Trump Administration boots EPA scientists...but why?

[SMOGZINN]

And yet actual mortality statistics are saying that minorities themselves do that.

Maybe The GOPs insistence on easy access guns, removing social nets, and policy that entrenches poverty and resists upward mobility play a role in that...

 

[JMC2000]

Maybe The GOPs insistence on easy access guns, removing social nets, and policy that entrenches poverty and resists upward mobility play a role in that...

Honestly, it's not worth wasting the energy.

I deal with people like this all over my home state, and in just about every truck stop I go to. I tried convincing them, but you can't fix stupid.

 

[Paratus]

I don't understand the problem with having industry payed scientists making EPA policy.

Now before I go I'm going to drink a healthy doctor approved energy drink:

Smoke a healthy doctor approved cigarette:

And then go for drive in my car fueled with the proven power of ethyl-lead

 

[Puffnstuff]

I don't understand the problem with having industry payed scientists making EPA policy.

Now before I go I'm going to drink a healthy doctor approved energy drink:

Smoke a healthy doctor approved cigarette:

And then go for drive in my car fueled with the proven power of ethyl-lead

Now the last ad reminded me of when I was a kid and gas stations sold regular leaded gas with ethyl. I remember when the EPA emissions rules went into place in the early 70's and automakers were forced to change their engine designs to run unleaded. In response fuels changed and gas stations sold unleaded and ethyl to supply all vehicles.

That appeal to a person's ego in the ad isn't any different than the psychology advertisers use today to promote sales. Targeted marketing is effective and Trump replacing scholarly scientists at the EPA with compensated shills is just par for the course for him and his kind.

 

[Paratus]

Wow a lot to unpack here.

I am a realistic environmentalist and have a very scientific background of education - at least to the extent that I can usually determine B.S. when I hear it.

Interesting. I too didn't know what to believe about global warming several years ago. Having a solid educational and work background in science, I felt comfortable taking a look at the mainstream science to see if there was anything incomplete or outright incorrect about their conclusions

So, I guess that is a very subjective point of view and I totally admit to that. My personal experience trying to talk and discuss this subject with all the "doom sayers" over the years is they are similar to the old character saying "the sky is falling". They are so convinced that the dogma, opinion, and "science" they have been subjected to is unequivocally correct that it cannot be questioned. I find them to be like religious zealots.

This appears to be a solid misunderstanding of how science works on your part. The basic science behind climate change is unequivocal. It's the same thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer taught to engineers and scientists at any decent university.

You won't find many climate scientists disagreeing with the fundamentals. Just like you won't find many physicists challenging basic tenets of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

People who refuse to entertain the notion that climate change isn't happening or isn't currently caused by man aren't holding that position due to faith. They are holding it due to evidence. The evidence does not support a model of the climate where we are cooling or where the warming is from something other than the insulative properties of CO2.

The simplest check to determine whether the Earth is warming is to measure the energy flux from the sun and compare it to the energy flux leaving the earth. To be in thermodynamic equilibrium they have to average out to being equal.

• We have satellites that measure solar flux
• We have satellites that measure energy leaving the Earth
• They suggest an imbalance where the Earth is gainning ~0.5W/m^2
• The uncertainty of the measurements is such that while unlikely, it could be in energy balance

So to verify warming we perform an energy balance by counting joules stored in and measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and land.

• Satellite estimates of the stratosphere show cooling as predicted by mainstream climate science. Less energy is escaping Earth
• Satellite estimates of the Mid-troposphere show a slowly increasing temperature. This is where the so called "Pause" was measured.
• Ground stations measured rapidly increasing atmospheric temperatures even after calibrations for heat island effects
• Argo Floats and ships have measured significant changes in ocean heat content, equivalent to ~ 200 A-bombs per minute every minute over the last 40 years. This is where about 90% of the imbalance has been stored

This evidence confirms warming. Other evidence includes sea level rise, increasing tidal flooding of Florida and other low level areas, and loss of Artic, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These were all predicted by mainstream climate science.

