Climate change deniers are ignoring science

[Doug1029]

I think the emissions per country is more important in this case because laws are made for the country not per capita. I think the higher emitting countries should pass the laws first. But I also think that these laws should not cripple an economy.

Agreed.

That conversion would necessarily cripple an economy is Koch Industries hype. With a few billion dollars to throw around you can put out all sorts of stuff and convince nearly anybody of anything. You could even buy the US government!

Wind is cheaper than all other forms of electricity except gas-fired turbines and it is neck-and-neck with those. Conservation SAVES money by reducing use of expensive fuels.

The deniers like to point out that solar photo-electric systems are expensive - they are. But they forget to mention that a solar-powered steam engine is almost as cheap as wind - one of those was displayed at the 1876 Paris Exposition. The technology exists and much of it has existed for a very long time.

Doug

[Wendigo Wangs]

The reason I'm not a believer is simple:

The "Solution" to Man-Made Global Warming just so happens to be using the threat of imprisonment or violence to take money from one group of people and to give this money to another group of people who did nothing to earn that money.

That is eerily similar to the solution to every other crisis that happens to be popular with the world's lefties.

What say you, Komrade?

[Guest]

The reason I'm not a believer is simple:

The "Solution" to Man-Made Global Warming just so happens to be using the threat of imprisonment or violence to take money from one group of people and to give this money to another group of people who did nothing to earn that money.

That is eerily similar to the solution to every other crisis that happens to be popular with the world's lefties.

What say you, Komrade?

There are any number of viable solutions. You seem to have picked the very one the right wing conspiracy theorists use to demonize the science. What a coincidence.

Br Cornelius

[docyabut2]

Is this permanent change due to human causes? The default answer is "yes." Why default? Because we can think of a human cause - release of carbon to the atmosphere. But we can't think of a natural one

Doug

The Earth heats up because the Cord of the Earth heats up.There are active under ground volcanos all over the world in the Antarctica, Greenland, ect .

[Emma_Acid]

The reason I'm not a believer is simple:

The "Solution" to Man-Made Global Warming just so happens to be using the threat of imprisonment or violence to take money from one group of people and to give this money to another group of people who did nothing to earn that money.

You don't "believe" in something because of the scaremongering solutions you've heard through the right wing media? Do you know how little sense this makes?

I don't "believe" in global warming because I like the solution. I "believe" in it because a) that is where the evidence points and I think it's too important not to take action on - whether we're right or not.

[Emma_Acid]

The Earth heats up because the Cord of the Earth heats up.There are active under ground volcanos all over the world in the Antarctica, Greenland, ect .

Can you show your evidence that the - ahem - "cord" of the earth has heated up in correlation with the temperature on the surface over the last 100 years?

[DONTEATUS]

I want to Take Every Non-Believer to Lake MEad, Or I should say puddle MEad ! If you dont think were in Deep $$&%T Look at that Lake now ! 130 feet down ! Might as well Go bury theres heads in the sand !

[Doug1029]

The "Solution" to Man-Made Global Warming just so happens to be using the threat of imprisonment or violence to take money from one group of people and to give this money to another group of people who did nothing to earn that money.

That is eerily similar to the solution to every other crisis that happens to be popular with the world's lefties.

What say you, Komrade?

I say you understand neither the problem nor the solution.

Wind power is already cheaper than all other forms of power except gas-fired turbines and it is neck-and-neck with those. Look at the cost curves for solar power. They're coming down and it will be only a few more years before solar is competitive.

Conservation saves money. Do more with less: heat your house to the same temp, but burn less gas/oil doing it. Travel to the same places, but burn less fuel getting there. Or stay home and pocket the savings.

Tax programs don't work. Legislators create too many exceptions for their buddies, rendering the programs useless.

Cap-and-trade doesn't work because it transfers pollution somewhere else instead of reducing it.

And carbon offsets don't work because huge amounts of the money get spent on things like land acquisition instead of mitigation.

So what works? A carbon use fee assessed at the well-head, mine-mouth or port-of-entry. The fee is based strictly on carbon passing the control point. Doesn't matter whether its methane or CO2, plastic, wood or polymer - it still pays the fee. Those fees are collected and redistributed to everybody on a per capita basis. People can spend the money however they see fit. The fees start small so as not to cause any immediate disturbances to markets and are gradually increased until carbon emissions are controlled.

This way the free market regulates what is produced and what isn't. No other laws are required. No regulations are needed apart from those needed to catch and prosecute people ("Corporations are people, my friend.") trying to evade the fees.

Simple solution that respects the free market system. What more could a capitalist ask for?

Doug

Edited July 31, 2014 by Doug1029

[docyabut2]

President Barack Obama said denying climate change is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese, as he issued a call for action on global warming to Saturday's graduates of the University of California, Irvine.

Obama told the tens of thousands gathered at Angel Stadium that Congress "is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence" and say climate change is a hoax or fad, while others avoid the question.

http://www.telegraph...ng-science.html

No ones denying climate change, there always been climate changes., its global warming and that man is causing it is the issue. There's been global warming when man was even around.

[Doug1029]

No ones denying climate change, there always been climate changes., its global warming and that man is causing it is the issue. There's been global warming when man was even around.

There's no issue here. The world is warmer than it was a century ago. There are several sets of global temperature anomalies that list temps back to 1880 or thereabouts. They ALL show the world getting warmer.

There's no issue with the physics of carbon. It absorbs energy at light wavelengths and re-emits at heat wavelengths. Period.

And there's no issue with CO2 levels increasing. We have direct measurements of that since 1959 and I, personally, have used tree-ring thicknesses to estimate atmospheric CO2 levels back to 1745. Aside from a "bump" in the graph in 1937-1938, it follows a logarithmic curve.

So what is the issue? Only the source of the carbon. And isotopic studies clearly implicate human sources. It is also the default answer simply because we're the only source of that much carbon that we can think of. So if you're going to argue against climate change, you need a large carbon source to back up your ideas. What is that carbon source? Name it. The list of possible sources is getting pretty short; in fact, I don't think there's anything other than people on it.

So I'm calling your bluff. What source of carbon could be responsible for global warming?

Doug

Edited August 1, 2014 by Doug1029

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Because the right made it so.

Br Cornelius

That is so typical. Well if you " lefties" want to be taken in by fudged numbers, corporate science and liberal scare tactics power to ya. As for me, the righty, I'll be at the beach worrying about things I have some control over, and I hope it's hot.

[LaughingAtIdiots]

Wow, something positive about the climate, said by an American president?

There's just no denying of natural climate change and human polution making it worse. The only thing that is open for debate is how bad it actually is.

[docyabut2]

There's no issue here. The world is warmer than it was a century ago. There are several sets of global temperature anomalies that list temps back to 1880 or thereabouts. They ALL show the world getting warmer.

There's no issue with the physics of carbon. It absorbs energy at light wavelengths and re-emits at heat wavelengths. Period.

And there's no issue with CO2 levels increasing. We have direct measurements of that since 1959 and I, personally, have used tree-ring thicknesses to estimate atmospheric CO2 levels back to 1745. Aside from a "bump" in the graph in 1937-1938, it follows a logarithmic curve.

So what is the issue? Only the source of the carbon. And isotopic studies clearly implicate human sources. It is also the default answer simply because we're the only source of that much carbon that we can think of. So if you're going to argue against climate change, you need a large carbon source to back up your ideas. What is that carbon source? Name it. The list of possible sources is getting pretty short; in fact, I don't think there's anything other than people on it.

So I'm calling your bluff. What source of carbon could be responsible for global warming?

Doug

there could be many factors from the winds to carbon monoxides' from the the oceans

Edited August 2, 2014 by docyabut2

[Wickian]

When entire industries and careers became reliant on the AGW hypothesis being true, it lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. The complete failure of model predictions to have any basis of accuracy turned me into a "denier".

