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

[Mad Mike]

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." - Carl Sagan

[twa]

Serious questions:

What do you think is the worst case scenario it the world takes little to no action when it comes to climate change?

 

What do you think is the worst case scenario if the world takes little to no action when it comes to climate change and your side is wrong about what man is doing to the climate?

 

what is the scenario if we take the wrong actions?....serious question

we are going to waste resources better used to improve quality of life

 

rising sea levels(and sinking land) obviously need addressing with or w/o 'action'....or is that a action in your world?

 

I think the warming rate is vastly overstated and the proposed solutions ineffective and misguided.

It's admirable that some of you are still interested in giving twa reasonable responses.

His act is so worn out, it's obvious. He knows he's wrong but too proud to admit it.

That's really where this argument is at in general. As latest as 2016, you will most likely see a complete about face on this from the GOP and they will pretend that they were always siding with the scientists.

The debate has been long over. Fighting against science is a bad idea.

 

Both science and I will win in the end ....a inconvenient truth

[Larry]

what is the scenario if we take the wrong actions?....serious question

Then we slow down running our country on the principle of burning dead things, sooner than we absolutely had to do it, anyway.

 

Both science and I will win in the end ....a inconvenient truth

The Confederacy will rise again!

Edited February 28, 2015 by Larry

[Popeman38]

Within the context of that "debate" I'll stand by my statement. When it comes to climate change Republicans are the stupid ones.

Now, If you have nothing better to contribute, do me a favor and go pick nits elsewhere.

You know, constantly insulting Republicans and posting with vitriol whenever they are even slightly defended marginalized your voice.

[twa]

Then we stop running our country on the principle of burning dead things, sooner than we absolutely had to do it, anyway.

 

 

burn the undead

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21627542-unexpected-source-methane-just-keeps-popping-up-fuel-loose-and-fossil-free

 

science learns new **** every day

[No Excuses]

Both science and I will win in the end ....a inconvenient truth

Forget 2016, it's happening already.

You waste time arguing with scientists, arguing against science and then claim it's on your side.

I thought it would take a while before this convenient about face on being wrong started. But I underestimated your delusion.

[twa]

is that your consensus?

 

add

is that blather about a about face referencing this vote?

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/231540-inhofes-gambit-inside-the-senates-big-climate-vote

Edited February 28, 2015 by twa

[PeterMP]

what is the scenario if we take the wrong actions?....serious question

we are going to waste resources better used to improve quality of life

 

rising sea levels(and sinking land) obviously need addressing with or w/o 'action'....or is that a action in your world?

 

I think the warming rate is vastly overstated and the proposed solutions ineffective and misguided.

 

Given the complexity of issues related to sea levels (which we'already discussed), I find it odd that would be what you'd select to act on.

 

What areas are you for doing things to protect with respect to sea levels, why those areas, and what are you prepared to do?

 

I'll point out that moving from a fossil fuel related economy to a one less dependent on fossil fuels allows us shift our foreign and military policy that is currently related to securing (cheap) supplies of fossil fuels (for us and our allies).

 

And when you look at all of the soldiers that have come home injured (physically and psychologically) from the recent wars and the families that have suffered from losses from the wars and have and are struggling, I can't help but think that actions that would help minimize CO2 production would be one of the best ways to POSITIVELY affect quality of life in the US currently as compared to the current state of things.

 

(And if you try and insinuate the world's economy will run on geologically generated methane production (abiotic and/or biotic) again, I am going to laugh at you.)

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

Given the complexity of issues related to sea levels (which we'already discussed), I find it odd that would be what you'd select to act on.

 

What areas are you for doing things to protect with respect to sea levels, why those areas, and what are you prepared to do?

 

I'll point out that moving from a fossil fuel related economy to a one less dependent on fossil fuels allows us shift our foreign and military policy that is currently related to securing (cheap) supplies of fossil fuels (for us and our allies).

 

And when you look at all of the soldiers that have come home injured (physically and psychologically) from the recent wars and the families that have suffered from losses from the wars and have and are struggling, I can't help but think that actions that would help minimize CO2 production would be one of the best ways to POSITIVELY affect quality of life in the US currently as compared to the current state of things.

 

(And if you try and insinuate the world's economy will run on geologically generated methane production (abiotic and/or biotic) again, I am going to laugh at you.)

 

Ya think we should just let the East coast sink/drown? 

Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)

 

a idiotic foreign policy based on stupidity like peak oil here is no shield to hide behind, and one related to the last unicorn fart green dream.

Next up cutting our throat....again

 

CO2 reduction wrapped in a bloody flag....I'm impressed 

[Mad Mike]

You know, constantly insulting Republicans and posting with vitriol whenever they are even slightly defended marginalized your voice.

 

Tell you what, I'll stop calling republicans stupid when they stop saying things like this...

 

Republican Lawmaker Thinks Women Can Get Gynecological Exams by Swallowing Cameras

Ya think we should just let the East coast sink/drown? 

Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)

 

a idiotic foreign policy based on stupidity like peak oil here is no shield to hide behind, and one related to the last unicorn fart green dream.

Next up cutting our throat....again

 

CO2 reduction wrapped in a bloody flag....I'm impressed 

 

Is it possible for you to speak in complete sentences and cite factual evidence to support your statements or are we doomed to try making sense of your Sarah Palin like word salad?

[twa]

 

 

Is it possible for you to speak in complete sentences and cite factual evidence to support your statements or are we doomed to try making sense of your Sarah Palin like word salad?

 

You need evidence the east coat is sinking?

 

That methane(which is a much more potent GHG than CO2) is naturally venting?.....reducing that gives ya fuel and reduces your greenhouse impact.

 

Complete sentences are for morons.....and English majors 

[Mad Mike]

National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change | CNA Corporation

You need evidence the east coat is sinking?

 

That methane(which is a much more potent GHG than CO2) is naturally venting?.....reducing that gives ya fuel and reduces your greenhouse impact.

 

Complete sentences are for morons.....and English majors 

 

Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

 

 

 

Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2012, CH4 accounted for about 9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

Globally, over 60% of total CH4 emissions come from human activities. [1] Methane is emitted from industry, agriculture, and waste management activities, described below.

[twa]

That 40% CH4 (which is probably understated) is unimportant?

We can address the 60% and the 40%, but some seem distracted by the CO2 .

 

we can probably find better solutions than filters/bags on a cows ass 

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3028933/these-backpacks-for-cows-collect-their-fart-gas-and-store-it-for-energy

Edited February 28, 2015 by twa

[Mad Mike]

That 40% CH4 (which is probably understated) is unimportant?

We can address the 60% and the 40%, but some seem distracted by the CO2 .

 

we can probably find better solutions than filters/bags on a cows ass 

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3028933/these-backpacks-for-cows-collect-their-fart-gas-and-store-it-for-energy

 

FACT SHEET: Administration Takes Steps Forward on Climate Action Plan by Announcing Actions to Cut Methane Emissions | The White House

 

 

EPA will develop new guidelines to assist states in reducing ozone-forming pollutants from existing oil and gas systems in areas that do not meet the ozone health standard and in states in the Ozone Transport Region. These guidelines will also reduce methane emissions in these areas. The guidelines will help states that are developing clean air ozone plans by providing a ready-to-adopt control measure that they can include in those plans.

Consider Enhancing Leak Detection and Emissions Reporting

EPA will continue to promote transparency and accountability for existing sources by strengthening its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to require reporting in all segments of the industry. In addition to finalizing the updates to the program EPA has already proposed by the end of 2015, EPA will explore potential regulatory opportunities for applying remote sensing technologies and other innovations in measurement and monitoring technology to further improve the identification and quantification of emissions and improve the overall accuracy and transparency of reported data cost-effectively.

Lead by Example on Public Lands

The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will update decades-old standards to reduce wasteful venting, flaring, and leaks of natural gas, which is primarily methane, from oil and gas wells.  These standards, to be proposed this spring, will address both new and existing oil and gas wells on public lands. This action will enhance our energy security and economy by boosting America’s natural gas supplies, ensuring that taxpayers receive the royalties due to them from development of public resources, and reducing emissions. BLM will work closely with EPA to ensure an integrated approach.

Reduce Methane Emissions while Improving Pipeline Safety

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will propose natural gas pipeline safety standards in 2015.  While the standards will focus on safety, they are expected to lower methane emissions as well.

