I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Mad Mike]

Europe submits UN climate pledge, urges US, China to follow

 

 

* Paris to host U.N. climate talks starting in November

* EU calling on big polluters to follow its lead

* EU promises to cut emissions by at least 40 pct by 2030 

BRUSSELS, March 6 (Reuters) - The European Union on Friday submitted its formal promise on how much it will cut greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations ahead of climate change talks starting in November and called on the United States and China to follow its lead.

The European Union is the first major economy to agree its position before the talks in Paris aimed at seeking a new worldwide deal on global warming.

"We expect China, the United States and the other G20 countries in particular to follow the European Union and submit their contributions by the end of March," Miguel Arias Canete, climate and energy Commissioner, told reporters after a meeting of EU environment ministers in Brussels.

[Mad Mike]

Florida....Enough said.

 

There are many wonderful things about the state, the fanatical tea party morons who surround me and keep voting for Scott are not one of them. It's only a matter of time before I leave. 

[btfoom]

Here's a good reason (among others) why your 'suit' would get laughed out of court.

 

FTA:

 

JC reflections

The implications of this paper strike me as profound.  Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate.  This paper implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation.  Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.

 

The results of this paper also have interesting implications for ice ages, whereby the forcing that is predominant in one hemisphere is felt in the other.

 

The failure of models to reproduce this hemisphere synchronicity raises interesting implications regarding the fidelity of climate model-derived sensitivity to CO2.

 

Note:  AGAIN - no current AGW model has correctly predicted the current temperature vs CO2.  NONE.  Most are way off.

When they use science, I can listen.  I don't agree, but at least one can listen and investigate (and usually disprove) AGW theories.  When they use models, I just laugh and walk away - there is no basis for them at all.  The above shows just one good reason they are so off.

Edited March 11, 2015 by btfoom

[The Evil Genius]

If it's true, this surprises me..not.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/03/09/florida-governor-climate-change-global-warming/24660287/ 

 

Fla. gov. bans the terms climate change, global warming

 

Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 5:41 p.m. EDT March 9, 2015

 

If Florida Gov. Rick Scott didn't want the terms "climate change" or "global warming" officially associated with his state, he won't be happy with the media attention his decision has sparked.

 

Scott, a Republican, banned the use of those terms in state communications and publications shortly after he took office in 2011, according to a Miami Herald story Sunday by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

 

Though it was not a written rule, "we were told not to use the terms 'climate change,' 'global warming' or 'sustainability,' " Christopher Byrd, a former attorney with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Office of General Counsel told the investigative reporting center. "That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors," said Boyd, who held that post from 2008 to 2013.

 

When reached for comment about the supposed ban on the terms, Gov. Scott's spokesperson John Tupps said "it's not true." Tupps said that neither the governor's office nor the DEP had a policy on the use of the terms.

 

In Florida, about 300,000 houses worth about a total of $145 billion are vulnerable to a rise in the sea level caused by climate change, according to Climate Central. a nonprofit news organization that analyzes and reports on climate science.

 

Sea-level rise was another term that Scott prohibited, saying it should be called "nuisance flooding," the newspaper said.

 

Edited March 11, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[PeterMP]

Here's a good reason (among others) why your 'suit' would get laughed out of court.

 

FTA:

 

JC reflections

The implications of this paper strike me as profound.  Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate.  This paper implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation.  Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.

 

The results of this paper also have interesting implications for ice ages, whereby the forcing that is predominant in one hemisphere is felt in the other.

 

The failure of models to reproduce this hemisphere synchronicity raises interesting implications regarding the fidelity of climate model-derived sensitivity to CO2.

 

Note:  AGAIN - no current AGW model has correctly predicted the current temperature vs CO2.  NONE.  Most are way off.

When they use science, I can listen.  I don't agree, but at least one can listen and investigate (and usually disprove) AGW theories.  When they use models, I just laugh and walk away - there is no basis for them at all.  The above shows just one good reason they are so off.

 

Nobody is claiming that the models are perfect, but to claim they aren't based on science is laughable.  They don't have every possible detail, especially details we are just uncovering incorporated into them.

 

But they are still based on science.

 

I'm going to give some information on the lead author of the actually published paper that the blog is based on:

 

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/ipcc-still-really-really-sure-were-causing-climate-change-0

 

"The actual conclusions of this report don't diverge a whole lot from the previous assessments. It "represented more of a refinement," according to Graeme Stephens, Director of the Center for Climate Sciences at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Stephens was a lead author, a contributing author and an expert reviewer on three different chapters within the assessment. "The conclusions fundamentally are, the planet is warming," he tells Popular Science. Many of the changes between this assessment and the last one, published in 2007, have to do with refining the models used to predict climate change outcomes."

 

Yes, that's right.  He's a major contributor to the IPCC reports.  The guy whose work you are citing to essentially claim that climate change isn't an issue is an important member of the organization putting together reports that are saying that is a problem, and we very very likely causing (much) of the warming.

 

 

The IPCC is a big group of people even, but we can look at groups within it that he is more closely associated with within the IPCC.  He's a lead author of a group that wrote:

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

 

"It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to increase. Aerosols partially offset the forcing of the WMGHGs and dominate the uncertainty associated with the total anthropogenic driving of climate change."

 

The physics of CO2 warming are relatively simple and well understood, and we essentially know the Earth can get warmer because it has been warmer in the past.

 

Your also wrong.  Some of the models do accurately predict the global temperature.  Some (not many) are even UNDER predicting temperature increases (Hadcrut is actual surface temperature data, UAH is lower tropospheric temperature from satellites (actual measurements)):

 

And as I've already stated, yes, they are (generally) over predicting temperature, but they are also (generally) under predicting Arctic sea ice melting and sea level changes.

 

Why focus on temperatures?

Edited March 11, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

 

Why focus on temperatures?

 

Because that seems central to the AGW theory presented.

 

Perhaps less focus on it might give ya answers to why ice and sea levels are not tracking.

[Mad Mike]

Rate Of Climate Change To Soar By 2020s, With Arctic Warming 1°F Per Decade | ThinkProgress

 

 

There is, of course, “internally generated variability” in the Earth’s climate system — which has been linked to variability in the Pacific Ocean — that can cause the rate of warming to slow down or speed up for a decade (and occasionally longer). That was the point of a February study on what has mistakenly been called the “hiatus” in global warming.

That hiatus was in fact merely an apparent slowdown in the rate of warming, primarily found in the U.K. Met Office’s dataset. But the Met Office uses the Hadley temperature record, which excludes the Arctic (!) — the very place on the planet that has been warming the fastest. When scientists incorporated Arctic warming into the Met/Hadley record using other data sources (such as the satellites), the slowdown all but vanished.

With 2014 setting the record for warmest year, NASA (and NOAA) data make crystal clear that there was no actual pause even in the rate of warming, as this NASA chart shows:

 

'Hottest Year' Story Obscures Bigger News: Ocean Warming Now Off The Charts | ThinkProgress

 

 

The big climate news last week was NOAA and NASA announcing that 2014 was the hottest year on record, breaking the highs of 2005 and 2010. But the bigger story got buried: Global warming has continued unabated in recent years.

Indeed, it’s not just that there not been a hiatus or pause or even slowdown in surface temperature warming (see below). The oceans, where the vast majority of human-caused global warming heat goes, have seen an acceleration in warming in recent years. As climate expert Prof. John Abraham writes in the UK Guardian, “The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists’ charts.”

[btfoom]

Nobody is claiming that the models are perfect, but to claim they aren't based on science is laughable.  They don't have every possible detail, especially details we are just uncovering incorporated into them.

 

But they are still based on science.

 

...

 

Why focus on temperatures?

 

No, the models aren't based on science.  They are based on predictions, based on ideas that CO2 is necessarily a harbinger of temperature run-away.

 

If there are any models that correctly predict the current levels of temperature, they aren't being pushed.  EVERY major one shows real warming, most at catastrophic rates, should be arond now due to CO2 concentration.  Shows that these models are not to be used.

 

I focused on temperature because the entire AGW world is saying that the Earth is going to warm so extremely that the oceans are going to flood after the ice caps melt.  I would be happy to look at other things, but this hysteria needs to stop.

 

Laastly, this thread says "... Republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change".  Would love to see that lawsuit, but it would get laughed out of any real  court.  

 

There isn't enough scientific evidence - not models - to come anywhere near that claim.

[Mad Mike]

Climate Change Is Altering Everything About The Way Water Is Provided In Salt Lake City | ThinkProgress

 

 

Threats to Utah’s snowpack levels are the biggest climate change challenge facing Salt Lake City, according to Mayor Ralph Becker, a member of the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience and this year’s National League of Cities president.

“The way we provide all of our water for well over a century now is changing,” he told ThinkProgress after Monday’s general session at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C., which focused on how climate change is affecting infrastructure across the nation.

Utah is the second-most arid state in the nation, and its water supply comes largely from the snowpack left in the surrounding mountains at the end of winter.

 

Maybe Inhofe can donate some snowballs.

[Mad Mike]

No, the models aren't based on science.  They are based on predictions, based on ideas that CO2 is necessarily a harbinger of temperature run-away.

 

If there are any models that correctly predict the current levels of temperature, they aren't being pushed.  EVERY major one shows real warming, most at catastrophic rates, should be arond now due to CO2 concentration.  Shows that these models are not to be used.

 

I focused on temperature because the entire AGW world is saying that the Earth is going to warm so extremely that the oceans are going to flood after the ice caps melt.  I would be happy to look at other things, but this hysteria needs to stop.

 

Laastly, this thread says "... Republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change".  Would love to see that lawsuit, but it would get laughed out of any real  court.  

 

There isn't enough scientific evidence - not models - to come anywhere near that claim.

 

 

That's it. Ignore ACTUAL temp changes. You know more than NASA. Everything is A-OK. 

 

The level of denial with some people has reached 9/11 truther levels. 

 

As for the lawsuit.... the evidence keeps mounting that man made climate change is a real and growing danger. THE ENTIRE WORLD IS BEGINNING TO ACT. And the day will come that the money grubbing politicians in big oils pocket will pay. 

 

Climate change — European Environment Agency (EEA)

 

EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 | Environment | The Guardian

[No Excuses]

What's laughable is when you repeat the same BS over and over and pretend to know more than experts who have demonstrated great scientific achievements.

But of course, everyone at NASA and NOAA must be a mouth breathing dummy and the resident graduates of University of Free Republic have it all figured out.

[Mad Mike]

What's laughable is when you repeat the same BS over and over and pretend to know more than experts who have demonstrated great scientific achievements.

But of course, everyone at NASA and NOAA must be a mouth breathing dummy and the resident graduates of University of Free Republic have it all figured out.

 

I'd love to see a psychological study on what makes people so delusional. 

[PeterMP]

No, the models aren't based on science.  They are based on predictions, based on ideas that CO2 is necessarily a harbinger of temperature run-away.

 

If there are any models that correctly predict the current levels of temperature, they aren't being pushed.  EVERY major one shows real warming, most at catastrophic rates, should be arond now due to CO2 concentration.  Shows that these models are not to be used.

 

I focused on temperature because the entire AGW world is saying that the Earth is going to warm so extremely that the oceans are going to flood after the ice caps melt.  I would be happy to look at other things, but this hysteria needs to stop.

 

Laastly, this thread says "... Republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change".  Would love to see that lawsuit, but it would get laughed out of any real  court.  

 

There isn't enough scientific evidence - not models - to come anywhere near that claim.

 

If I drop a 10 g plate, I predict that it will hit the ground with a force of 98 m*g/sec^2

 

Science tells me that force = mass*acceleration and acceleration due Earth's gravity is ~9.8 m/sec^2

 

Science tells me that distance = vi*time+acceleration*time^2/2

 

So if I let my plate go from 1 m (vi = 0), I predict that it will take 0.45 seconds to hit the ground.

 

Those are predictions based on science (and I'll point out that they are even based on physical science (and not statistics whether you regard statistics as a science or not)).  That's what climate models are doing at a more complex level.  They are making predictions based on physical science observations of the components of the system and of the system itself.

 

They are doing at a much more complex level, but they are models based on physics that we use to make predictions.

 

I wanted to try the graphic of the models from another source since the last one didn't take:

 

 

 

 

Hadcrut 4 is the lowest of the temperature data sets so this is being as unkind to the models as possible.

 

If you take the "actual" temperature determined by the Hadcrut 4, it is with in the 95-5% window of the models currently.  Now, there is an uncertainty with the Hadcrut 4 and the lower bound of what the actual temperature could be is outside of that lower bound for the 95-5% window.

 

But that's the lower bound and some models are outside of the 95-5% window (just under 5% of them are).

 

And so some models (the lowest gray line) are actually lower than the lower bound of the Hadcrut 4.  If we take the temperature series that is the lowest and say what is lowest value it could be some models are below that.

 

Now if you take what the IPCC says is the lower bound for possible temperature increases (making assumptions about CO2 output), it is even lower than that.

 

The IPCC is currently predicting a possible lower bound for temperature increases lower than the lowest model even though the current temperate doesn't support that.

 

Now, in their last report the IPCC lowered their lower bound (the red line in the graph above represents the new lower bound) and partly because of research and criticisms like this:

 

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

 

This guy said that he thinks the IPCC's old estimate was off by 1/3 for climate sensitivity (the amount temps will increase for doubling of CO2).

 

(The IPCC gave the "likely range" between 2.5-4.5 with a best estimate of 3 in 2007.  In 2014, they've lowered the lower bound to the "likely range" to 1.5 so they are now saying 1.5-4.5.)

 

Now, the paper I posted above is still lower than the new likely range (it puts it at 1.1).

 

The IPCC lower bound is lower than the models lowest bound.  The IPCC is saying it is possible that all of the model are wrong because they are over predicting the temperature even though there is currently no evidence to believe that's the case because even the lowest temperature data set is likely to be within in the 95-5% window of the models and is higher than some of the models predict.

 

But I've posted a piece that says even that lowest lower bound by the IPCC is too low.

 

The guy that wrote that is saying that something that says that even the lowest model that is running too hot is to high.

 

But what's he say about the future if we do nothing:

 

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

 

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

 

Scientists aren't sure exactly what such a change in temperature could bring, but one of the "big possible consequences" is an increase in sea level, Mr. Schwartz said.

 

"It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

 

"Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars.""

 

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost.html

 

And that's from a guy that essentially thinks EVERY models is over estimating future temperature increases (even though that doesn't appear to be the case), and the IPCC lower bound, which is lower than the lowest model, is too high.

 

Now, the odd thing is you've come in here and made pretty definitive deceleration, do you think it odd that you've made those statements without what appears to be a pretty basic understanding of the real situation?

Edited March 12, 2015 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Because that seems central to the AGW theory presented.

 

Perhaps less focus on it might give ya answers to why ice and sea levels are not tracking.

 

And sea levels and ice melting aren't?

 

I can find you plenty of things, even in the popular press, that talk about sea levels increasing faster than expected and Arctic sea ice melting faster than expected.

 

They all go hand in hand, and I think at some level, it is pretty clear that IF the models are actually under estimating surface temperatures it is because at least some that energy is going to melting sea ice and raising sea levels.

 

But when skeptics talk about the models being wrong it is only in the direction of temperatures being over estimated.  It is never pointed out that there are reasons to believe that the models are under estimating affects.

 

The bias is odd (well it isn't really.  If they didn't have preconceived agendas in most cases the bias would be odd).

Edited March 12, 2015 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

Guys guys guys..it's not sea level rise.

 

It's nuisance flooding.

 

 

 

 

 

Really...can anyone say that with a straight face...I mean except for the morons in Florida?