[MysticStrummer]

When entire industries and careers became reliant on the AGW hypothesis being true, it lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. The complete failure of model predictions to have any basis of accuracy turned me into a "denier".

Unlike the reliance of entire industries and careers on AGW not being true? I don't think there has been a "complete failure" by the computer models, but they have slowly improved with more data and will continue to do so.

[Doug1029]

there could be many factors from the winds to carbon monoxides' from the the oceans

Wind is air: 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen; the other 1% is mostly Argon, but includes 400 ppmbv CO2 and teeny amounts of methane and pollutants. The question was: where is the carbon coming from (that is polluting the air)? Sorry I wasn't more explicit, but I thought everybody knew this.

Carbon MONoxide is a product of incomplete combustion. It doesn't come from the ocean. It comes from chimneys and engines and the like. Given time, carbon MONoxide oxidizes to carbon DIoxide.

So I guess you're going to have to try again. But this time, don't guess. Be ready to back up the source you name.

Doug

[Doug1029]

When entire industries and careers became reliant on the AGW hypothesis being true, it lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. The complete failure of model predictions to have any basis of accuracy turned me into a "denier".

Actually, there are about 300 different climate models used in simulations and when I need one relating temp or precip to something like tree ring thickness, I create another one. The models I work with (mostly tree-ring models) achieve about 85% accuracy. I can get 90% accuracy by using weather station temps to predict other weather station temps and about 70% for precip. My ice storm model usually produces around 97% correct predictions.

So how is it you're calling 97% accuracy a "complete failure?"

Doug

P.S.: that ice storm prediction model, along with tables showing actual results for fourteen different sites in Oklahoma and Arkansas is currently in the last stages of review by the authors before being submitted for publication. It then undergoes peer review which usually takes around six months. So I am hopeful that early next year I will be able to post a URL so you can read it. The title is: "Winter in the Ouachitas - a severe storm signature in Pinus echinata in Oklahoma and Arkansas, USA."

Doug

[UFO_Monster]

I do not deny that climate change is real. What I'm worried about is how he thinks we can improve it. He's responsible for the "Affordable" Care Act debacle that is forcing people to make ridiculous monthly payments for less insurance ($200+ a month? I miss my old plan.). His plan for fighting climate change will probably be just as stupid.

[Doug1029]

That is so typical. Well if you " lefties" want to be taken in by fudged numbers, corporate science and liberal scare tactics power to ya. As for me, the righty, I'll be at the beach worrying about things I have some control over, and I hope it's hot.

I'm a dendrochronologist. I don't fudge the numbers because I don't have to. That is called fraud and "fudging" data in a research publication could precipitate a lawsuit. It has happened before. If you're going to say somebody isn't behaving ethically, you should say who that is and what he did so the publication can retract the article (Retracting removes the article from the database so it is no longer available) and we can file the appropriate lawsuits. Please reference the article and tell us what is dishonest about it.

Corporate "science" is the problem. Koch Industries and their derivatives do not publish science. What they put out is pure propaganda; it is not peer reviewed and is condemned by the scientific community. It is not legally actionable because it is in the common press which doesn't have to meet standards of truth. They can publish fiction if they want to. One must look at this from Koch's point-of-view: coal must ne phased out. Do you expect them to say that putting them out of business is a great idea? But Koch is being short-sighted about this. They are thinking like a COAL company when they should be thinking like an ENERGY company. There are opportunities in renewables they aren't even considering. Ultimately they will lose, but they are going to do a lot of damage before they do.

And as for liberal scare tactics: I get my information through a microscope. Trees don't lie.

There are some folks out there on the global warming side of the issue who don't know anything more about it than you do. They are an embarrassment at best. At worst, they discredit the science with false claims. I suggest you read the science and ignore popular-press garbage, regardless of which side puts it out.

