patrick.net

edvard2 says

Most of us think that living with less pollution is a good thing. Not sure why others don't

It's because this is part of the democratic party's platform, and democrats are the enemy.

He really is that stupid. Either that or he's a libaral troll who's on here to make right wingers look like morons.

Once again, CO2 is not the same as Dioxins or Organochlorides.

There is no need to confuse a harmless by-product of respiration & input for photosynthesis with toxic industrial waste & pollution.

Outside of the planet Venus, the jury is out on whether or not CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Reality says

In case it is not obviously, the US historically was the place where regulations and bureaucratic interventions had been the least intrusive, compared to most other large countries. The US became the most stable, safest and economically most successful (large) country in the world largely because of a relative lack of regulations compared to other major countries.

What a bunch of crap. back when there were hardly any regulations- as in as recently as the 60's- the workplace, environment, and even the home were FAR less safe than they are today as a result of the implementation of later regulations. It was the formation of these regulatory agencies that created the higher levels of safety we now enjoy.Reality says

No, you look it up. Your "28%" was simply nonsense pulled out of thin air.

http://answerit.news24.com/Question/What%20are%20the%20top%205%20producers%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions?/84587

Reality says

Like I mentioned several times already, you are conflating local pollution issues that do matter with "global cooling"/"global warming" nonsense that do not matter.

See- and this is why your argument is wrong to begin with: human created pollution IS in fact a contributing factor not only to global warming, but climate change as well. Break it down to the most basic of conversational elements, and again- the example of particulate matter in the air produced by diesel and coal exhaust, where it is undeniably true that yes- in fact sun hitting those particles will cause these particles to collect and retain heat and hence warm the surrounding atmosphere. If you don't believe that... check out solar heating blankets for pools. They are simply black plastic bubble wrap that covers the whole pool: Sunlight hits this and the warmth the darker color of the cover exudes heats the water.

Now multiply that same principle on a huge magnitude from the billions of tons of particular matter- created from human sources- floating around in the air as we speak.

End of debate.

Ceffer says

Trees eat carbon dioxide and shit oxygen.

Yay, trees, more oxygen for flame throwers.

This is why deforestation is one of the things that needs to be addressed relative to global warming.

Ya'all remember that big volcano in Iceland?
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2010/04/icelands-volcanic-eruption-what-will-be.html?m=1
Looks like we got that climate change "reprieve" for a few years. The winters following the eruption were the rainiest on record here in SoCal, and other northern hemisphere areas had cooler rainier climates as well.
It appears that the effect is finished now, though. Global warming has resumed and we are headed back into drought with a vengeance.
This time the arctic methane reserves may be cracked wide open and then we are all in the hot shit.
Someone get me a volcano, stat!

In the same way that a lot of people don't really understand what exponential growth is, I think a lot of people also don't understand the concept of feedback loops very well.

Either way, the time is far past for such passive intervention as "reducing carbon emissions." Even were it possible to establish draconian regulations on a global basis, we are already past the tipping point. The end now is inevitable, unless drastic intervention happens. Hint: volcanos.

Rin says

the jury is out on whether or not CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Apparently this is what "the jury is still out" looks like to him.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Oh, I almost forget, science and facts are liberal propaganda.

MY thing is, why not trust people who are way smarter and way better at reasoning than you are ?

Quigley says

The end now is inevitable, unless drastic intervention happens. Hint: volcanos.

Nuclear winter is not an option?

marcus says

Okay so you wave your arms and say basically you feel it in your gut that we don't know. (not even hiding the fact that this is simply what you want to believe)

Meanwhile virtually the entire science community is in agreement. 97%

of climate scientists agree. Someone above suggested that it's human hubris that would lead people to assess this as a legitimate risk and problem.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I think what you say sounds far more ego based.

Republican by chance ?

We don't need to know with 100% certainty for it to be worth addressing.

BTW Marcus, you already know that I have a degree in Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering from prior posts.

And I don't vote. Plus, I'm from Massachusetts, a democratic state so let's dispense with the ad hominem maneuvers.

Next, the graph says nothing about CO2. All I see is a temperature recovery from a prior century of colder temperatures, the 1800s, a flatline between 1940 and 1980, the time of extreme industrial activity within our nations and allies. And then, a trend of warming afterwards with another band of consolidation in the 2000s.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Just like your graph, I can throw one on solar cycle and temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

So yes, out of my so-called "gut", I dreamed up a fantasy that perhaps the sun may have an influence on the temperature and weather patterns on the earth.

And now, researchers, meaning independent ones (not just the grant grubbers), need to study the dynamical system, which correlates all the factors affecting weather, including subterranean and underwater changes.

Rin says

BTW Marcus, you already know that I have a degree in Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering from prior posts.

Sorry I don't do a better job of keeping track of who's who.

Rin says

Just like your graph, I can throw one on solar cycle and temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

Not impressed. As you say about causation. THe theory about cycle lenthgs seems like a stretch. Somebody was working overtime to find correlation there. If cycle length were the cause, surely there would be other evidence of that. And besides both parts of the cycle are lengthened.

