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

[Zguy28]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I came across a link that I thought was interesting. It tracks retractions of scientific articles and fraud within media and peer reviewed journals etc.

 

http://retractionwatch.com/

[twa]

This conservative economist makes the case for a carbon tax

 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-conservative-economist-makes-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax/

 

they do make economic sense if your goal is not cheap energy 

it is less subject to preferential treatment than cap and trade though as mcsluggo mentioned.

 

of course govt will promise to play Robin Hood with either so cheap is relative.

[China]

Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries

 

The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.

 

Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling.

 

The increasingly routine tidal flooding is making life miserable in places like Miami Beach; Charleston, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va., even on sunny days.

 

...

 

“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

 

In the second study, scientists reconstructed the level of the sea over time and confirmed that it is most likely rising faster than at any point in 28 centuries, with the rate of increase growing sharply over the past century — largely, they found, because of the warming that scientists have said is almost certainly caused by human emissions.

 

They also confirmed previous forecasts that if emissions were to continue at a high rate over the next few decades, the ocean could rise as much as three or four feet by 2100.

 

...

 

“I think we can definitely be confident that sea-level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there’s further warming, which inevitably there will be,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, and co-author of one of the papers, published online Monday by an American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

it is true they are sinking faster  .....I'd suggest moving

[PeterMP]

The surface temperatures and balloon measured temperatures have been deviating from satellite measured temperatures over the last decade+.  Deniers/skeptics have have been using the satellite measured temperatures to claim that warming has stalled.

 

There are 2 organizations that determine temperatures based on satellite data.  One of them has recently re-evaluated their method, and it has increased the amount of warming:

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R&

 

"The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998."

 

And the other satellite data set is showing that February had the largest anomaly ever for a month (i.e. Feb was more warm than the average Feb. by a larger difference than any other month ever.)

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

Ground broken on emission-free, gas power plant near Houston

Posted on March 9, 2016 | By Jordan Blum

•  
•  
•  
•  
• PRINT

Construction launched Wednesday on a first-of-its kind, natural gas power plant near Houston that won’t have any air emissions.

The 25-megawatt pilot project in La Porte focuses on new technology that will send the carbon dioxide into a sequestration pipeline. The carbon emissions can then be stored or used for industrial purposes or enhanced oil recovery.

The pilot power plant, which will still connect to the Texas grid, is developed by Net Power, which is a collaboration of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., The Woodlands’ CB&I and North Carolina-based 8 Rivers Capital technology commercialization firm. Much of the equipment is manufactured by Toshiba.

Exelon and CB&I are leading the funding for the $140 million project. If proven successful, the idea is to start building larger, 295-megawatt power plants that would represent the next generation of cleaner-burning, natural gas plants.

“Net Power is the first technology that allows policy and economics to work together, instead of against each other, to ensure the world meets our climate targets,” 

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/03/09/ground-broken-on-emission-free-gas-power-plant-near-houston/

 

 

did I mention it also increases domestic oil production? 

[Zguy28]

Looks like the Justice Dept and the President want to prosecute people and companies for denying climate change is true.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/justice-dept-may-prosecute-climate-232718109.html

[tshile]

the comparisons of the tobacco industry and the oil/coal industry have been apt for some time.

 

doubt they'll do anything about it though.

[TheGoodBits]

the comparisons of the tobacco industry and the oil/coal industry have been apt for some time.

doubt they'll do anything about it though.

May be politically difficult. Would look like a witchhunt, especially with people like the Chair of the House Science Commitee being notably anti-science.

[tshile]

May be politically difficult. Would look like a witchhunt, especially with people like the Chair of the House Science Commitee being notably anti-science.

 

That's because the number one defense of people who do this is to cry that they're the victims of a witchhunt. That alone should not stop this.

 

The good thing is that it's been referred to the FBI and they don't have any friends. If they believe they have jurisdiction and they find anything to warrant further investigation they'll do it. While I'm positive a true investigation would reveal that they have manipulated their research (even if it's just hiring scientists with a quid pro quo arrangement), I'm skeptical they can find enough to get the required warrants to dig deep on it.

[PeterMP]

Looks like the Justice Dept and the President want to prosecute people and companies for denying climate change is true.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/justice-dept-may-prosecute-climate-232718109.html

They aren't going to prosecute people that are deny climate change is true any more than they prosecuted people for denying cigarettes for claiming cancer is true.

 

Richard Lindzen was never prosecuted for anything he said with respect to smoking and is not going to be prosecuted based on his statements related to climate change.

 

They are talking about going after companies where there is clear documentation that climate change is real and a threat that are lying/misleading the public, just like the tobacco industry had clear data that they believed was accurate about the dangers of smoking, but were telling the public the opposite.

