danivon wrote:And as for "serious discussion", do you have any direct comment on any of the posts in the last few weeks?

The science behind CO2 being a greenhouse gas is well established. It also tends to be more prevalent when temperatures are higher. Which means there is a genuine question about whether past highs and their correlations with high CO2 levels is causative one way or the other (and of course there are feedback loops).

Not sure how inaccurate models have been. The "pause" appears to be well and truly over, and would not appear to be out of line with a general upward trend that has cyclical variations - such as with solar activity.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future. (bold added)

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce.

There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

But, you want to deal in caricatures. [Liberals "want" economic collapse and poverty.]

That's why there can't be a serious discussion. You all are hysterical and the slightest bit of calm offends you.

danivon wrote:But, CO2 is also known to be a greenhouse gas - it is not just a leap from correlation to causation.

Now, where did any of my posts in the last few weeks mention what action should be taken? I have simply been highlighting where studies are showing the effects of warming to be greater than previously thought.

But the bulk of your argument seems to be that you reject science on political grounds, based on your assumption that this is all about power. So not really a serious argument on the science, is it?

Doctor Fate wrote:. The burden of proof is on "science." I do not consider the hysterical ravings of our President (among others) to be science.

Further, the conclusions of some scientists on this matter is based on faulty presumptions and tainted by the fact that their funding is dependent upon returning "acceptable" results.

What would happen to some climatologist who did his work and said, in effect, "CO2 is not the only reason for the slight increases in our climate and we need not panic?"

China is going to keep spewing CO2 no matter what we do

China has dramatically cut its carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the year, with its reduction equalling the UK’s total emissions for the same period.
The huge decline in China’s emissions can be attributed to the country’s falling coal consumption, which decreased last year for the first time this century.
Greenpeace/Energydesk China analysis found China’s coal use dropped by 8 per cent and its CO2 emissions dipped by 5 per cent in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2014, and the decline is accelerating.
As part of a reform of the sector, China has ordered more than 1,000 coal mines to close and coal output is down 7.4 per cent year on year.

Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 plans. The announcement that China will peak its CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions in the period after 2030, as most projections foresee increasing emissions for decades after that. As the target consists of changes in the energy mix, additional energy efficiency measures reducing the absolute energy use could decrease emissions even further.

Ten oil and gas CEOs made a pledge today (Oct. 16) to do more to tackle climate change.
“Our shared ambition is for a 2°C future,” said the CEOs, referring to the rise in temperature considered by climate scientists to be the point-of-no-return for global warming. “We are committed to playing our part,” the company bosses added.
The joint declaration, which includes some broad suggestions about how fossil-fuel companies can help halt global warming, came from a group called the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. The group includes the UK’s BG Group and BP, Italy’s Eni, Pemex of Mexico, India’s Reliance Industries, Repsol of Spain, Royal Dutch Shell, Norway’s Statoil, Total of France and Saudi Aramco.

rickyp wrote:fate

China is going to keep spewing CO2 no matter what we do

Your total and apparently willful l ignorance of climate science aside, the fact you are unaware of the major steps China is taking to combat CO2 emissions tells us you are also uninformed about recent events.

China, being a state managed economy can and is changing their energy sector rapidly. The climate effects in China have already convinced their technocrats that they have to do this. Drought, air pollution and catastrophic weather events occurring with startling frequency have all convinced them to act.

The value of coal mining industries in the US have declined 94% in the last 5 years. The largest US coal mining company went bankrupt last week.

The energy giant Kinder Morgan Inc. has pulled the plug on its controversial natural gas pipeline proposed through parts of Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire, after failing to sign up enough utility customers and facing stiff consumer and political opposition.

Kinder Morgan said on Wednesday that its Northeast Energy Direct project didn’t receive the commitments from big customers that it needed to proceed with the $3.3 billion plan, which would involve building a 188-mile pipeline from a point west of Albany, N.Y., to Dracut.

. . .

