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

[Mad Mike]

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

Nuclear is the big dog, natural gas the most easily implemented, carbon sequestration to promote higher production.

If you don't embrace the first you are a fraud.

 

How bright are you?

Nuclear

GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill 

So #1 is a fail. Democrats embraced it. Unfortunately Republican support is a joke because they refuse to fund it.

Natural Gas

Fact or Fiction?: Natural Gas Will Reduce Global Warming Pollution Has burning natural gas instead of coal helped the U.S. economy decarbonize? It's complicated

 

Quote

From Florida to Wisconsin, gas-fired power plants are replacing nuclear ones. That fuel switch actually increases CO2 pollution, however. And, in the absence of mandates like renewable portfolio standards—mandates for a certain percentage of electricity to derive from renewable resources—natural gas could also prevent the building of wind and solar farms or geothermal power plants.

Cantwell, Senate Democrats Urge President Trump to Implement Rules that Limit Natural Gas Waste and Safeguard Public Health
 

Quote

"The BLM and EPA rules each rely on proven, widely available, and cost effective technologies to reduce leaking, venting, and flaring, and keep natural gas in production and in commerce rather than in the air. Delaying or revising these rules will only cause additional and unnecessary waste and result in substantial harm to communities across the country that will be exposed to dangerous air pollution. For the EPA to take action that will result in children being exposed to harmful oil and gas well emissions for at least two additional years in order to give the oil and gas industry a windfall is antithetical to the agency’s core mission." 

#2 fail. Democrats are not blocking natural gas, they see it as a moderate step *if* rules are in place to keep is safe and reduce emissions. But rules are needed for safety and to prevent the release of methane. What they don't want is for NG to replace zero emissions technology.

carbon sequestration

Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Quote

The Obama administration hopes to encourage the development of CO2 capture and use or storage. New rules from the Environmental Protection 

Agency requiring a 30 percent cut in power plant emissions by 2030 may spur development of CCS technologies. Already, NRG Energy has partnered with a Japanese firm to add CO2 capture to a coal-fired power plant near Houston and use a pipeline to send the captured pollution to nearby oilfields. Dubbed Petra Nova, the $1 billion CCS project is the latest in a series of 19 CO2 capture projects underway or proposed in the U.S.

'War on coal:' GOP Senate group moves to block EPA power plant rules

Quote

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 39 fellow Republicans are attempting to use a rarely used legislative tactic to block planned Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas standards that would limit the amount of carbon new power plants can emit.

#3 is a MASIVE fail

So in short. You have not shown a single way of reducing greenhouse gasses that  "the greens" don't approve of. 

So tell me, what methods of reducing greenhouse gasses do republicans support? Examples please.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Mad Mike

[twa]

Are you claiming the Greens haven't opposed nuclear or NG development?

 

Certainly some Dems support nuclear/NG/coal/oil and we here in red Texas have built massive alt energy production.

 

Neither of which tells the tale.

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Opposing nuclear...imagine that.

Opposing fracking...imagine that.

 

"Earthquakes and fish with tumors."

 

What state wouldn't sign up gor that?!

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

9 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

What state wouldn't sign up gor that?!

 

Did you mean, what state wouldn't sign up GORE that?!

 

*passes to twa*

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Can I be Rodman?

[Mad Mike]

Meanwhile 

August 2017 was second warmest on record

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Dead cat bounce.

[GhostofSparta]

18 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

Meanwhile 

August 2017 was second warmest on record

Second warmest? That means there was another that was warmer, so climate change is a hoax.

 

That's great news, because now we can go back to polluting the earth to our heart's content. Just like God wanted.

[Hersh]

47 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

Second warmest? That means there was another that was warmer, so climate change is a hoax.

 

That's great news, because now we can go back to polluting the earth to our heart's content. Just like God and @twa wanted.

 

Forgot someone so I fixed it for you. 

[twa]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

Forgot someone so I fixed it for you. 

 

I'm gonna laugh when the ice cap gets ya. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

@twa @d0ublestr0ker0ll Some of these guys watched entirely too much Captain Planet growing up, am I right?

 

? Pound it.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[dfitzo53]

No lie, I thought about putting Captain Planet DVDs on my Christmas list last year.