To connect it to our activity we have to posit where all this extra thermal energy is coming from.

Satellite measurements show over the last 40 years it has not come from the Sun. Latent heat of formation of the Earth and radioactive decay of isotopes in the Earth cannot suddenly increase warming.

That leaves the greenhouse effect. Scientist have known for over a century which atmospheric gases are transparent to infrared and which are opaque.

• CO2
• H20
• Methane
• Other trace gasses

CO2, methane and other trace gasses are released by human activities. Water vapor increases as atmospheric temperature increases.

We know the makeup of the atmosphere and how these gasses are increasing.

CO2 is only likely culprit, with smaller forcings for Methane and other trace gasses

Now it could be possible that CO2 was mostly coming from natural sources. However CO2 that comes from natural sources has measurable amounts of radioactive Carbon isotopes in it. Fossil fuels do not. So it can be confirmed that the increase in CO2 is coming from fossil fuels. (Not to mention the markets track all fossil fuels bought and sold and we know the chemistry behind combustion).

Even if we compare today vs other times in history when CO2 has been higher, the rate of temperature change is ~10 times faster than any other time in history.

I suggest checking out the American Chemical Society Climate Toolkit to understand most of this better.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

I remember back int he 1970-80's we were supposed to be in a cooling trend and "experts" talked of a coming ice age that was imminent. Then Al Gore convinced millions that " the earth has a fever" and produced his very fake "documentary" thru CGI and the wonders of cinema. Now it is no longer called global warming - but "climate change" and every tornado, hurricane, or any other natural phenomenon that happens is because of "climate change".

That's being misremembered on your part. While the media played it up as global cooling, mainstream climate science did not.

The story was based on new at the time analysis of particulate pollution and the cooling effect it provided. The science quickly showed it would slow warming but not halt it.
(The pollution also caused acid rain)

Nothing in an inconvenient truth is substantially at odds with climate science or the evidence. Al Gore is not a wizard who makes CO2 trap heat.

However, on the other hand, you don't have to be a grazed alarmist to take note that winters in the northern half of the USA (where I live) are not what they used to be - so ya - the climate has changed/warmed a bit over the past 50 years form my perspective.

So if you are noticing changes why are you so skeptical of the evidence supporting the science behind why those changes are occurring.

The issue that I have is the supposed "science" saying the climate change is due to to "human activity". If you Google "climate change science" - it is not hard to find differing opinions on it. Yet , many say , the science is conclusive and that 97% of scientists say - blah, blah, blah. So, weather you like it of not- there is differing opinions in the science community on the causes of the climate.

Again, the evidence supports the 97%. When the 3% have a model that can accommodate all the evidence, including the warming effect of CO2 AND make better predictions than the mainstream it will become the mainstream. Not until then.

So whether you like it or not opinions that cannot be backed by evidence and theory are not science.

Do I like Trump= NOPE. However, the alternative was even worse in my opinion - because I think Trump will be checked , rechecked, scrutinized, blocked, etc. much more than Hillary would have been. So, he will be unable to implement much of what he wants - heck half of his own party is undermining him. Here is an example of a "science website" that disagrees with much of what the 97% agree upon. https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 -

That "science" site is funded by oil and gas companies from what I could find. They also don't appear to have many if any peer reviewed published climate scientists on staff.

Why would you trust them?

so I am on the fence on the global warming/climate change issue overall and just like the last several presidents - Trump can and will fire/appoint positions as he wills. He was duly elected and we have to deal with it.

So at the start you had this hypothesis that you could detect BS with your science background.

I think from by the fact you are still on the fence and citing sketchy sources fails that hypothesis.

 

[Thebobo]

Scott Pruitt's EPA.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=626345694222667

 

[Grooveriding]

I've heard the argument from the position of ignorance to the realities of climate change relating to the vehemence people who accept the facts can show towards them. It's an empty argument. If someone was standing on the precipice of a cliff insisting on jumping because gravity is just a theory, an individual next to them would be emphatic in insisting that they were wrong.

