Frontline: War on the EPA

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 acts as a heat blanket. there are a lot of us, and we are burning a lot of carbon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

I've seen that before.

1) Wiki is user edited, and often wrong.

2) I asked for a paper. That is not a peer reviewed paper.

Now what is funny, when I searched the wikipedia entry for "sea level," I get this paragraph:

It is likely that anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) warming, such as that due to elevated greenhouse gas levels, has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Future warming is projected to have a range of impacts, including sea level rise, increased frequencies and severities of some extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity, and regional changes in agricultural productivity.
​

I laughed when the potency of the words used were "likely," and "discernible."

Seriously... Have you even ever read a peer reviewed paper on sea level rise, or greenhouse gasses?

 

[Helix]

I've seen that before.

1) Wiki is user edited, and often wrong.

2) I asked for a paper. That is not a peer reviewed paper.

Now what is funny, when I searched the wikipedia entry for "sea level," I get this paragraph:

It is likely that anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) warming, such as that due to elevated greenhouse gas levels, has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Future warming is projected to have a range of impacts, including sea level rise, increased frequencies and severities of some extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity, and regional changes in agricultural productivity.
​

I laughed when the potency of the words used were "likely," and "discernible."

Seriously... Have you even ever read a peer reviewed paper on sea level rise, or greenhouse gasses?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. nothing that you post will change this.

 

[Jack Hays]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. nothing that you post will change this.

I suppose the question then is: So what?

From Professor Nir Shaviv's presentation at the Cambridge Union:

. . . . In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. . . . As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations. . . . .

 

[longview]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. nothing that you post will change this.

Has anyone here questioned if CO2 was a greenhouse gas? I don't think so.
The question is how sensitivity is the atmosphere to added CO2?
The IPCC position is the doubling the CO2 level could result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming.
But that is based on 2XCO2 causing a 3.71 Watt per meter square energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
The CERES satellite time window is only 16 years old, but during that time CO2 levels have increased considerably.
The problem is that the measured energy imbalance is much lower than the predicted energy imbalance.
In fact there does not appear to be much of any correlation between the energy imbalance and CO2 levels.

If there is minimal energy imbalance, then CO2 role as a greenhouse gas is greatly diminished.

 

[Rogue Valley]

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt - Trumps EPA administrator, sued the EPA numerous times on behalf of the Oklahoma fossil-fuel industry.

Pruitt's mandate from Trump is to decimate the EPA as an institution and rescind any regulations that constrain corporate recklessness regarding the environment.

Pruitt is also tasked with making sure EPA climate-change-science conforms with Trumps politics. (EPA employees can't even use the term 'climate change" in EPA documents/studies anymore).

In short, Pruitt's job is to drown climate-change in the Trump ideological swamp and reward corporate GOP donors by removing sound environmental constraints.

 

[Russell797]

That's how you deflect from the EPA's blatant bullying, and to no good end? There was no "science" or protection of the environment in the linked article, and that is just one instance among many of similar tactics by the EPA. Just because your EPA attack dog occasionally bites someone who deserves it doesn't excuse their multiple attacks on the innocent.

The "attacks" are on behaviour, not individuals. No science? It's all about environmental science....that's what happens when the EPA is guided by science rather than political and economic interests. Polluting will be stopped or at least should be. I get that people want to build on the land they purchase, but when they do they are destroying a natural habitat. Every time. I also get that you don't care.

 

[Russell797]

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt - Trumps EPA administrator, sued the EPA numerous times on behalf of the Oklahoma fossil-fuel industry.

Pruitt's mandate from Trump is to decimate the EPA as an institution and rescind any regulations that constrain corporate recklessness regarding the environment.

Pruitt is also tasked with making sure EPA climate-change-science conforms with Trumps politics. (EPA employees can't even use the term 'climate change" in EPA documents/studies anymore).

In short, Pruitt's job is to drown climate-change in the Trump ideological swamp and reward corporate GOP donors by removing sound environmental constraints.

Very well stated, and exactly true on every point.

 

[What if...?]

Has anyone here questioned if CO2 was a greenhouse gas? I don't think so.
The question is how sensitivity is the atmosphere to added CO2?
The IPCC position is the doubling the CO2 level could result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming.
But that is based on 2XCO2 causing a 3.71 Watt per meter square energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
The CERES satellite time window is only 16 years old, but during that time CO2 levels have increased considerably.
The problem is that the measured energy imbalance is much lower than the predicted energy imbalance.
In fact there does not appear to be much of any correlation between the energy imbalance and CO2 levels.
View attachment 67225349
If there is minimal energy imbalance, then CO2 role as a greenhouse gas is greatly diminished.

I'm more concerned with the acidification.

Saw a documentery on coral bleaching.

Basically the coral Is dying. Most of it.

The same as all the trees dying.

They've reached the point where they're trying g to find the few places where they can survive. Then "plant" corals there in an attempt to save the species.

Coral is a keystone species.

Its loss is going to cost us. Coral reefs are the breeding/ nesting grounds for much of the fish we eat.