Edited March 12, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

And sea levels and ice melting aren't?

 

I can find you plenty of things, even in the popular press, that talk about sea levels increasing faster than expected and Arctic sea ice melting faster than expected.

 

They all go hand in hand, and I think at some level, it is pretty clear that IF the models are actually under estimating surface temperatures it is because at least some that energy is going to melting sea ice and raising sea levels.

 

But when skeptics talk about the models being wrong it is only in the direction of temperatures being over estimated.  It is never pointed out that there are reasons to believe that the models are under estimating affects.

 

The bias is odd (well it isn't really.  If they didn't have preconceived agendas in most cases the bias would be odd).

 

currents changed, ground sinks and rises.....more than one source of heat around as well.

[PeterMP]

currents changed, ground sinks and rises.....more than one source of heat around as well.

 

You know what else happens, CO2 absorbs energy that would have otherwise escaped into space.

 

And we can put pretty good numbers on how much those other things affect things like sea level, especially at global level and there seems to be a good bit of things happening that aren't explained by those other things.

[The Evil Genius]

Nods head like he understood 1/10 of what Peter posted yesterday..or ever.

 

[twa]

You know what else happens, CO2 absorbs energy that would have otherwise escaped into space.

 

And we can put pretty good numbers on how much those other things affect things like sea level, especially at global level and there seems to be a good bit of things happening that aren't explained by those other things.

 

pretty good numbers despite us learning more all the time, like heat escaping the atmosphere at a higher rate and gigantic whirlpool heat sinks, and even hidden volcanic activity.

[grhqofb5]

I'd just like to add that I find it hilarious that the argument seems to have gone from "Man made global warming doesn't exist" to "Ok well maybe it does, but is it really that bad?" and now to "Well, global warming would be a good thing for us!"

 

 

Carry on.

 

I got a few thoughts here.  Global warming ain't so bad because:

 

(1) Hundreds of people every year die of exposure due to cold. Raising the temp a few degrees would definitely save a few of those.

(2) Hotter temperatures mean stronger solar light.  Better for solar panels, so we can reduce our dependance of fossil fuels.

(3) Hotter temps mean longer growing seasons.  Plus with the extra solar energy we can convert that to run the farm equipment.

(4) Hotter temps mean more polar ice melt.  More water in the ocean translates to more rain on the land.  More water for the crops we'll be growing during those longer growing seasons. 

(5) Hotter temps opens up land in the far northern areas of Canada.  For every foot of shoreline lost due to polar ice melt, we'll gain 2 feet up in the great north.  Virgin land for farming, livestock, gold mining, and building houses.

(6) Hotter temps mean less need to use damaging chemical to melt ice off slippery sidewalks.  Issue with high salt content in local streams?  Solved.

(7) Hotter temps mean it'll be easier to cook food.  After all, its much easier to heat up an outdoor grill when it starts at 105 degrees vs. 75 degrees.  Fast preheat time means less fuel used, quicker eating, and less wasted time.  Frees up more time for gold mining and surfing on the new coastline.

[Mad Mike]

The Intergenerational Report underestimates climate threat: an open letter to the government

 

 

We the undersigned are concerned that the 2015 Intergenerational Report underestimates the serious threat of global warming to future generations.

Based on the basic laws of physics, direct measurements and empirical observations in nature, the current rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases by about 40% since the 19th century is inducing a shift in the state of the atmosphere-ocean-land-ice sheets system, seriously endangering future generations, and indeed nature’s life-support systems.

Our concern is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as summarised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and on observations by the world’s national science academies and geophysical research societies of leading nations, including Australia.*

The current and projected trend in CO₂ from the 19th century concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present 400 ppm, currently rising at more than 2 ppm per year, threatens to transform the planetary climate, creating conditions in which large parts of the continents become subject to droughts, fires and other extreme weather events. If this trend is allowed to continue, low coastal and river valleys, where much of the world’s population lives and where its food supply is produced, would be inundated by rising sea levels.