If you hold a ridiculous position, expect people to be aggressive in their correction of you. This is not to say most us who accept drastic climate change is real and we are the cause can deliver an in depth explanation of the nuances of how it's happening. We accept that the proven methods and consensus used to reach this conclusion have consistently delivered reliable conclusions. Is every nuance understood ? I would assume not, but obviously enough is understood that the gross majority of relevant experts are of the position we are causing it and it's serious.

We don't need to understand the complexities of science outside of our wheelhouses to accept it. We accept science every day without even realizing it or understanding the mechanisms behind it. When we turn on our car, use our cell phone, visit our physician or hit the light switch. Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but skepticism should be rational and account for the facts.

For the most part what has happened is an insidious marketing campaign has attempted to transform a matter of science into a political position. If one holds the position that it is not occurring, the chance is high they are a partisan hack who has rented out space in their head for their political party to tell them what to think. That or perhaps your garden variety unstable conspiracy theorist. The fact of it happening is not a political position, it is an objective truth outside of the realm of political subjectivity. Only fools believe otherwise because they vote conservative.

 

[KMFJD]

Tillerson signs international declaration recognizing climate change

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Is Donny going to fire another person this week?

 

[facetman]

Thank you to Paratus for actually taking the time to write reasonable and not just using disparaging comments to my posts questions. Usually, I just get the usual bashing when I ask question to start a dialog- even though I try to understand the other perspective and ask why people have their opinions - I don't get anywhere.

I found this the other day when researching.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

It confirms exactly what you were saying - I guess as i was pretty young I only heard the "media" saying we were in for a cooling and possibly an "ice age". I actually never read the scientific studies or their predictions back then. And yes- I do remember Canada having "acid rain" back then - if I recall - that was caused by Sulfur emissions.

SO, what about the fact that the temps were "fudged" by those researchers in the UK - Emails prove it. Yet their "evidence"/DATA was used over and over by numerous papers screaming global warming. We now know the data was fixed. So , was that the scientific data of the ground stations you listed above? and if so, isn't it also true that the conclusion could have been different if the land station data was not altered? We may never know - as the real numbers are not available- correct? You stated the link I had on my prior post was created by "oil companies,etc. " - maybe so - I don't know. But, then by that same argument, you must admit that economic motivation exists and influences the other side as documented so well in the above situation of data manipulation.

You mention the ice sheets of Greenland ,etc. - yet back when the Vikings discovered Greenland ( 1000 AD) - the island was warmer- not covered in ice like it is now. But there certainly was no man made global warning from burning fossil fuels and creating CO2 at that time. Guess my point is- there is plenty of evidence of ice ages, warming periods , and back to ice in earths history - we have no way of know why they occurred- or do we? I am all ears if you have a theory other than the sun causing it all - but he Sun has nothing to do with the current warming.

IF the global warming alarmists are correct. How come there is evidence that back millions of years the earth has had a periods of warming and very little or no ice packs at its poles - it took millions of years to warm up and then shift back to cool. We have been measuring temps and other climate data for how long - maybe 150 years? Do we really understand it well enough to make the predictions that some people do?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

VS

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

Vs

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Since we are now developing new "greener" forms of energy, factories ( at least in USA) are much more efficient and are not able to pollute like they did in the past. How much of the alarmist "sky is falling" is really reasonable? Seems like every "prediction model" of the ice melting and sea rising assumes acceleration of the phenomenon of global warming being caused by fossil fuel burning causing higher and higher green house gases = Co2. It assumed as we start seeing California and NY City getting swallowed into the ocean, because sea levels are rising, people would not only just sit back and not be concerned- but they would actually create more and more greenhouse gas to accelerate the global warming. The reality is we are becoming more and more efficient at wind/solar/and other alternatives - as they become more and more economically feasible ( and therefore, used more and more instead of fossil fuel) - wont that create less and less green house gas and therefore, create a slowing and even halting of global warming over time - rather than an acceleration to the issue as predicted by some of the models? According to the EPA - there was 7% decrease in the Green house gases produced in the USA since 2005 :

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases.

So, wouldn't that indicate a significant improvement and a trend toward an eventual return to homeostasis ( at least on man made global cooling or warming)? So , whats the crisis?

 

[Thebobo]

Thank you to Paratus for actually taking the time to write reasonable and not just using disparaging comments to my posts questions. Usually, I just get the usual bashing when I ask question to start a dialog- even though I try to understand the other perspective and ask why people have their opinions - I don't get anywhere.

I found this the other day when researching.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

It confirms exactly what you were saying - I guess as i was pretty young I only heard the "media" saying we were in for a cooling and possibly an "ice age". I actually never read the scientific studies or their predictions back then. And yes- I do remember Canada having "acid rain" back then - if I recall - that was caused by Sulfur emissions.

SO, what about the fact that the temps were "fudged" by those researchers in the UK - Emails prove it. Yet their "evidence"/DATA was used over and over by numerous papers screaming global warming. We now know the data was fixed. So , was that the scientific data of the ground stations you listed above? and if so, isn't it also true that the conclusion could have been different if the land station data was not altered? We may never know - as the real numbers are not available- correct? You stated the link I had on my prior post was created by "oil companies,etc. " - maybe so - I don't know. But, then by that same argument, you must admit that economic motivation exists and influences the other side as documented so well in the above situation of data manipulation.

You mention the ice sheets of Greenland ,etc. - yet back when the Vikings discovered Greenland ( 1000 AD) - the island was warmer- not covered in ice like it is now. But there certainly was no man made global warning from burning fossil fuels and creating CO2 at that time. Guess my point is- there is plenty of evidence of ice ages, warming periods , and back to ice in earths history - we have no way of know why they occurred- or do we? I am all ears if you have a theory other than the sun causing it all - but he Sun has nothing to do with the current warming.

IF the global warming alarmists are correct. How come there is evidence that back millions of years the earth has had a periods of warming and very little or no ice packs at its poles - it took millions of years to warm up and then shift back to cool. We have been measuring temps and other climate data for how long - maybe 150 years? Do we really understand it well enough to make the predictions that some people do?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

VS

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

Vs

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Since we are now developing new "greener" forms of energy, factories ( at least in USA) are much more efficient and are not able to pollute like they did in the past. How much of the alarmist "sky is falling" is really reasonable? Seems like every "prediction model" of the ice melting and sea rising assumes acceleration of the phenomenon of global warming being caused by fossil fuel burning causing higher and higher green house gases = Co2. It assumed as we start seeing California and NY City getting swallowed into the ocean, because sea levels are rising, people would not only just sit back and not be concerned- but they would actually create more and more greenhouse gas to accelerate the global warming. The reality is we are becoming more and more efficient at wind/solar/and other alternatives - as they become more and more economically feasible ( and therefore, used more and more instead of fossil fuel) - wont that create less and less green house gas and therefore, create a slowing and even halting of global warming over time - rather than an acceleration to the issue as predicted by some of the models? According to the EPA - there was 7% decrease in the Green house gases produced in the USA since 2005 :

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases.

So, wouldn't that indicate a significant improvement and a trend toward an eventual return to homeostasis ( at least on man made global cooling or warming)? So , whats the crisis?

First as to your claim about fudged data in UK is not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Second your claim the US greenhouse gasses have decreased by 7 degrees is good, the problem is the US is not a closed system. The world's CO2 emissions has gone up drastically across the entire planet and that's what matters.

Third - https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1 is purely a climate denial site under the guise of some sort of grassroots appearance.

Fourth

 

[facetman]

Bobo: I find it amazing that your links are 100% accurate and any link that I post or anybody else posts that refutes global warming is "garbage" and are termed by you as "climate denial sites" - ya that's the point.