Drive Technology to Reduce Natural Gas Losses and Improve Emissions Quantification

The President’s FY16 Budget will propose $15 million in funding for the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop and demonstrate more cost-effective technologies to detect and reduce losses from natural gas transmission and distribution systems.  This will include efforts to repair leaks and develop next generation compressors. The President’s budget will also propose $10 million to launch a program at DOE to enhance the quantification of emissions from natural gas infrastructure for inclusion in the national Greenhouse Gas Inventory in coordination with EPA.

Modernize Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure

DOE will continue to take steps to encourage reduced emissions, particularly from natural gas transmission and distribution, including:

• Issuing energy efficiency standards for natural gas and air compressors;
• Advancing research and development to bring down the cost of detecting leaks;
• Working with FERC to modernize natural gas infrastructure; and
• Partnering with NARUC and local distribution companies to accelerate pipeline repair and replacement at the local level.

Release a Quadrennial Energy Review (QER)

The Administration will soon release the first installment of the QER, which focuses specifically on policy actions that are needed to help modernize energy transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure. This installment of the QER will include additional policy recommendations and analysis on the environmental, safety, and economic benefits of investments that reduce natural gas system leakage.

INDUSTRY ACTIONS TO REDUCE METHANE EMISSIONS.

The Administration’s actions represent important steps to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Fully attaining the Administration’s goal will require additional action, particularly with respect to existing sources of methane emissions. Several voluntary industry efforts to address these sources are underway, including EPA’s plans to expand on the successful Natural Gas STAR Program by launching a new partnership in collaboration with key stakeholders later in 2015.   EPA will work with DOE, DOT, and leading companies, individually and through broader initiatives such as the One Future Initiative and the Downstream Initiative, to develop and verify robust commitments to reduce methane emissions.  This new effort will encourage innovation, provide accountability and transparency, and track progress toward specific methane emission reduction activities and goals to reduce methane leakage across the natural gas value chain.

Voluntary efforts to reduce emissions in a comprehensive and transparent manner hold the potential to realize significant reductions in a quick, flexible, cost-effective way. Achieving significant methane reductions from these voluntary industry programs and state actions could reduce the need for future regulations. The Administration stands ready to collaborate with these and other voluntary efforts, including in the development of a regime for monitoring, reporting and verification. 

 

Meanwhile.... 

 

House GOP: Threatens to defund EPA.

 

Seems to me that the republicans are the ones counting on collecting cow farts. 

 

Dont you ever get tired of being proven wrong?

[twa]

How am I wrong?

That link sure ain't nothing new to me.

[PeterMP]

You need evidence the east coat is sinking?

 

That methane(which is a much more potent GHG than CO2) is naturally venting?.....reducing that gives ya fuel and reduces your greenhouse impact.

 

Complete sentences are for morons.....and English majors 

 

Methane is relatively quickly converted into CO2 on the surface and in the atmosphere.

 

Is there anybody stopping people from collecting it and using it for fuel in most cases?

 

I'm pretty sure the only answer is it economical in nature.

[Mad Mike]

Cutting Methane, Soot Not Enough to Tackle Warming | Climate Central

 

 

 

The research, published this weekin the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says measures to stop climate change that focus only on methane, soot and other short-term pollutants are likely overestimating their effectiveness in keeping long-term global warming in check if they don’t also slash CO2, the new study says.

 

Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation

[PeterMP]

Ya think we should just let the East coast sink/drown? 

Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)

 

a idiotic foreign policy based on stupidity like peak oil here is no shield to hide behind, and one related to the last unicorn fart green dream.

Next up cutting our throat....again

 

CO2 reduction wrapped in a bloody flag....I'm impressed 

 

The problem with technological solutions to mitigation of climate change problems is that it is essentially a costs that has to be paid infinitely into the future.  That gets expensive.

 

In addition, there's the issue of just constant vigilance.  It is easy to let the vigilance slip in terms of up keep and maintenance, and we saw what can happen with respect to New Orleans.

 

The other issue is the East Coast is big.  Where are you going to spend your money?

 

Where it is sinking the fastest?

 

What happens if in 20 years currents and sedimentation rates change, and it is no longer sinking (quickly)  You put hundreds of millions of dollars into protecting NYC, and in 20 years, things change and it is Boston where sea levels actually raise the fastest.

 

Or not even the East Coast, but the Great Lakes, and that's where you're having flooding issues.