 

Follow the link for full text.

 

The thing that climate denial trufers keep ignoring is that new new data and studies continue to confirm and refine what 97% of ACTUAL peer reviewed climate scientists have been saying. That global climate change real and it is man made. The new data not only confirms past projections, the projections continue to get worse and worse. 

 

If you climate trufers were given the same projections for your own life by 97% of the doctors you consulted ...that if you didn't change your lifestyle it could be a grave threat to your life, what would you do?

I got a few thoughts here.  Global warming ain't so bad because:

 

(1) Hundreds of people every year die of exposure due to cold. Raising the temp a few degrees would definitely save a few of those.

(2) Hotter temperatures mean stronger solar light.  Better for solar panels, so we can reduce our dependance of fossil fuels.

(3) Hotter temps mean longer growing seasons.  Plus with the extra solar energy we can convert that to run the farm equipment.

(4) Hotter temps mean more polar ice melt.  More water in the ocean translates to more rain on the land.  More water for the crops we'll be growing during those longer growing seasons. 

(5) Hotter temps opens up land in the far northern areas of Canada.  For every foot of shoreline lost due to polar ice melt, we'll gain 2 feet up in the great north.  Virgin land for farming, livestock, gold mining, and building houses.

(6) Hotter temps mean less need to use damaging chemical to melt ice off slippery sidewalks.  Issue with high salt content in local streams?  Solved.

(7) Hotter temps mean it'll be easier to cook food.  After all, its much easier to heat up an outdoor grill when it starts at 105 degrees vs. 75 degrees.  Fast preheat time means less fuel used, quicker eating, and less wasted time.  Frees up more time for gold mining and surfing on the new coastline.

 

And I'm sure that the billionaires will take full advantage of any opportunities that arise as billions of little people suffer.

[PeterMP]

I got a few thoughts here.  Global warming ain't so bad because:

 

(1) Hundreds of people every year die of exposure due to cold. Raising the temp a few degrees would definitely save a few of those.

(2) Hotter temperatures mean stronger solar light.  Better for solar panels, so we can reduce our dependance of fossil fuels.

(3) Hotter temps mean longer growing seasons.  Plus with the extra solar energy we can convert that to run the farm equipment.

(4) Hotter temps mean more polar ice melt.  More water in the ocean translates to more rain on the land.  More water for the crops we'll be growing during those longer growing seasons. 

(5) Hotter temps opens up land in the far northern areas of Canada.  For every foot of shoreline lost due to polar ice melt, we'll gain 2 feet up in the great north.  Virgin land for farming, livestock, gold mining, and building houses.

(6) Hotter temps mean less need to use damaging chemical to melt ice off slippery sidewalks.  Issue with high salt content in local streams?  Solved.

(7) Hotter temps mean it'll be easier to cook food.  After all, its much easier to heat up an outdoor grill when it starts at 105 degrees vs. 75 degrees.  Fast preheat time means less fuel used, quicker eating, and less wasted time.  Frees up more time for gold mining and surfing on the new coastline.

 

People die from heat waves too and from parasites and other things that live especially in tropical climates.

 

Hotter temperatures don't mean more solar energy for solar panels.  It also doesn't mean longer growing seasons in many cases.

 

Hotter temperatures does not mean more sun light in the context of CO2 induced climate change.

 

Us adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't going to increase the amount of sun light coming into the Earth.

 

Hotter temperatures mean more water held in the atmosphere.  I don't think (and certainly know) that correlates to more rain.  In addition, there will be more ocean so more of the area will be water.  Why wouldn't that more rain come down on the larger ocean?

 

5 might actually be right.  Are you going to help move the people and put in the new infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc)?  What's the costs?

 

Hotter also means killing things that live in more temperate water, especially with the increased CO2 and related drop in the pH.

 

(I've said before, I think long term climate change being good or bad is a coin flip at a total population level.  Changes in precipitation patterns is going to be key.  If rain moves from falling over fertile areas moves to the Sahara, you are still going to have a very hard time (or expensive) growing crops. Short term and for the US, things are different.