 

[Russell797]

I suppose the question then is: So what?

From Professor Nir Shaviv's presentation at the Cambridge Union:

. . . . In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. . . . As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations. . . . .

Brilliant! The continents were configured much differently, mountain ranges much differently, ocean circulation patterns much differently and most important of all, the Sun was several percent weaker.

 

[longview]

As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt - Trumps EPA administrator, sued the EPA numerous times on behalf of the Oklahoma fossil-fuel industry.

Pruitt's mandate from Trump is to decimate the EPA as an institution and rescind any regulations that constrain corporate recklessness regarding the environment.

Pruitt is also tasked with making sure EPA climate-change-science conforms with Trumps politics. (EPA employees can't even use the term 'climate change" in EPA documents/studies anymore).

In short, Pruitt's job is to drown climate-change in the Trump ideological swamp and reward corporate GOP donors by removing sound environmental constraints.

As Attorney General of Oklahoma I suspect that Scott Pruitt sued the EPA on behalf of the people of Oklahoma.
I think Pruitt has a good understanding of EPA overreach and how to constrain it,
but since lawsuits by Pruitt predate Trump running for President, it is likely Pruitt and Trumps concerns
of EPA overreach are simply parallel goals.
The primary function of the EPA will not change, only the expanded political role.

 

[Russell797]

Has anyone here questioned if CO2 was a greenhouse gas? I don't think so.
The question is how sensitivity is the atmosphere to added CO2?
The IPCC position is the doubling the CO2 level could result in between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming.
But that is based on 2XCO2 causing a 3.71 Watt per meter square energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
The CERES satellite time window is only 16 years old, but during that time CO2 levels have increased considerably.
The problem is that the measured energy imbalance is much lower than the predicted energy imbalance.
In fact there does not appear to be much of any correlation between the energy imbalance and CO2 levels.
View attachment 67225349
If there is minimal energy imbalance, then CO2 role as a greenhouse gas is greatly diminished.

It's a greenhouse gas, but because unlike water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, it doesn't precipitate out of the atmosphere, it's radiative forcing is persistent...Without CO2 in the atmosphere the entire atmospheric greenhouse effect would collapse resulting in the world's oceans freezing over to nearly the equator.

The stuff is vitally important...If it's role were "greatly diminished" we wouldn't even be here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. nothing that you post will change this.

Yes, it is. However, it's warming influence is not at alarming levels like claimed.

I have never, nor will I ever, claim that it isn't, or that it warms. Please stop acting that way with me. I accept the science for what is known.

 

[Russell797]

The pundits misrepresent the papers.

Please quote part of a paper to prove yourself. Stop quoting the pundits.

NASA, NOAA, NAS, AGU, AMS, their subsidiaries, and universities everywhere etc. are all "pundits"...

Your attempt at confusion is noted.

 

[longview]

I'm more concerned with the acidification.

Saw a documentery on coral bleaching.

Basically the coral Is dying. Most of it.

The same as all the trees dying.

They've reached the point where they're trying g to find the few places where they can survive. Then "plant" corals there in an attempt to save the species.

Coral is a keystone species.

Its loss is going to cost us. Coral reefs are the breeding/ nesting grounds for much of the fish we eat.

Actually I read that upon closer examination the bleached coral was from an abnormally low tides caused from the
El Nino. The bulge of water in the central Pacific, lowered sea level else where.
https://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/

In September 2015, altimetry data show that sea level was at its lowest in the past 12 years,
affecting corals living in the bathymetric range exposed to unusual emersion.

 

[Lord of Planar]

NASA, NOAA, NAS, AGU, AMS, their subsidiaries, and universities everywhere etc. are all "pundits"...

Your attempt at confusion is noted.

Many of the people writhing things are. Many have been incorrectly taught, like yourself.

That's why I refer to the actual papers. Not what someone else gleans from papers.

 

[Russell797]

Yes, it is. However, it's warming influence is not at alarming levels like claimed.

I have never, nor will I ever, claim that it isn't, or that it warms. Please stop acting that way with me. I accept the science for what is known.

It's warming influence supports a current 33K degree greenhouse effect. Taken in isolation it represents about 26% of the total.

 

[Helix]

I suppose the question then is: So what?

From Professor Nir Shaviv's presentation at the Cambridge Union:

. . . . In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. . . . As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations. . . . .

the "so what" is that we need to do something about both our carbon pollution and our unsustainable population growth. i understand that climate change denial is a core right wing belief, but your belief is not required for something to be real. neither can you fix climate change by posting endless denial links and making one liner comments until i just say **** this and leave the thread, though i will probably do that anyway.

what's going to happen to fix it? i don't know. probably not enough to have much of an impact. ideally, we'd switch our grid to renewables and nuclear large scale and start immediately, using public / private partnerships. changing our transportation energy model is going to be trickier. electric is the main alternative, and our public transportation sucks pretty badly compared to most of the first world. i would advocate high speed rail, but part of the country would probably threaten to secede if we do anything other than have millions of single passenger cars with internal combustion engines as the primary transportation solution. i suppose we'll slowly convert to renewables depending on the level of profitability and subsidies, and we'll keep kicking a ****load of carbon dioxide into the air while some on the right continue to deny that it's any big deal.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's warming influence supports a current 33K degree greenhouse effect. Taken in isolation it represents about 26% of the total.

