carbon added from 1975 and on. Now, look at the previous projections in the first graph, and see that carbon emissions is going to continue to increase. If temps have been going up from the carbon already being added, and we will more than double the amount of carbon added in the next 20 years, then temps will likely go up more than they have been.

 

[Paratus]

So just for fun let's assume we burn all 2795GT and in a worst case scenario ALL of it goes into the atmosphere. What would thr PPM OF CO2 be?

The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3x10^18kg.

Adding 2795GT of carbon would bring the total mass to 5.303x10^18kg
Now that carbon is going to be combined with O2 from the atmosphere. Carbon has an atomic mass of 12 while O2 is 32 for a total of 44. So the total mass of CO2 we're adding is:

2795GT of C x (44/12) = 1.02x10^16kg

We also have to add the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the amount we're going to add. Before burning the carbon we're at 400PPM of CO2 so

(400/1000000) x 5.3x10^18kg =2.12x10^15kg of CO2

Combined we get a total CO2 mass of

1.232x10^16kg of CO2


Finally we divide the total CO2 by the mass of the atmosphere with the extra carbon and convert to ppm and we get

2323PPM of CO2. About 5.5 times the amount we have today.....

I'll mention again that the stock prices of Exxon, Shell, BP, Koch Bros and the budgets of OPEC nations are in part based on the assumption that all reserves will be sold and burned.

To me that sounds like a really bad idea.

 

[Jaskalas]

Still going on about global sea ice? Hasn't it been explained to you that as glaciers melt floating sea ice will of course increase? Countless times? Run along Jaskalas, run along and keep pretending you know something that the entire scientific community does not.

I spoke of sea ice as an anecdotal side affirmation of why you should follow the satellite temperatures. That it's not actually as warm as you've been lead to believe. It's okay if you have excuses for defeated Antarctic predictions. The main subject is the temperature record and my reply to: "researchers being paid to find specific results."

On one hand you've surface stations that show continued warming for the 21st century. OTOH, you've satellites that show no warming for the 21st century. Could the difference be UHI and 21 lanes of asphalt? Or maybe it's the constant adjustments which always result in increasing the trend?

We've got two diverging sets of temperature records.
Again, why aren't you on Team Satellite?

 

[bshole]

I spoke of sea ice as an anecdotal side affirmation of why you should follow the satellite temperatures. That it's not actually as warm as you've been lead to believe. It's okay if you have excuses for defeated Antarctic predictions. The main subject is the temperature record and my reply to: "researchers being paid to find specific results."

On one hand you've surface stations that show continued warming for the 21st century. OTOH, you've satellites that show no warming for the 21st century. Could the difference be UHI and 21 lanes of asphalt? Or maybe it's the constant adjustments which always result in increasing the trend?

We've got two diverging sets of temperature records.
Again, why aren't you on Team Satellite?

So.... he predicts loss of Antarctic Sea Ice and actual results are diametrically opposed to his predictions and he still loses no credibility? All of his new wild as predictions are to be taken on faith?

Jask, do you have reputable source that proves that the satellite temperature readings have remained steady for 15 years? I would also be interested in the warmist counters to this data.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

For those among us who are interested in such things.

UAH satellite temperature dataset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So.... he predicts loss of Antarctic Sea Ice and actual results are diametrically opposed to his predictions and he still loses no credibility? All of his new wild as predictions are to be taken on faith?

Jask, do you have reputable source that proves that the satellite temperature readings have remained steady for 15 years? I would also be interested in the warmist counters to this data.

Needs to the updated to 2015...but the trend has been sideways during that time as well.

1958-2011 radiosonde, satellite and surface temperature record

 

[dank69]

I spoke of sea ice as an anecdotal side affirmation of why you should follow the satellite temperatures. That it's not actually as warm as you've been lead to believe. It's okay if you have excuses for defeated Antarctic predictions. The main subject is the temperature record and my reply to: "researchers being paid to find specific results."

On one hand you've surface stations that show continued warming for the 21st century. OTOH, you've satellites that show no warming for the 21st century. Could the difference be UHI and 21 lanes of asphalt? Or maybe it's the constant adjustments which always result in increasing the trend?

We've got two diverging sets of temperature records.
Again, why aren't you on Team Satellite?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tudy-disputes-satellite-temperature-estimates

 

[werepossum]

You asked a lot of questions that you seem to have answered, albeit incorrectly.
Your first question is a bit misleading because not all CO2 goes into the atmosphere. As discussed before, a lot of CO2 goes into the ocean, or is absorbed by pants ect. We now know that the ability for earth to absorb CO2 is much higher than previously though. So, even if we were to double the CO2 emitted, it would not be a 1:1 increase in the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html



The way CO2 increases global temps is not strait straightforward. The wavelength that comes from sun is not what is really absorbed. That radiation hits the earths surface, and is radiated back at a different wavelength that CO2 can absorb. Once the CO2 absorbs the energy, it can radiate it back to earth again. Greenhouse gasses is the reason earth is warmer than a planet like Mars. Mars long ago lost its magnetic field which allowed solar winds to blow away any greenhouse gasses. So, any solar radiation that hits the surface is mainly reflected back.