The notion that any and all "non profit" organization/entities are not influenced by money - via grants and post study published employment is any different that a corporation being motivation by money - via profits, is absurd. So , again I find a link /study/article that refutes global warming or at least the alarmist aspects of it , then you find a site/article that says its true and we have to be worried because X, Y, and Z is going to happen "soon". Both have data ,etc. - can data be manipulated/tweeked/expanded to say pretty much anything the person compiling/interpreting/writing wants it to say = Yep. So, that is why I appreciated Paratus' post so much. Just food for thought check these articles - there all over the place- different people accusing others of misconduct/manipulation of data, etc. I don't know what to believe.

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...terested-in-climate-cash-than-climate-change/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

 

[Paratus]

Thank you to Paratus for actually taking the time to write reasonable and not just using disparaging comments to my posts questions. Usually, I just get the usual bashing when I ask question to start a dialog- even though I try to understand the other perspective and ask why people have their opinions - I don't get anywhere.

No problem. If you are willing to look at the evidence I'm willing to provide it.

I found this the other day when researching.


https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm


It confirms exactly what you were saying - I guess as i was pretty young I only heard the "media" saying we were in for a cooling and possibly an "ice age". I actually never read the scientific studies or their predictions back then. And yes- I do remember Canada having "acid rain" back then - if I recall - that was caused by Sulfur emissions.

The media, as usual, tends to sensationalize or miss the subtlety in the actual science. That's why it's important to check your references.

SO, what about the fact that the temps were "fudged" by those researchers in the UK - Emails prove it. Yet their "evidence"/DATA was used over and over by numerous papers screaming global warming. We now know the data was fixed. So , was that the scientific data of the ground stations you listed above? and if so, isn't it also true that the conclusion could have been different if the land station data was not altered? We may never know - as the real numbers are not available- correct?

So what are we talking about here? Since you didn't link anything and there's never been any numbers from any reputable group that's been found to be fraudulent, I'm guessing you are referring to this:

CRU Email Controversy


"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct"


My guess is you were keyed off on comments taken out of context from the researchers e-mails such as:


"one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20]This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics."


There was nothing wrong with their data and it in fact lines up nicely with similar but separate data from NOAA and the Japanese.

Quite frankly data gets altered all the time. If you aren't modifying your data to take into account known errors you aren't doing your job.


I've personally massaged data to take into account sensor error in a field where if I'm wrong I could wreck irreplaceable hardware or injure crew.

You stated the link I had on my prior post was created by "oil companies,etc. " - maybe so - I don't know. But, then by that same argument, you must admit that economic motivation exists and influences the other side as documented so well in the above situation of data manipulation.

Again there was no fraudulent data manipulation. If there was it would have been found by:

• NASA
  
• NOAA
  
• Japanese Meteorological Agency
  
• Anyone of hundreds of universities or individual climate scientists

The economic argument against government or university funded science is also a red herring. Grants fund investigations, not outcomes. Paying for a wrong outcome will just end in it being rejected as a failed hypothesis during peer review. For it to be otherwise is to assume a worldwide global conspiracy.


Industry on the other hand has been known to hide science that hurts the bottom line that it pays for:

Exxon knew about Climate Change 40 Years Ago


When industry pays for climate change research above board they find the same thing the government and universities find:


Koch Brothers funded Climate Change Study Proves Climate Change is Real


The questions you are asking lead me to believe that your references are poor.


If you want to know whether what you're reading is legitimate science or not ask yourself:

• Is this a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal?
  
• Does this blog post link to a peer reviewed article or abstract
  
• Does the blog post accurately describe what's in the abstract or peer reviewed article.
  
• Is the site the blog post is on have an "about us" link. Are the authors experts or at least knowledgeable in the field they are talking about.
  
• Is the authors background not in the field being discussed but in one with a profit motive and authors article has not been through the scientific process

You mention the ice sheets of Greenland ,etc. - yet back when the Vikings discovered Greenland ( 1000 AD) - the island was warmer- not covered in ice like it is now.