Kinder Morgan’s initial decision to proceed with the project, through its Tennessee Gas Pipeline subsidiary, was based on existing contracts it had with some gas utilities, as well as the expectation that others would sign on to buy gas from the line. Executives at the Texas company were also counting on an unprecedented shift pursued by state regulators in New England that would allow electric customers to be charged for pipeline construction costs.

That change, driven by Governor Charlie Baker’s administration and top officials in other states, is aimed at curbing New England’s relatively high electricity rates by bringing in cheaper natural gas to fuel power plants. Their theory: The cost of pipeline construction would be more than offset by savings in electric rates because more cheap gas could flow from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale. Roughly half of New England’s electricity comes from natural gas power plants.

freeman3 wrote:I thought this was an interesting narrative of the history of scientific research into global warming.
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I just wonder as to what aspect of global warming skeptics are skeptical about:

(1) Do they doubt that carbon dioxide absorbs sunlight radiated from the earth's surface and reemits some of that back towards the earth?
(2) Do they doubt that carbon dioxide levels have risen?
(3) Do they doubt that burning of fossil fuels causes carbon dioxide levels to rise?

(4) Do they doubt that rising carbon dioxide levels cause increased temperatures on earth?

freeman3 wrote:The difficulty of course (as Owen points out) is there is no 1:1 relationship between Carbon Dioxide levels and the Earth's temperature rising. There are a lot of different things that have a causal effect on the Earth's temperature. But if increased Carbon Dioxide concentration is keeping heat from escaping into space that heat will--all other things equal--increase temperature at some point.

The science behind Global Warming is pretty logical as well as being supported by a lot of experiments. So what is the actual argument as to why the burning of fossil fuels will not ultimately lead to higher temperatures?

In a move many are hailing as a “turning point” in the climate fight, 20 state Attorneys General on Tuesday launched an unprecedented, multi-state effort to investigate and prosecute the “high-funded and morally vacant forces” that have stymied attempts to combat global warming—starting with holding ExxonMobil and other industry giants accountable for fraud and suppression of key climate science.

AG Walker said that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are already “experiencing the effects of global warming,” from coral bleaching and the proliferation of seaweed, to ever-more powerful hurricanes.

“It is troubling that, as the polar caps melt, there are companies that are looking at that as an opportunity to go and drill, to go and get more oil. How selfish can you be?” Walker asked. “Your product is destroying this Earth and you want to do what? Destroy the planet further,” he added, saying they have “documents” showing just that.

“We will not stop until we get to bottom of this and make it clear we have to do something transformational,” he added. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels.”

The court found that AFP’s donors had a reasonable apprehension of physical violence if their identities were released to liberals:

During the course of trial, the Court heard ample evidence establishing that AFP, its employees, supporters and donors face public threats, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation once their support for and affiliation with the organization becomes publicly known. For example, Lucas Hilgemann, Chief Executive Officer of AFP, testified that in 2013, the security staff of AFP alerted him that a technology contractor working inside AFP headquarters posted online that he was “inside the belly of the beast” and that he could easily walk into Mr. Hilgemann’s office and slit his throat. (Hilgemann Test. 2/23/16 Vol. I, p. 57:2–14). That individual was also found in AFP’s parking garage, taking pictures of employees’ license places. (Id. at 57:15–23). Another witness and major donor, Art Pope, testified about an AFP event in Washington D.C. in 2011. Mr. Pope testified that after protestors attempted to enter the building and disrupt the event, they began to push and shove AFP guests to keep them inside of the building. (Pope Test. 2/24/16 Vol. II, p. 47:7–15). Mr. Pope attempted to help a woman in a wheelchair exit the building; however the protestors had blocked their path. (Pope Test. 2/25/16 Vol. I, p. 21:20–22:12). Once they finally exited the building, they still had to go through a hostile crowd that was shouting, yelling and pushing. (Id. at 22:22–23:2). At another event in Wisconsin, after speaking to a crowd of AFP supporters, Mr. Hilgemann was threatened by a protestor who used multiple slurs and spit in Mr. Hilgemann’s face. (Hilgemann Test. 2/23/16 Vol. I, p. 48:12–49:15). Again, at another event in Michigan where an AFP tent was set up, several hundred protestors surrounded the tent and used knives and box-cutters to cut at the ropes of tent, eventually causing the large tent to collapse with AFP supporters still inside. (Id. at 50:16–51:25).