[Mad Mike]

We’re still on track to experience the second or third warmest year globally in records dating back to 1880

 

Quote

Two agencies have produced very slightly different verdicts for this past August. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found that last month was the second warmest August globally in 137 years of modern record-keeping, surpassed only by August 2016. Global temperatures last year received an extra boost from a strong El Niño episode.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information foundthat last month was third warmest, behind August 2016, which was first warmest, and August 2015, second warmest.

The trend in how global temperatures have departed from the long-term mean, through Aug. 2017. The base period here is 1880-1920 in order to show the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time. (Source: Makiko Sato, Columbia University)

The difference between the two analyses really is quite small.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Mad Mike

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or as Faux News will report: “This year cooler than previous years. Scientists cannot agree on data. Tonight on Tucker some guy who you never heard of being paid by some lobby group we won’t mention will muddy the waters further with a bunch of nonsense that isn’t true but you won’t bother to fact check.”

[twa]

I hear the rate of warming is much slower than predicted so there is still time to sell you a bridge . 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

[The Evil Genius]

Remember 30 or so years ago when there was a hole in ozone layer and it was going to kill us.? I suspect scientists were wrong because we're still here. I mean it couldn't possibly be that we delayed or fixed the problem by banning most CFCs and other O3 killers via the Montreal Accord.

 

Nah..it's the scientists that were wrong. 

[China]

Well, the ozone problem isn't completely fixed yet.  There's still a hole.

 

But just think, when the ozone comes back, it'll help increase global warming:

 

Quote

Since ozone is a greenhouse gas, the breakdown and anticipated recovery of the ozone layer affects Earth’s climate. Scientific analyses show that the decrease in stratospheric ozone observed since the 1970s has produced a cooling effect—or, more accurately, that it has counteracted a small part of the warming that has resulted from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during this period. As the ozone layer slowly recovers in the coming decades, this cooling effect is expected to recede.

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/ozone-depletion

Edited September 21, 2017 by China

[twa]

The volcanoes will keep blowing holes in it.

Mother Nature is a ****.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

5 hours ago, twa said:

The volcanoes will keep blowing holes in it.

Mother Nature is a ****.

 

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, twa said:

I hear the rate of warming is much slower than predicted so there is still time to sell you a bridge . 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

 

From the actual paper:

 

"Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century."

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

Are you committing to a historically unprecedented decline in emissions starting before 2030?  (Realistically, the peak has to happen before then because emissions have to be at current levels in 2030.)

 

[Mad Mike]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

From the actual paper:

 

"Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century."

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

Are you committing to a historically unprecedented decline in emissions starting before 2030?  (Realistically, the peak has to happen before then because emissions have to be at current levels in 2030.)

 

How dare you let reality get in the way of a good smarmy comment.

 

[twa]

 

if

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

if

 

Obviously, there is a chance, which is why it was set as the goal.

 

(I honestly think even given a few more years, which I'm dubious of, that the chance is very low.  Even if China, the US, and Europe cut emissions the way that they are needed, I think that just drives down the price of fossil fuels.  I have little faith in our ability to actually cut production in the US and Canada (a lot of money has gone into developing fracking fields and technology here and the tar sand pits in Canada) or in the North Sea (where investment is way up).  I don't think those companies are walking away from those investments.  And I have 0 faith in the Middle East and other countries cutting production).  At that point in time, countries in South and Central America, and Africa will be looking at cheap and reliable energy production that they can use to industrialize and modernize.  I just can't see them passing that up.

 

I strongly suspect that we'll be over 1.5 C and sooner than this paper would suggest in totality.  The question to me is can we keep it under 2 degrees C.  But realistically, we need to start thinking more heavily about mitigation.

 

We've had a cycle of the last few years of vacationing in the Keys, and it is great and even at what you would expect to be a busy time, you can get a place there pretty cheap because realistically they have been over built, but in a world where we are over 2 C from pre-industrial averages, I'm not sure it makes sense to have large apartment complexes built on the Keys.  And given the current US leadership on the issue, I think we are headed there.

 

Thought talking seriously about mititgation won't happen either because that would take admitting that something abnormal from the 1930-1980 climate period was happening.)

Edited September 22, 2017 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

14 hours ago, China said:

Well, the ozone problem isn't completely fixed yet.  There's still a hole.

 

But just think, when the ozone comes back, it'll help increase global warming:

 

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/ozone-depletion

 

I'd rather we deal with both. Besides, the point was that we listened to scientists, worked together to largely phase out (reduce) the reliance on CFCs, and started the ball rolling to solve a major problem.

Edited September 22, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[visionary]