[grhqofb5]

So this comes to mind:

 

[twa]

Oops. NASA determines that fracking, oil drilling not contributing to increased methane emissions

 

http://hotair.com/?p=3897161

[PeterMP]

Oops. NASA determines that fracking, oil drilling not contributing to increased methane emissions

 

http://hotair.com/?p=3897161

 

 

There is a difference between they aren't contributing to the CURRENT increase, and they are not contributing to the already high levels of methane in the the atmosphere.

[China]

Oops. NASA determines that fracking, oil drilling not contributing to increased methane emissions

 

http://hotair.com/?p=3897161

 

 

Of course that doesn't mean that fracking doesn't contribute to the increase in seismic activity.

[tshile]

There is a difference between they aren't contributing to the CURRENT increase, and they are not contributing to the already high levels of methane in the the atmosphere.

Are you just saying that, or was it part of the study?

 

Seems like the actual study is behind a paywall.

[twa]

Of course that doesn't mean that fracking doesn't contribute to the increase in seismic activity.

 

pretty sure that has been determined to mainly be from waste injection wells .

[PeterMP]

Are you just saying that, or was it part of the study?

 

Seems like the actual study is behind a paywall.

 

There's no doubt that oil drilling releases methane.  It can be measured escaping.

 

From the article:

 

"Further, it seems likely that fossil fuel emissions stagnated or diminished in the 1990s. Importantly, they are a minor contributor to the renewed [CH4] rise."

 

CH4 levels rose for several decades, and then stopped rising, and then started rising again.

 

They are saying that methane levels leveled off because methane released from oil drilling stagnated (or even decreased), and then started going back up because of non-fossil fuel drilling.

 

 

 

But the oil industry's methane emissions never went to 0.

 

The oil industry is not upset because the EPA is seeking to regulate something that isn't happening.

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

pretty sure that has been determined to mainly be from waste injection wells .

 

I'm not sure how much of it is "mainly", but as practiced in most places that is an important part of the process.

[twa]

I'm not sure how much of it is "mainly", but as practiced in most places that is an important part of the process.

 

a part easily addressed thru slower injection rates and better choices in sites....or of course alt disposal methods such as recycling

 

seismic fears are just that....not science

[twa]

There's no doubt that oil drilling releases methane.  It can be measured escaping.

 

From the article:

 

"Further, it seems likely that fossil fuel emissions stagnated or diminished in the 1990s. Importantly, they are a minor contributor to the renewed [CH4] rise."

 

CH4 levels rose for several decades, and then stopped rising, and then started rising again.

 

 

 

it can be measured and the article differentiates sources

 

 Thermogenic methane emissions stopped going up in the 90s and haven’t resumed since. It’s the biogenic methane that’s been on the rise.

 

does your graph?

[PeterMP]

a part easily addressed thru slower injection rates and better choices in sites....or of course alt disposal methods such as recycling

 

seismic fears are just that....not science

 

Industry decided to use injection methods.  Nobody told them to, and now those methods are being tied to earthquakes.  If industry had actually taken their time and worried about what the impact of what they are doing instead of profits, there would be fewer earthquakes, and we'd have a better idea if the issue was injection (and injection of what) or the fracking itself.

it can be measured and the article differentiates sources

 

 Thermogenic methane emissions stopped going up in the 90s and haven’t resumed since. It’s the biogenic methane that’s been on the rise.

 

does your graph?

 

No, my graph does not, which is why I directly quoted from the paper.

 

Here let me quote it for you again:

 

"Further, it seems likely that fossil fuel emissions stagnated or diminished in the 1990s. Importantly, they are a minor contributor to the renewed [CH4] rise."

[twa]

fewer minor earthquakes 

 

why put up a rising graph measuring methane not caused by fracking ect?

[PeterMP]

fewer minor earthquakes 

 

why put up a rising graph measuring methane not caused by fracking ect?

 You offering to buy a house from people living in the affected towns?

And they are relatively minor, but are they going to be minor in 20 years?

I put up a graph of rising methane from all sources of methane emissions and changes in sinks, including oil drilling AND biogenic sources where oil drilling and fracking are a "minor contributor" to the CURRENT increase (~2006 to 2015), but are NOT thought to be a minor part of the increase that happened from 1980 to 1995.

That's the point. This paper is addressing only a small part of the increases that we've seen. It addresses what is driving the increase over the last decade or so, but isn't addressing the increases for the 30 years before that, which is most of the increase.

And things like oil drilling aren't believed to be a minor part of that increase.

Drilling oil releases methane. That isn't a controversial statement. Reducing the methane released from oil drilling is likely to at least reduce the rate at which atmospheric methane is going up.

Edited March 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[twa]

can you change the past if it was the major source?

 

I doubt your theory since the present(with more wells) does not indicate it.

 

 

any realistic reason to believe large quakes are likely to result from man's activity?