The Court also heard from Mark Holden, General Counsel for Koch Industries, who testified that Charles and David Koch, two of AFP’s most high-profile associates, have faced threats, attacks, and harassment, including death threats. (Holden Test. 2/23/16 Vol. II, p. 30:17–35:13). Not only have these threats been made to the Koch brothers because of their ties with AFP, but death threats have also been made against their families, including their grandchildren. (Id. at 31:3–10). Mr. Pope has faced similar death threats due to his affiliation with AFP and has even encountered boycotts of his nationwide stores, Variety Wholesalers. (Pope Test. 2/24/16 Vol. II, p. 22:8–15, 29:5–17). In December 2013, about 130 protestors picketed in front of his stores, in part, because of his affiliation with AFP. (Id. 32:24–33:2). As a result of these boycotts, threats, and exposure, Mr. Pope testified that he considered stopping funding or providing support to AFP . (Id. at 50:1–3).

The Court can keep listing all the examples of threats and harassment presented at trial; however, in light of these threats, protests, boycotts, reprisals, and harassment directed at those individuals publicly associated with AFP, the Court finds that AFP supporters have been subjected to abuses that warrant relief on an as-applied challenge. And although the Attorney General correctly points out that such abuses are not as violent or pervasive as those encountered in NAACP v. Alabama or other cases from that era, this Court is not prepared to wait until an AFP opponent carries out one of the numerous death threats made against its members. (bold added)

Death threats from liberals are, unfortunately, part of today’s political landscape. The court rejected Kamala Harris’s crocodile-smile assurance that her office would keep the names and addresses of AFP donors confidential:

That's why they're building so many coal-fired plants.

Beijing, where pollution averaged more than twice China’s national standard last year, will close the last of its four major coal-fired power plants next year.
The capital city will shutter China Huaneng Group Corp.’s 845-megawatt power plant in 2016, after last week closing plants owned by Guohua Electric Power Corp. and Beijing Energy Investment Holding Co., according to a statement Monday on the website of the city’s economic planning agency. A fourth major power plant, owned by China Datang Corp., was shut last year.
Nationally, China planned to close more than 2,000 smaller coal mines from 2013 to the end of this year, Song Yuanming, vice chief of the State Administration of Coal Mine Safety, said at a news conference in July.

Of course. With the EPA and other government agencies raining hellfire down upon them, all anyone can say is "of course."
Again, all this is going to do is impoverish more Americans. Of course, for statists like you, that's ideal.

None of the alternative energy sources is viable: meaning either BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) or the cost is so far above what we currently pay as to be economically unfeasible.

rickyp wrote:Fate

That's why they're building so many coal-fired plants.

You can't supportn this with current information can you?

You are uninformed. As usual.

Beijing, where pollution averaged more than twice China’s national standard last year, will close the last of its four major coal-fired power plants next year.
The capital city will shutter China Huaneng Group Corp.’s 845-megawatt power plant in 2016, after last week closing plants owned by Guohua Electric Power Corp. and Beijing Energy Investment Holding Co., according to a statement Monday on the website of the city’s economic planning agency. A fourth major power plant, owned by China Datang Corp., was shut last year.
Nationally, China planned to close more than 2,000 smaller coal mines from 2013 to the end of this year, Song Yuanming, vice chief of the State Administration of Coal Mine Safety, said at a news conference in July.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -pollution

In 2014 the carbon emissions from China made up about 28.8% of the world total, 10.4 billion tons.CO2 emissions [33]