So, its not a question if CO2 holds in heat. The only question left to answer is how much can we release before we see negative effects that outweigh the benefits.

Also, I cant find anything supporting your claim that half of the CO2 stored on earth has been released. I would bet its likely because we simply dont know how much is out there. If you are trying to say that we will burn through all the fossil fuel before global warming would be a big issue, then that is probably the most dumb argument I have heard so far. its true that fossil fuels contribute to the vast majority of CO2 released, but its not the only source. Can you support your claim that we have only gone up 1 degree and have burned half of the fossil fuel supply?

Although I'm very agnostic about CAGW, I think we've probably passed the limit of beneficial CO2 increase. Plants breathe oxygen just as do animals. At certain levels of CO2 concentration (dependent on many factors) the benefits of increased CO2 begin to level off and it even becomes a growth inhibitor. This is because the plant actually has to spent more energy ridding itself of excess CO2 than it can gain through photosynthesis. The exact aggregate concentration would be enormously difficult and currently probably impossible to accurately model, but I suspect we're far along the curve if not actually at or over the top.

 

[Jaskalas]

Jask, do you have reputable source that proves that the satellite temperature readings have remained steady for 15 years? I would also be interested in the warmist counters to this data.

RSS and UAH.

They read as follows, though the UAH v6.0 is not final.
That's no warming for 18 years.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tudy-disputes-satellite-temperature-estimates

Which is why I brought in Sea Ice to support Team Satellite.
It just doesn't look like warmest ever...

 

[dank69]

Which is why I brought in Sea Ice to support Team Satellite.
It just doesn't look like warmest ever...

Which is why I mentioned that the increased sea ice seems to be due to the decreased salinity of the ocean due to the melting glaciers...

 

[glenn1]

I'm willing to pay more. What I am not willing to do, as I suspect most Americans aren't, is to pay more for an inferior product.

I'm also totally for all companies doing business in the US or that reside in the US being required to meet the standards you set forth.

This must be one of those "collective action problems" like taxes where you mean that you're not doing it now voluntarily and would only do so if forced to by law. You should more accurately say "I'm only willing if everyone pays more."

And LOL about 'inferior product.' There's nothing inherently "superior" about a product made using renewable energy, it just generally costs more and thus puts it out of the reach of those with less money. If you want to fight global warming by making consumer products too expensive for the poor and thus eliminating their ability to consume then say that. As I said earlier, with current technologies "clean energy" is a luxury good.

 

[realibrad]

Although I'm very agnostic about CAGW, I think we've probably passed the limit of beneficial CO2 increase. Plants breathe oxygen just as do animals. At certain levels of CO2 concentration (dependent on many factors) the benefits of increased CO2 begin to level off and it even becomes a growth inhibitor. This is because the plant actually has to spent more energy ridding itself of excess CO2 than it can gain through photosynthesis. The exact aggregate concentration would be enormously difficult and currently probably impossible to accurately model, but I suspect we're far along the curve if not actually at or over the top.

Everything has tradeoffs. bshole is trying to argue that the negative tradeoff of increased CO2 could be good, and we just dont know it yet. He has not said that in this thread, but has in previous. He also is using data to fit his view, and not looking at any data that does not. He is also trying to say that because people are not 100% correct, we should not believe their data. Science does not have a problem with being wrong, so long as it incrementally increases its knowledge to improve its ability to be right. When science makes a claim, it does so with evidence. If it turns out it was wrong about a claim, it adjusts to the new data, and goes forward. So, sea ice increases which is something that is cold, so global warming is wrong. You explain why global warming can increase sea ice, and he ignores it, and goes after the models that did not predict that.

I will admit we don't fully know the impact of CO2 to the environment, but that does not mean we don't understand enough to make a general claim. The data is there, but because there are gaps, it cant be trusted apparently. Its really like the god of the gaps argument but for global warming.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Where warming is occurring shown below.

Where active volcanoes are known to exist below the ice sheet.

hmmm

 

[dank69]

Where warming is occurring shown below.

Where active volcanoes are known to exist below the ice sheet.

hmmm

Looks like the volcanos at 150E aren't doing shit.

 

[bshole]

When science makes a claim, it does so with evidence. If it turns out it was wrong about a claim, it adjusts to the new data, and goes forward.

Well that is the rub isn't it? We pretty much can scientifically prove what will happen to the poor if we switch to alternative fuels. People in 3rd world nations will starve and people will be poorer in 1st world nations. If science is wrong about the negative consequences of global warming (which are extremely poorly defined, what exactly are they....) it will be too late to save all the humans who were harmed and died due to the excessive cost of energy if we switch to alternative energy before it is cost effective.

No warmist has considered the geopolitical consequences of America unilaterally detonating its economy in the age of a rising China which refuses to follow suit. The implications of a nuclear powered China with ambitions of Southeast Asian conquest and a super charged economy are as scary as the worst "predictions" of the warmists. Monomania can be a very bad thing indeed.

Still waiting for an explanation of 15 years of no warming (using the satellite data). I am truly interested in why all that scientific data is garbage and indicative of nothing.

 

[dphantom]

Which is why I mentioned that the increased sea ice seems to be due to the decreased salinity of the ocean due to the melting glaciers...

No.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062231/full