First off, the Greenland Ice Sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years old.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm


It covers most of the island. The Vikings lived in a small portion. So it was still almost entirely covered in ice. The southern tip however was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.

From the temperature reconstruction you can see the Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon.


Unlike current warming

But there certainly was no man made global warning from burning fossil fuels and creating CO2 at that time. Guess my point is- there is plenty of evidence of ice ages, warming periods , and back to ice in earths history - we have no way of know why they occurred- or do we? I am all ears if you have a theory other than the sun causing it all - but he Sun has nothing to do with the current warming.

Of course we have solid theories on why the temperature changed in the past, what caused it, and why it's different now.


The sun by itself doesn't put out enough energy to keep the Earth from being a snowball:

Note that the predicted average temperature (Tp) for Earth based on the average energy from the sun (Save)is -18C while the average observed temperature of Earth (Tobs) is 15C


The greenhouse effect makes up the 33C difference.


So how does the sun interact with the the atmosphere to create the natural cycle of cooling and warming?

Milankovitch Cycles and feedbacks.


Milankovitch Cycles are caused by:

• Earths eccentricity
  
• The precession of Earths spin
  
• Earths tilt

As these values change they change the amount of energy the Earth receives which causes warming or cooling over the course of 20K-100K years.


This PBS video explains it well

Feedbacks occur when the climate changes. For example if the Milankovitch cycle is inducing warming, sea ice and snow melt.

• Snow and Sea Ice have an albedo of .9 - it reflects almost all incoming solar energy
  
• Sea Ice has an albedo of .5 - it reflects half of incoming solar energy
  
• Open sea water has an albedo of 0.06 - almost all solar energy is absorbed.
  
  
  As the snow and sea ice melt more solar energy is absorbed increasing warming.
  
  
  As land and sea temperatures warm, trapped methane and CO2 are released from the permafrost and methane hydrate ice under the ocean further increasing warming.
  
  
  Humidity increases also enhancing warming.
  
  
  When the Milankovitch Cycle reduces solar energy these process reverse.
  
  
  Other processes can also cause cooling
  • Weathering of rocks causes a chemical reaction that pulls CO2 out of the air
    
  • Greening of plants pulls more CO2 out of the air
    
  • plankton can pull CO2 out of the water and bury it on the ocean floor when they die
  
  
  So yes we do know why the temperature has changed in the past. This is how we know current warming isn't natural.
  
  
  The Milankovitch Cycle says we should be neutral to slightly cooling and the rate of increase is roughly 10X faster than we've seen in historical reconstructions going back millions of years.
  
  
  The closest "natural" phenomenon that quickly increased global temperatures was the Permian-Triassic extinction event. The latest evidence shows one of the largest volcanic events ever occurred in the Siberian Traps. Magma rising cooked off trillions of tons of coal causing massive temperature increases due to CO2 release.
  
  http://news.mit.edu/2015/siberian-traps-end-permian-extinction-0916
  
  
  
  
  

  IF the global warming alarmists are correct. How come there is evidence that back millions of years the earth has had a periods of warming and very little or no ice packs at its poles - it took millions of years to warm up and then shift back to cool. We have been measuring temps and other climate data for how long - maybe 150 years? Do we really understand it well enough to make the predictions that some people do?

  
  Climate Scientists absolutely understand temperature changes over millennia using evidence, reconstructions, and models.
  
  
  It's based on settled science:
  • Orbital Mechanics
    
  • Heat and Mass Transfer
    
  • Thermodynamics
    
  • Chemistry
    
  • Radiometric Dating
    
  • Sedimentary Analysis
    
  • Ice Cores
    
  • Direct ancient atmosphere measurements from atmosphere trapped in minerals.
  
  
  Besides the energy balance analysis I talked about earlier definitively shows current warming is man-made. Historical reconstructions support that finding.
  
  
  

  http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

  
  
  Why use this cherry picked graph from a site run by a former employee of Rush Limbaugh who has no background in climate science when you can use the whole one?
  