 

What happens if in 25 years it is clear your money could have been better spent in Chicago?

 

Where are you going to put your money?  And why?

 

You got real solutions.  Let's hear them.

 

Are you going to trust regional climate models that are even worse than golobal climate models and don't even take into account all of the factors related to sea level rising (locally)?

 

Why would you do that?

 

Nobody's basing foreign policy on peak oil.  Cheap oil is not the same as peak oil.

 

Am I wrong?  If I can find solutions to energy problems that decrease the world's dependence on oil coming from the Middle East (and today likely even Russia) am I not going to increase the quality of life for large numbers of future veterans and their families?

 

Isn't that a worthwhile expenditure of funds that you are saying should go to quality of life improvements?

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

NASA Satellites Start Tracking Down the Sources of Climate Change - NBC News.com

[Skins24]

Are you a climate scientist? If so, please share with us the degrees you hold. If not I suggest you point to scientific evidence that can be reviewed to back your claim that NASA has "gotten NOTHING correct so far."

Or you can simply admit that you are speaking directly from your rectum.

lol, sensing a lot of hostility. Why?

Nope, not as climatologist. Weather is my game. My "evidence" is looking outside. Exaggerated? Yeah, a little but I am mainly talking about the doom and gloom predictions. Models are good for generalities. It'll get warmer. Pretty much anything beyond that the less accuracy you'll see. (why we can barely predict 7 days out.)

Our best guesses as to what the future holds lies with looking at the past. The problem with that is that no two warming (or cooling) events have ever or can ever be alike. Simply impossible.

Models also usually don't take into account the unpredictable. No model predicted the sun would be this quiet for this long. Or that the Atlantic may be absorbing more heat than thought. Or now (we literally have a new reason for the slower rate or "pause" every year. Last year the Atlantic, a couple days ago new research suggests-) a cooler Pacific is enough to slow things down. Cycles that can, and will, throw timing off by decades.

I'm dumbfounded that you think this is a rational argument.

Again, that is making assumptions that have so far simply not verified in any way.

Also, looking at a few weather events over a 10 even 20 year period is not necessarily "climate." Climate is LONG term and any changes would span multiple normal weather cycles. So far our weather has NOT been dramatically affected by a warming climate. Not yet. And again our best guesses as to what will happen here in a warmer climate comes from specific types of El Nino events which dramatically increase worldwide temps. And here in the U.S...s'not so bad...

[Mad Mike]

lol, sensing a lot of hostility. Why?

Nope, not as climatologist. Weather is my game. My "evidence" is looking outside. Exaggerated? Yeah, a little but I am mainly talking about the doom and gloom predictions. Models are good for generalities. It'll get warmer. Pretty much anything beyond that the less accuracy you'll see. (why we can barely predict 7 days out.)

Our best guesses as to what the future holds lies with looking at the past. The problem with that is that no two warming (or cooling) events have ever or can ever be alike. Simply impossible.

Models also usually don't take into account the unpredictable. No model predicted the sun would be this quiet for this long. Or that the Atlantic may be absorbing more heat than thought. Or now (we literally have a new reason for the slower rate or "pause" every year. Last year the Atlantic, a couple days ago new research suggests-) a cooler Pacific is enough to slow things down. Cycles that can, and will, throw timing off by decades.

Again, that is making assumptions that have so far simply not verified in any way.

Also, looking at a few weather events over a 10 even 20 year period is not necessarily "climate." Climate is LONG term and any changes would span multiple normal weather cycles. So far our weather has NOT been dramatically affected by a warming climate. Not yet. And again our best guesses as to what will happen here in a warmer climate comes from specific types of El Nino events which dramatically increase worldwide temps. And here in the U.S...s'not so bad...

 

No hostility, simply the recognition of a person talking out of their rectum.  And you have responded with more of the same. Complete and utter bull**** that flies in the face of what ACTUAL climate scientists are saying.

[PeterMP]

Pretty much anything beyond that the less accuracy you'll see.

Models also usually don't take into account the unpredictable.

However, the problem becomes that all of your arguments are based on things being ACCURATE and PREDICTABLE.

Your "prediction" is essentially that the models are inaccurate in specific direction.

In directions that mean things won't be bad.

You are arguing for an accurate prediction that doesn't agree with the models.

Going back to the piece I posted on droughts, if models aren't accurate and don't take into account unpredictable things, then why isn't it a concern that the unpredictable things that make the models inaccurate result in the model to UNDER PREDICT the severity of future drought?

 

Doesn't that still fit your ideas of models being inaccurate because of unpredictable things?

But your arguments all ignore that possibility.

  

Our best guesses as to what the future holds lies with looking at the past. The problem with that is that no two warming (or cooling) events have ever or can ever be alike. Simply impossible.

 

And again our best guesses as to what will happen here in a warmer climate comes from specific types of El Nino events which dramatically increase worldwide temps. And here in the U.S...s'not so bad...

That somebody would make those two comments in the same post is laughable.

We can't look at previous warming periods, but we should look at pretty much unrelated El Nino's.

El Nino's don't (greatly) affect the heat budget of the Earth system (this includes deep oceans), but primarily affect the distribution of heat in the system.

They move heat from area to another.

That is completely different than real warming events/processes that increase the heat budget of the whole system. The idea that you'd ignore other warming events in which the energy of the total system is increased for surface warming events that are completely different is odd at best.

And we see that there is a difference. El Nino's cause significant warming of the troposphere in a manner that exceeds that of climate change global warming, and you can see that in the satellite data (that are measuring troposphere temperatures).

The El Nino year's are all big peaks on a background of a general warming trend. Based on the satellite data, 1998 is still easiest the warmest year. It is also the year since the satellite data started with the strongest El Nino.

 

In addition, El Nino's are single years.  They warm (the surface) and then go away.  There is no compounded affect of a general trend of warming over decades.

 

There's no good reason to believe that El Nino's are a good model for CO2 induced climate change.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

There's a lot of talk about the models and the models being wrong in this thread and in other places.

 

Much of the talk is related to surface temperatures where the mean of the models are over estimating the surface temperatures so from that it looks like the mean of the models over exaggerate the effects of climate change (and note, it isn't all of the models, but the mean of the models).

 

What gets less attention is that the mean of the models are underestimating Arctic sea ice melting and precipitation increases, and sea level increases are running at the upper edge of model predictions.

 

The models aren't perfect, but people that act like the models only over exaggerate the effect of CO2 induced climate change are either ignorant or lying.

 

There's as good of reasons to look at the data and think the models might be under estimating affects.

Edited March 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

No hostility, simply the recognition of a person talking out of their rectum. And you have responded with more of the same. Complete and utter bull**** that flies in the face of what ACTUAL climate scientists are saying.

Oh! Have you returned from the future to inform us how things turn out?

We're talking about predictions on what will happen. They can say all they want. I'm saying their 'sayings' should be taken like a typical weather report in trying to predict the weather a week from now. Except, don't expect the same accuracy. There are exponentially more factors to take into account when predicting future climate.

In terms of the new explanation for the "pause" -

2015 explanation:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/uk/news/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46259

From the article and what I was talking about re the models:

"It is true that Earth's surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn't mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors. These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming 'speed bump'."

These speed bumps can last decades and cause predictions to be way off.

Which part of that flies in the face of what climate scientist are saying? (With the note that the quoted is from one such scientist)

Peter, those two statements aren't contradictory at all. The first was talking about this warming period. The second, weather events.

[twa]

Methane is relatively quickly converted into CO2 on the surface and in the atmosphere.

 

Is there anybody stopping people from collecting it and using it for fuel in most cases?

 

I'm pretty sure the only answer is it economical in nature.

and atmospheric co2 is relatively quickly converted

Why yes there are people stopping it

the economics are impacted by policy as you well know

The problem with technological solutions to mitigation of climate change problems is that it is essentially a costs that has to be paid infinitely into the future.  That gets expensive.

 

...

 

Am I wrong?  If I can find solutions to energy problems that decrease the world's dependence on oil coming from the Middle East (and today likely even Russia) am I not going to increase the quality of life for large numbers of future veterans and their families?

 

Isn't that a worthwhile expenditure of funds that you are saying should go to quality of life improvements?

The climate will continue to change, just as plate tectonics will sink the east coast.....AGW schemes can't change that.

Where to intervene will be a interesting series of choices over time.

bring me solutions, I'm certainly open minded and support research and development....just not fantasy.