 

If somebody wants to tell me they don't really care about the US or short term costs, I can see the argument for just letting it happen.)

Edited March 13, 2015 by PeterMP

[mcsluggo]

change is good, right?   

 

it'll keep us on our toes!

[grhqofb5]

People die from heat waves too and from parasites and other things that live especially in tropical climates.....

 

 

People die from heat waves too and from parasites and other things that live especially in tropical climates.

Response: Less people = Less consumption of resources, less pollution, less extinction of species, and mo' money for all the leftovers.

 

Hotter temperatures don't mean more solar energy for solar panels.  It also doesn't mean longer growing seasons in many cases.

Response: Then use boilers...  Mo' heat = less energy need to heat boilers = energy savings for all, mo' money for some.

 

Hotter temperatures does not mean more sun light in the context of CO2 induced climate change.

Mo' CO2 = more air for plants = mo' food = mo' money for billionaires who will control the farms.

 

Us adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't going to increase the amount of sun light coming into the Earth.

Won't hurt it either.

 

Hotter temperatures mean more water held in the atmosphere.  I don't think (and certainly know) that correlates to more rain.  In addition, there will be more ocean so more of the area will be water.  Why wouldn't that more rain come down on the larger ocean?

Mo' Ocean = mo' water which cannot be denied. Boil the water in the boilers to purify, and make it rain on the crops.

 

5 might actually be right.  Are you going to help move the people and put in the new infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc)?  What's the costs?

No, but I'll negotiate the contracts for both the move and the construction contract for the new road, buildings, and other infrastructure. Will also buy stock in those construction outfits.

 

Hotter also means killing things that live in more temperate water, especially with the increased CO2 and related drop in the pH.

Hotter also means more sea creatures that live in warmer waters. So it'll balance out.

 

(I've said before, I think long term climate change being good or bad is a coin flip at a total population level.  Changes in precipitation patterns is going to be key.  If rain moves from falling over fertile areas moves to the Sahara, you are still going to have a very hard time (or expensive) growing crops. Short term and for the US, things are different.

If somebody wants to tell me they don't really care about the US or short term costs, I can see the argument for just letting it happen.)

 

Perhaps its time to switch up some of the farmland anyway.  Field rotation on a large scale.  Mo' food = mo' money. Overflowing rivers = silt deposits in flood plains and rich farmland.  See Nile River basin circa 2500 B.C.

 

 

 

[Mad Mike]

At Least Four States Are Pushing Koch-Backed Legislation To Ban Funding EPA's Climate Rule | ThinkProgress

 

 

Lawmakers from at least four states have introduced model legislation from the right-wing group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) seeking to prohibit state funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to fight climate change.

On Thursday, Missouri state lawmaker Tim Remole introduced a resolution mimicking the text of AFP’s Reliable, Affordable and Safe Power (RASP) Act. Remole’s resolution “seeks to prohibit state agencies from using state money to implement EPA rules and guidelines,” specifically the EPA’s efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Nearly identical resolutions have also been introduced in Florida, Virginia, and South Carolina in 2015. Each one says the proposed limits on carbon emissions from power plants “will not measurably alter any impacts of climate change,” “conflicts with a literal reading of the law,” and would “effectively amount to a federal takeover of the electricity system of the United States.”

Ted Cruz Tells NASA Chief They Shouldn't Do Climate Science Research | Crooks and Liars

 

 

"Our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate, explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place," Bolden said. NASA studies everything from the depths of the oceans to the solar energy coming into the Earth's atmosphere.

Cruz pushed back against the "Earth" part of NASA's mission. "Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space," he said. "That's what inspires little boys and little girls across this country."

"I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission."

Bolden defended spending more money on Earth science activities, saying he is "proud" of it since it's led to a greater understanding of the planet.

"We can't go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don't know it — and that's understanding our environment," Bolden said, in a clear reference to global warming-related sea level rise.

"It is absolutely critical that we understand Earth's environment because this is the only place that we have to live."