It is believed that a continued increase in coal power in China may undermine international initiatives to decrease carbon emissions such as the Kyoto Protocol, which called for a decrease of 483 million tons by 2012. In the same time frame, it is expected that coal plants in China will have increased CO2 emissions by 1,926 million tons — over 4 times the proposed reduction.[34]


Efforts to reduce emissions

Air pollution has gotten so bad that a study by the World Bank found that air pollution kills 750,000 people every year in China.[36] Issued in response to record-high levels of air pollution in 2012 and 2013, the State Council’s September 2013 Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution reiterated the need to reduce coal’s share in China’s energy mix to 65% by 2017.[37] Amidst growing public concern, social unrest incidents are growing around the country. For example, in December 2011 the government suspended plans to expand a coal-fired power plant in the city of Haimen after 30,000 local residents staged a violent protest against it, on the grounds that "the coal-fired power plant was behind a rise in the number of local cancer patients, environmental pollution and a drop in the local fishermen's catch."[38]

In addition to environmental and health costs at home, China's dependence on coal is cause for concern on a global scale. Due in large part to the emissions caused by burning coal, China is now the number one producer of carbon dioxide, responsible for a full quarter of the world's CO2 output.[39] According to a recent study, "even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China’s growth alone."[40] The country has taken steps towards battling climate change by pledging to cut its carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 produced per dollar of economic output) by about 40 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.[39] Reuters reports that "emissions and coal consumption will continue to rise through the 2020s, even though at a slower rate, barring a major intervention including a shift to cleaner burning gas from coal" - in other words, "meeting the carbon intensity target will require a significant change in trajectory for carbon emissions and coal consumption."[41] To that end, China has announced a plan to invest 2.3 trillion yuan ($376 billion) through 2015 in energy saving and carbon emission-reduction projects.[41]

In rural areas coal is still permitted to be used by Chinese households, commonly burned raw in unvented stoves. This fills houses with high levels of toxic metals leading to bad Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). In addition, people eat food cooked over coal fires which contains toxic substances. Toxic substances from coal burning include arsenic, fluorine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury. Health issues are caused which include severe arsenic poisoning, skeletal fluorosis (over 10 million people afflicted in China), esophageal and lung cancers, and selenium poisoning.

Without the EPA coal mining would destroy the environment with their mining techniques. Then walk away.... and taxpayers would have to pick up the costs of rehabilitating the mountain tops that the mining companies destroyed.
Don't you think a company should be responsible for all of the costs of operating, or is it okay for coal miners to be subsidized by taxpayers ? (Which they are if they aren't responsible for the costs of the impact of their mines.)

Fate

None of the alternative energy sources is viable: meaning either BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) or the cost is so far above what we currently pay as to be economically unfeasible.

If this were true, then coal would still be a competitive fuel.
This is the market at work Fate...

WASHINGTON — In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the Supreme Court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.

“It’s a stunning development,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email. She added that “the order certainly indicates a high degree of initial judicial skepticism from five justices on the court,” and that the ruling would raise serious questions from nations that signed on to the landmark Paris climate change pact in December.

I eagerly anticipate reading the documents that show oil companies knowingly are destroying the planet

***As an illustration of poor priorities: California is largely desert. Its population has grown quite a bit over the last 50 years. Guess what hasn't? Its water infrastructure (dams, reservoirs, etc.). So, there's a drought and . . . Californians are suddenly supposed to turn their neighbors in. Anyone who ever lived in the Los Angeles area knows what happens whenever it rains: all the water is sent on the fast track to the ocean

Climate change has likely played a pivotal role in exacerbating the California drought. A team of Stanford researchers have shown that one driver for this is a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure off the state's coast, keeping storms and rainfall away from land. These conditions are much more likely to occur with the high greenhouse gas concentrations that we are experiencing today. In exploring climate model projections, it appears that the situation will get worse

There should be some kind of "Manhattan Project" to develop an efficient and cheap form of energy.

Stop it. You're making it sound like China is stopping its use of coal. The truth is they HAD to slow it down-

Look, Candidate Obama said he was going to put coal out of business and he's doing his best to make it so