Actually, it depends on is you are calling the entire atmospheric effect, the greenhouse effect.

The 33 degree difference assumes a -18 C earth without an atmosphere. Once you have an atmosphere with clouds, you start blocking much on the incoming solar heating. The greenhouse effect and the associated back radiation is probably more like 50 degrees, between an atmosphere with no greenhouse gasses and our current. But then, it might be the opposite. It's possible under other circumstances that the atmosphere already makes it warmer, with no greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses might be contributing less than 20 degrees of the warming.

We really don't know. The scenario used could be flawed.

 

[Russell797]

Many of the people writhing things are. Many have been incorrectly taught, like yourself.

That's why I refer to the actual papers. Not what someone else gleans from papers.

All those institutions and agencies cite peer-reviewed literature covering all the relevant sciences...You guys cite Roy Spencer, Shaviv, Svensmark, Idso, McKittrick, Soon, Lindzen and just a few others... it's a farce and you know it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All those institutions and agencies cite peer-reviewed literature covering all the relevant sciences...You guys cite Roy Spencer, Shaviv, Svensmark, Idso, McKittrick, Soon, Lindzen and just a few others... it's a farce and you know it.

Yes, they do, and they are agencies that don't approve anything without the "AOK" at the top levels.

 

[longview]

It's a greenhouse gas, but because unlike water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, it doesn't precipitate out of the atmosphere, it's radiative forcing is persistent...Without CO2 in the atmosphere the entire atmospheric greenhouse effect would collapse resulting in the world's oceans freezing over to nearly the equator.

The stuff is vitally important...If it's role were "greatly diminished" we wouldn't even be here.

True enough, but because it's response is measured with a doubling curve,
the vast majority of that response has already occurred.
Think about it a bit.
1-2 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
2-4 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
4-6 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
8-16 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
16-32 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
32-64 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
64-128 ppm 3.71 Wm-2
128-254 ppm ect. 3.71 Wm-2
so we are somewhere between the 8th and 9th doubling of CO2, which would still only be 3.71 Wm-2
When you speak of Snow ball Earth with no CO2, you are speaking of loosing almost 30 Wm-2 of energy,
this is vastly different than the supposed 1.9 Wm-2 that CO2 would have added since Humans started using fossil fuels.

 

[Russell797]

Actually, it depends on is you are calling the entire atmospheric effect, the greenhouse effect.

The 33 degree difference assumes a -18 C earth without an atmosphere. Once you have an atmosphere with clouds, you start blocking much on the incoming solar heating. The greenhouse effect and the associated back radiation is probably more like 50 degrees, between an atmosphere with no greenhouse gasses and our current. But then, it might be the opposite. It's possible under other circumstances that the atmosphere already makes it warmer, with no greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses might be contributing less than 20 degrees of the warming.

We really don't know. The scenario used could be flawed.

Yes, it is the total atmospheric transparency to infrared light as well as the adiabatic (pressure) warming effect. You are correct. The total is 33K above the solar effective temperature.

 

[Jack Hays]

Brilliant! The continents were configured much differently, mountain ranges much differently, ocean circulation patterns much differently and most important of all, the Sun was several percent weaker.

no correlation = no correlation

 

[Helix]

Yes, it is. However, it's warming influence is not at alarming levels like claimed.

I have never, nor will I ever, claim that it isn't, or that it warms. Please stop acting that way with me. I accept the science for what is known.

if we agree that CO2 is a pollutant that acts like a blanket, then i assume we would agree that dumping **** loads of it into the atmosphere is less than good, right?

 

[Jack Hays]

the "so what" is that we need to do something about both our carbon pollution and our unsustainable population growth. i understand that climate change denial is a core right wing belief, but your belief is not required for something to be real. neither can you fix climate change by posting endless denial links and making one liner comments until i just say **** this and leave the thread, though i will probably do that anyway.

what's going to happen to fix it? i don't know. probably not enough to have much of an impact. ideally, we'd switch our grid to renewables and nuclear large scale and start immediately, using public / private partnerships. changing our transportation energy model is going to be trickier. electric is the main alternative, and our public transportation sucks pretty badly compared to most of the first world. i would advocate high speed rail, but part of the country would probably threaten to secede if we do anything other than have millions of single passenger cars with internal combustion engines as the primary transportation solution. i suppose we'll slowly convert to renewables depending on the level of profitability and subsidies, and we'll keep kicking a ****load of carbon dioxide into the air while some on the right continue to deny that it's any big deal.

It's not a big deal because there's nothing to fix. Climate is only minimally sensitive to CO2 -- not enough to worry about.

Shaviv again:

. . . The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side[FONT=&quot], about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . [/FONT]