  
  
  
  (I guess now it's no warming for 12 months instead of 17 years. )
  
  
  

  VS
  
  
  https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
  
  
  Vs
  
  
  http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

  
  
  Why would you compare mid troposphere temperatures with ground stations? They don't measure the same thing.
  
  
  Here's a comparison of all layers of the atmosphere:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  You can't just pick a single atmospheric temperature band and say this is what the entire planet is doing. You have to account for the entire energy budget of the atmosphere, land and ocean.
  
  
  

  Since we are now developing new "greener" forms of energy, factories ( at least in USA) are much more efficient and are not able to pollute like they did in the past. How much of the alarmist "sky is falling" is really reasonable? Seems like every "prediction model" of the ice melting and sea rising assumes acceleration of the phenomenon of global warming being caused by fossil fuel burning causing higher and higher green house gases = Co2.

  
  The IPCC actually makes several predictions called "RCPs" based on doing nothing (8.5) to doing significant efforts to stop emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 (2.6)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It's because we made these predictions and some governments, businesses and citizens took them seriously that we've made progress on alternate forms of energy.
  
  
  If we if ignore the science and go business as usual, adaptation will be much more expensive in money and lives than taking action now.
  
  
  

  It assumed as we start seeing California and NY City getting swallowed into the ocean, because sea levels are rising, people would not only just sit back and not be concerned- but they would actually create more and more greenhouse gas to accelerate the global warming.

  
  
  
  
  
  Miami Beach now floods during king tides. Saltwater bubbles up through people's lawns. They are spending $500m to try and deal with it.
  
  
  Other low lying areas, and islands are having the same problem.
  
  
  Here's the plot of world wide CO2 PPM:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  The reality is we are becoming more and more efficient at wind/solar/and other alternatives - as they become more and more economically feasible ( and therefore, used more and more instead of fossil fuel) - wont that create less and less green house gas and therefore, create a slowing and even halting of global warming over time - rather than an acceleration to the issue as predicted by some of the models? According to the EPA - there was 7% decrease in the Green house gases produced in the USA since 2005 :
  
  
  https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases.
  
  
  So, wouldn't that indicate a significant improvement and a trend toward an eventual return to homeostasis ( at least on man made global cooling or warming)? So , whats the crisis?

  
  
  The best we've done is to slow the rate of increase.
  
  
  The Paris Accords are trying to accelerate the decreasing rate.
  
  
  If we do not decrease fast enough sea level rise becomes catastrophic.
  
  
  650 million people live within 30ft vertical elevation of sea level, not to mention all port cities. Greenland by itself can raise sea level by 20+ft.
  
  
  So would you rather rebuild them as they flood for trillions of dollars or take $350B we already spend on fossil fuel subsidies and spend it on clean energy and adaption efforts?

 

[facetman]

Awesome post- thanks again, lots of info - haven't looked at all of it yet. One question - how in the heck can we come even close to know what the temps were back in the "Medieval Warm Period"? You know- the "nay sayers" will jump on that and call "BS". Just seems impossible.

Edit: So, after writing my post found above - I found this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

I think its crazy either way that we can even come close to painting an entire global map of temps from a period of time so long ago. But , as I have said, I am trying to actually read and learn about this - rather than jumping on either sides bandwagon.

Also- regarding the whole peer review journal suggestion. While I agree that seems obvious. I know peer review journals have monetary and political ties and getting published at all is often a "who ya know " and sometimes a political thing. Not to mention - it takes money to do studies. So, just being "devils advocate" for arguments sake. I would think that any study/article that does not agree with global warming from human co2 production would not get published in a peer review journal- because it would disagree with the current politically accepted theories. Of coarse, if the 'science" of the article or study does not hold up to scrutiny - than it shouldn't get published. I know this happens all the time in the health care science industry- so I figure it probably happens in the climate science industry as well.

I am totally against gov subsidies to fossil fuel companies. But also against much of what the government subsidizes. Just as I was against the government project of Solyndra - and any other government pet project that costs the tax payers millions/billions.