The consensus of so many that are more learned than you means little to you ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

chuck a couple hydrogen bombs at some active smokers...it's not out of the question...

Quigley says

Someone get me a volcano, stat!

marcus says

The consensus of so many that are more learned than you means little to you ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I've worked in R&D, both academia and private sector. The problem is when funding is too tied to a political end. And this case, the goal is to tie all weather effects to a single culprit.

In other words, in place of understanding that weather is a highly dynamical system, with yes... the sun, as a major contributor to the energy flows, along with everything else, seismic changes, ALL chemical emissions, and so forth, we have instead a panel, somewhat analogous to the Warren Commission, looking for a lone molecule ... CO2.

And my response is ... why not Freon? Didn't that contribute to the *Ozone hole* and thus, change the planet's UV thermodynamics, whereas before, our radiation absorption spectrum was different? And aren't a lot of nations producing CFC and like molecules, regardless of Montreal or Kyoto limitations, since these molecules are highly reactive under numerous conditions, esp photochemistry/UV solar effects, whereas CO2 is mainly stable.

So yes, I want more evidence.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

Other individual statements from Scientific Associations

AAAS emblem

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

ACS emblem

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

AGU emblem

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

AMA emblem

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

AMS emblem

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

APS emblem

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

GSA emblem

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

Rin says

And my response is ... why not Freon? Didn't that contribute to the *Ozone hole* and thus, change the planet's UV thermodynamics, whereas before, our radiation absorption spectrum was different? And aren't a lot of nations producing CFC and like molecules, regardless of Montreal or Kyoto limitations, since these molecules are highly reactive under numerous conditions, esp photochemistry/UV solar effects, whereas CO2 is mainly stable.

So, in other words you'll put your very small amount of time thinking about this and researching it up against what the entire scientific community says. Wow.

marcus says

So, in other words you'll put your very small amount of time thinking about this and researching it up against what the entire scientific community says. Wow.

Ok, so you're not worried about true chemical emissions. I get it now. You're just another political type.

I never said other pollution wasn't important. The middle east peace process is important too, as is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terroists, and I think fighting malaria and aids are also noble causes; I would like to see world peace and a fairer distribution of profits in this country, raise the minimum wage, but we were talking about global warming and climate change.

marcus says

we were talking about global warming and climate change.

Yes, and I'm opening the door to the notion that we need to examine the ENTIRE BODY of evidence, organic emissions, CFCs, etc, not just one molecule, CO2.

Rin says

not just one molecule, CO2

I never said focus on one molecule. You obviously havent read any of the links or quotes I posted.

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

If you do some reading you would see that most climate scientists put c02 at something like 25 to 30% of the problem.

Yes, I already agreed on the chlorofluorocarbons & nitrous oxide because I know about their reactivity in photochemical states and the fact that they're pollutants.

And yes, increased solar activity will increase the above's activity.

marcus says

Here are two sources for info on greenhouse gasses. One doesn't include nitrous Oxide (why ?). The other puts it at 6%. The EPA says 5%

https://www.ameslab.gov/sustainability/where-greenhouse-gases-come

http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?651/ten-sources-of-greenhouse-gases-gallery

c02 is just the biggest single contributor. The fact that it is a natural part of our atmosphere and not toxic, doesn't negate the effects of having too much of it in the atmosphere.

The climate models were held aloft by the scientists themselves as portents of doom - illustrations of the predictability of the science, without which any theory falls to the status of hypothesis. And the models have almost universally been wrong in that regard. We are being told to panic on the basis of flawed models. We are giving away Nobel prizes on the basis of highly manipulated statistics from biased sources. The science behind meteor/earth collision on the other hand is not in doubt. The predictability of those models is highly accurate and statistically significant within the same 100 year time frame in which the climate alarmists frame the debate. Why not panic over that?

To answer your question on my political preference...I'm as independent as they come. (why would a republican be arguing to feed the poor and clean the air, anyway :-))

The panic is misplaced. We have better scientific evidence regarding perils to civilization than AGW can possibly muster. The fear factor isn't working this time. Try something else.

Only on the extreme end are they predicting doom, and those are the ones who say we are past the point of no return. But the consensus among over 90% in the science community is that it's a real threat and it is the result of greenhouse gases.

Many will not panic about it, including myself. But this is more of a flaw in human nature than anything else.

One could get more general about this and argue simply that we as a species and as a planet need to be more unified, for the eventuality of being able to tackle such problems as global warming or a meteor headed for collision.

In my opinion, threats of terrorism, pollution (and other environmental concerns such as overfishing) and violent rogue leaders, are all reasons why we would be well off to have a world government in the not too distant future. Something like the united nations, but an association with more power that is more effective than the UN is.

Nice cartoon. Without naming names, this is about the intelligence level of some of patnet's active right wing commentators.