U.S. limits on coal plant mercury emissions too costly: Trump's EPA

[TU Curmudgeon]

That even if there are still a lot of challenge it is both necessary and possible to transition away from fossil fuels.

I agree, the real issues are

1. HOW do we do it;
2. CAN we do it now; and
3. if we can not do it now, what do we have to do to get to the point where we can do it?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I agree, the real issues are

1. HOW do we do it;
2. CAN we do it now; and
3. if we can not do it now, what do we have to do to get to the point where we can do it?

The big problem is time that it could have been relative easy to avoid the worst consequence of climate change if real action had been taking during the 90’s. Because you now have so many positive examples that transition away from fossil fuels are possible.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/10-reasons-feel-hopeful-about-climate-change-2019

Sadly political and economic reason, for example neoliberalism and the huge influence of the fossil fuel companies, lead to that the warning from scientists was mostly ignored so we are now running out of time. While the most devastating effects of climate change canstill be avoided if we take decisive action. There you have for example this Canadian site that have some good tips.

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-can-stop-climate-change/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The big problem is time that it could have been relative easy to avoid the worst consequence of climate change if real action had been taking during the 90’s. Because you now have so many positive examples that transition away from fossil fuels are possible.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/10-reasons-feel-hopeful-about-climate-change-2019

Sadly political and economic reason, for example neoliberalism and the huge influence of the fossil fuel companies, lead to that the warning from scientists was mostly ignored so we are now running out of time. While the most devastating effects of climate change canstill be avoided if we take decisive action. There you have for example this Canadian site that have some good tips.

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-can-stop-climate-change/

Ever since Dr. Suzuki's organization "reported" on the "crisis" caused by a disease outbreak on a fish farm that hadn't been in operation for 10 years, I have been "slightly" skeptical of the output of his organization. I have to admit that Greenpeace and Sierra Club publishing 40 year old photographs to show what the current forest practices in BC were didn't actually boost their repute in my eyes either.

Is there a potentially serious problem? Yes.

Is the cause of that potentially serious problem ONLY "iatrogenic global warming"? Not a chance.

Is the major cause of climate change changes in the solar radiation pattern? Yes.

Can we "manage" the solar radiation pattern? If you say "Yes." I'd like you to take a look at some bridges that I have for sale.

Is it possible that human industrial/social activity just might be enough to push the solar radiation pattern generated climate change past some tipping point that we don't know about and thereby cause consequences that we also cannot predict? Yes.

Even it that weren't true, is it a "Good Idea" to dump tons of crap into the atmosphere every day? I don't think so.

 

[Nemiroff]

Is the major cause of climate change changes in the solar radiation pattern? Yes.

Umm, no.
Where are you getting this from?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Umm, no.
Where are you getting this from?

You do know where MOST of the energy that "powers" the Earth's atmosphere comes from, don't you?

 

[Nemiroff]

You do know where MOST of the energy that "powers" the Earth's atmosphere comes from, don't you?

No duh the sun. The mid stage star that has been stable for billions of years and will be stable for billions more. That doesn't explain the 100 years of consistent temperature increases. Neither does the 11 year sunspot cycle.

What has changed is the amounts of greenhouse gases trapping that sun's energy and making it build up, a perfect correlation. You do know how a greenhouse works dont you?

Gee what major even happened about 100 years ago?... oh yeah, the industrial revolution.

 

[Nemiroff]

You do know where MOST of the energy that "powers" the Earth's atmosphere comes from, don't you?

Your point wasn't the overall source but a change in the output pattern. Please, can you show me evidence of a consistent increase output pattern over a century.

This point about the general source doesn't explain the sudden change and is just a distraction.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No duh the sun. The mid stage star that has been stable for billions of years and will be stable for billions more. That doesn't explain the 100 years of consistent temperature increases. Neither does the 11 year sunspot cycle.

If you mean "in a state of dynamic equilibrium" when you use the term "stable" you are correct.

If you mean "unvaryingly constant" when you use the term "stable" you are incorrect.

What has changed is the amounts of greenhouse gases trapping that sun's energy and making it build up, a perfect correlation. You do know how a greenhouse works dont you?

And, of course, there hasn't been even the slightest change in solar output - right?

Gee what major even happened about 100 years ago?... oh yeah, the industrial revolution.

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the US, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 [LINK]

The last time I checked 1820 was just a tad more than 100 years ago and 1760 was a week or two further back in time.

Am I saying that continuing to dump pollution into the atmosphere in the megaton per day ranges is a "Good Thing"? No I am not - nor is any rational person.

Am I saying that dumping pollution into the atmosphere in the megaton per day ranges is the SOLE cause of "Global Climate Change"? No I am not - nor is any rational person.

Am I saying that there is a chance that the COMBINATION of dumping pollution into the atmosphere PLUS changes to solar input levels COULD POSSIBLY push the Earth's climate past a tipping point? Damn right I am - and so is every rational person.

Am I saying that we have absolutely no reliable method of determining what will happen IF the COMBINATION of dumping pollution into the atmosphere PLUS changes to solar input levels DOES push the Earth's climate past a tipping point? Damn right I am - and so is every rational person.

Am I saying that reducing the rate at which we are dumping pollution into the atmosphere will REDUCE the chance of the COMBINATION of dumping pollution into the atmosphere PLUS changes to solar input levels pushing the Earth's climate past a tipping point? Damn right I am - and so is every rational person.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Your point wasn't the overall source but a change in the output pattern. Please, can you show me evidence of a consistent increase output pattern over a century.

This point about the general source doesn't explain the sudden change and is just a distraction.

Tipping points ALWAYS occur suddenly.

PS - The "greenhouse gases" DO NOT actually create the heat, it is the insolation that does that.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Tipping points ALWAYS occur suddenly.

PS - The "greenhouse gases" DO NOT actually create the heat, it is the insolation that does that.

It is extremly likely that today warming is caused by humans.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is extremly likely that today warming is caused by humans.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I will agree to "contributed" but not "caused". "Caused" in this instance is a VAST over simplification (and intended for a mass market that has difficulty in differentiating between "proximate cause", "secondary cause", tertiary cause", and "contributing factors").

I'll even go so far as "significantly contributed" and/or "contributed in a previously unprecedented manner".

BUT, the source of the heat is still the Sun and no one has yet come up with a way of controlling that. What the "greenhouse gases" do is retard the dispersion of heat originating with the Sun.

 

[bongsaway]

It's clear from some of the responses where some folks priorities lie.

Those who worship ben franklin and the rest of us who are more concerned with others beyond ourselves.