Doug

[Doug1029]

I do not deny that climate change is real. What I'm worried about is how he thinks we can improve it. He's responsible for the "Affordable" Care Act debacle that is forcing people to make ridiculous monthly payments for less insurance ($200+ a month? I miss my old plan.). His plan for fighting climate change will probably be just as stupid.

I am inclined to think the discontinued policy didn't cover much. I maxed out the personal-injury portion of an auto-insurance policy and then charged another $185,000 to health-insurance. The worst-case scenario happened to me. I wonder what would happen if you had to depend in your old plan to do the same. Bet there'd be an awful lot they didn't cover. You can't buy something for nothing. There's a reason your old plan was so cheap. BTW: are you calculating the government subsidy into those numbers?

The ACA rollout was indeed bungled. And Obama didn't help matters by not knowing that his plan would raise some premiums, at least the before-subsidy premiums. Very embarrassing to mess your pants in public that way. My guess is that his staff let him down. But politicians are always appointing know-nothings to their staffs and wondering why things get messed up.

I once got lost on a public highway. I was making real good time - drove over 40 miles in 35 minutes - then discovered I was going the wrong direction. I think Obama may be about to do that by implementing "solutions" that do not work. Some things, like rebuilding the power grid, need to be done soon. Federal subsidies can help pay for that using tax money - or, the government can do nothing and just wait for the grid to fail on its own. In which case tax-payers get to pay for it in their electric rates.

Pay me now, or pay me later. Either way, you get to pay.

But cap-and-trade and pollution "offsets" don't work. And I see us headed down that path. Cap-and-trade is industry's fall-back position. If they lose the climate change war, they drop back to cap-and-trade and see if they can swindle us into letting them go on polluting.

So I'm thinking you're right. Politicians are going to mess this up, no matter which party they belong to.

Doug

Edited August 3, 2014 by Doug1029

[aquatus1]

**Guys, Not an ACA thread.**

[docyabut2]

Wind is air: 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen; the other 1% is mostly Argon, but includes 400 ppmbv CO2 and teeny amounts of methane and pollutants. The question was: where is the carbon coming from (that is polluting the air)? Sorry I wasn't more explicit, but I thought everybody knew this.

Carbon MONoxide is a product of incomplete combustion. It doesn't come from the ocean. It comes from chimneys and engines and the like. Given time, carbon MONoxide oxidizes to carbon DIoxide.

So I guess you're going to have to try again. But this time, don't guess. Be ready to back up the source you name.

Doug

In a review paper published this week in the journal Science, a team of researchers look to a global shift in winds for the answer. They propose a chain of events that began with the melting of the large northern hemisphere ice sheets about 20,000 years ago. The melting ice sheets reconfigured the planet's wind belts, pushing warm air and seawater south, and pulling carbon dioxide from the deep ocean into the atmosphere, allowing the planet to heat even further.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news196687173.html#jCp

[Doug1029]

In a review paper published this week in the journal Science, a team of researchers look to a global shift in winds for the answer. They propose a chain of events that began with the melting of the large northern hemisphere ice sheets about 20,000 years ago. The melting ice sheets reconfigured the planet's wind belts, pushing warm air and seawater south, and pulling carbon dioxide from the deep ocean into the atmosphere, allowing the planet to heat even further.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news196687173.html#jCp

True. But what's causing the increase in CO2 NOW? CO2 levels stayed constant for about 10,000 years since the Younger Dryas with only minor fluctuations, then started up in the 1940s. And isotopic studies say the ocean is not the source: it is higher in carbon 12 than the atmosphere.

Sea levels stabilized about 3000 years ago, indicating there was no more ice melting. The highest sea levels have been since the Younger Dryas was from about 250 to 400 AD when they reached a high of +5.6 feet above modern.

Sorry, but the oceans were eliminated as the source of new atmospheric carbon about ten years ago.

Doug

[Doug1029]

**Guys, Not an ACA thread.**

Did you read the whole post, or just the first paragraph?

Doug

[aquatus1]

Did you notice you were not the only person to bring up the topic, or do you believe a post referring to "Guys" was meant only for you?