The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

[michigancat]

True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

this is probably my favorite argument against trying to reduce CO2 emissions

[Rage Against the McKee]

True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

Or maybe do something slightly less ridiculous, like plant trees, use less energy, etc. Or they could just accept the science and do nothing. That's my favorite thing about the science deniers. They can't wrap their minds around seeing a problem and not doing something about it, so they just deny that there is a problem in the first place so they can feel better about doing nothing.

[sonofdaxjones]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?

No, I'd rather not live like the Chinese do.

CO2 does not cause smog. CO2 is not a pollutant, and it should not be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The fact that you equate CO2 emissions with the Chinese air quality speaks volumes about your lack of understanding about CO2.

[sonofdaxjones]

True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

Or maybe do something slightly less ridiculous, like plant trees, use less energy, etc. Or they could just accept the science and do nothing. That's my favorite thing about the science deniers. They can't wrap their minds around seeing a problem and not doing something about it, so they just deny that there is a problem in the first place so they can feel better about doing nothing.

I think you're talking about the very fringes of the so called "deniers".    Whereas in the warmist propagandists agendists community, nearly every actual or imagined climatic event and/or climatic prediction of dire endings of earth on fire, Category 26 hurricanes, seas of acid and tornadoes that can't be measured by current scales are laid solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW.

[michigancat]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

[michigancat]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?

It's science. Isn't that all you need to say?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?

[michigancat]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?

It's science. Isn't that all you need to say?

You can go with that if you'd like

[sonofdaxjones]

Co2, man, bummer

[EMAWican]

"Dilution is the solution to pollution" is Rule 0.1 for environmental engineers.

[8manpick]

Liberal media!
www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

[sonofdaxjones]

This is profound, I mean props to those guys for getting funding for the Capt. Obvious Research Project of the Year.

Urban heat islands, urban sprawl?

No Way!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/claim-global-warming-has-been-amplified-in-cities-ignores-infrastructure-increase/

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?

The EPA and the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Liberal media!
www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

Cool, magazine. 3 of the 5 "latest stories" discuss climate change/global warming.

Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

This is profound, I mean props to those guys for getting funding for the Capt. Obvious Research Project of the Year.

Urban heat islands, urban sprawl?

No Way!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/claim-global-warming-has-been-amplified-in-cities-ignores-infrastructure-increase/

I, for one, see nothing wrong with modelling the entire planet based upon the results of 48% of the cities studied. Particularly since said cities cover 0.0002% of the earth.  It's science, afterall.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?

The EPA and the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act

I know they are able to regulate GHG under the clean air act as "contributing to air pollution". It is not a pollutant under the statutory definition, and the court cannot change that.

That ruling is the most tortured interpretation of the CAA imaginable. It's quite stunning.

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

This is really nothing new, statistical analysts/watchers have noted for years that the "adjustments" have written substantial climatic events off the pages of the newly revised climatic history . . . to fit an agenda.

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/study_us_tornadoes_made_worse/41742182

Woo nelly . . . this narrative must be quashed immediately.  Per the agendite warmist community, the so-called "outbreaks" of a few years ago were almost exclusively to be blamed on AGW . . . as was the subsequent drop in Tornadic events in the following years.

[OregonSmock]

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

Not even close.  Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be close to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm