Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[photon]

Since everyone agrees that the earth is warming, then we only have to look at possible sources.

Because the earth is a ball in space, the basic thermodynamics of it are quite simple. A certain amount of light falls on the earth, a certain amount is reflected back and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated out (eventually).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, basic physics. Without the amount we have the average temperature on earth would be far lower. Ask Venus how things are going with its CO2.

One can then analyze the concentrations of various isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere to see where they came from. The CO2 released from burning fossil fuels has different ratio of certain isotopes compared to other sources.

So if you do that analysis on the current CO2 in the atmosphere, and compare that to historical CO2 in this the Holocene epoch, you get a certain result of so much regular CO2, and so much CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

And if that extra amount lines up with the expected temperature increase, well you'll just have to read the story to see the end

I mean it's really basic. Take billions of years worth of CO2 locked up in dead plants and animals, then release a significant portion of it in 1 millionth the time it took to make it. If I put all the garbage I've thrown out over 20 years and brought it back into my house for 1 second, that would have an impact on my house.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

As much as you like to believe that it's a debate fact, it isn't.

Temperature increases over the past 10 years aren't a result of any one country's actions but of the global atmospheric concentration of GHGs. And yes there has been a very noticeable warming trend over the past 50 years. 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. You can't cherrypick your baseline year to 1998. That's just dishonest.

Eitherway, your failure to honestly review the data and findings make you at best completely ignorant, and at worst actively working to perpetuate the most important and potentially devastating environmental issue of our time because you get off on spouting your baseless ideology.

It is very very debatable. I am not the one cherry picking. I noticed you jumped over the 2 questions that still need to be answered and went straight at #3.

Tinordi, we have seen a very visible warming trend since the little ice age and over all since the last great ice age when North America was covered in ice.

► The earth has cooled during the past 10,000 years since the Holocene climate optimum.
► The earth has cooled since 1000 years ago, not yet achieving the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.
► The earth has warmed since 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age three centuries ago.
► The earth warmed between 1979 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since 2001.
The following facts are additional reasons for scepticism.
► In many places, most of the 11,700 years since the end of the last ice age were warmer than the present by up to 2C.
► Between 1695 and 1730, the temperature in England rose by 2.2C. That rapid warming, unparalleled since, occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.
► From 1976 to 2001, "the global warming rate was 0.16C per decade", as it was from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940.

THE ABOVE BULLET POINTS ARE FROM HERE

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Since everyone agrees that the earth is warming, then we only have to look at possible sources.

Because the earth is a ball in space, the basic thermodynamics of it are quite simple. A certain amount of light falls on the earth, a certain amount is reflected back and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated out (eventually).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, basic physics. Without the amount we have the average temperature on earth would be far lower. Ask Venus how things are going with its CO2.

One can then analyze the concentrations of various isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere to see where they came from. The CO2 released from burning fossil fuels has different ratio of certain isotopes compared to other sources.

So if you do that analysis on the current CO2 in the atmosphere, and compare that to historical CO2 in this the Holocene epoch, you get a certain result of so much regular CO2, and so much CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

And if that extra amount lines up with the expected temperature increase, well you'll just have to read the story to see the end

I mean it's really basic. Take billions of years worth of CO2 locked up in dead plants and animals, then release a significant portion of it in 1 millionth the time it took to make it. If I put all the garbage I've thrown out over 20 years and brought it back into my house for 1 second, that would have an impact on my house.

When did humans start driving the climate change?
By how much and what should the climate look like?

[photon]

Sorry, if you want to learn you'll have to do it yourself, not sure why you'd expect someone to take time to answer your questions when you treat others so badly.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, basic physics. Without the amount we have the average temperature on earth would be far lower. Ask Venus how things are going with its CO2.

Not sure we can call Venus a perfect comparable. They have lots of other gasses screwing things up and has a different construct than earth. Sure, it's the closest thing to earth in our solar system, but just because it is, doesn't mean we'll emulate it well.

Originally Posted by photon

I mean it's really basic. Take billions of years worth of CO2 locked up in dead plants and animals, then release a significant portion of it in 1 millionth the time it took to make it. If I put all the garbage I've thrown out over 20 years and brought it back into my house for 1 second, that would have an impact on my house.

It's all about proportions though. If the house is the size of a small city, bringing in your garbage won't do much...however, if your house is a small loft, then it will.

Same goes with the earth. If the water vapour is a much bigger effect in the greenhouse effect than the CO2 by several orders of magnitude, then CO2 is pretty irrelevant (though that would raise the question of a snowball effect from excess H2O in the atmosphere). However, if the effect is pretty equal, then CO2 is a major driver and we need to stop real quick.

I certainly agree it wouldn't hurt humanity to shift to something new in the course of 100-200 years. It's just I'm not sure we have the backing to state how key CO2 is in all of this yet...especially when so many reports are contradictory as to what is driving it (there are reports that say water vapour is a better way to analyze global temperature, there are some which say CO2...and the differences in ratio aren't comparable to that of combustion effects).

[photon]

Originally Posted by kirant

Not sure we can call Venus a perfect comparable. They have lots of other gasses screwing things up and has a different construct than earth. Sure, it's the closest thing to earth in our solar system, but just because it is, doesn't mean we'll emulate it well.

I didn't mean to imply we're heading towards being Venus, just that CO2 being a greenhouse gas and its effects are significant. The composition of Venus' atmosphere is pretty well understood and it would be easy to calculate the contributions of the various gasses.

Originally Posted by kirant

It's all about proportions though. If the house is the size of a small city, bringing in your garbage won't do much...however, if your house is a small loft, then it will.

True, but as we can tell the portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere coming from fossil fuels is significant.

But keep in mind most of the surface of the planet is involved in the carbon cycle in one way or another so it's not so much about having a big or small house, it's more like garbage generation per square foot of your house per unit time (though of course conditions to lock up the CO2 don't always occur).

Originally Posted by kirant

Same goes with the earth. If the water vapour is a much bigger effect in the greenhouse effect than the CO2 by several orders of magnitude, then CO2 is pretty irrelevant (though that would raise the question of a snowball effect from excess H2O in the atmosphere). However, if the effect is pretty equal, then CO2 is a major driver and we need to stop real quick.

Water vapour has a much bigger magnitude but it also goes into and out of the atmosphere very quickly, and how much is in the atmosphere is a result of other factors, so it's not a primary driver. What water vapour does do though is magnify the effect of CO2, and CO2 when put into the atmosphere doesn't come out easily.

And you are right about snowball effects, feedback loops definitely come into play, which is why a small change can have a significant impact, and why you see jumps between one stable equilibrium and another in history as feedback loops change things significant before things stabilize.

Originally Posted by kirant

I certainly agree it wouldn't hurt humanity to shift to something new in the course of 100-200 years. It's just I'm not sure we have the backing to state how key CO2 is in all of this yet...especially when so many reports are contradictory as to what is driving it (there are reports that say water vapour is a better way to analyze global temperature, there are some which say CO2...and the differences in ratio aren't comparable to that of combustion effects).

Just because the mass media reports on something doesn't mean it's really that significant, there have been lots of reports (including ones on water vapour), which, just as in "climategate" the media latched onto and widely reported on, but on further analysis the report didn't actually say what the media reported, or the report itself was flawed.

"So many reports" usually ends up being one paper broadly reported on by the media vs the thousands of papers which go unreported on because they are boring (in that they simply add more support to the consensus).

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

True, but as we can tell the portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere coming from fossil fuels is significant.

Limiting ourselves to CO2, yes. Again though, it's a matter of how much the CO2 acts in relation to all the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by photon

But keep in mind most of the surface of the planet is involved in the carbon cycle in one way or another so it's not so much about having a big or small house, it's more like garbage generation per square foot of your house per unit time (though of course conditions to lock up the CO2 don't always occur).

Of course. I was just trying to keep the garbage coming in constant.

What you say is correct though. It's a matter of how much we're generating per unit of time, not per area.

Originally Posted by photon

Water vapour has a much bigger magnitude but it also goes into and out of the atmosphere very quickly, and how much is in the atmosphere is a result of other factors, so it's not a primary driver. What water vapour does do though is magnify the effect of CO2, and CO2 when put into the atmosphere doesn't come out easily.

I wonder though how much of the changes are from the natural and how much from the human. We've seen real fast changes historically, and some around the speed of today (to the "fireball" earth, I think we saw much faster increases...if you trust the studies on the billions of years old temperatures).

On a bit of a tangent is exactly what influences water has. Commonly accepted is that it's a feedback that magnifies the running of CO2. However, it's also noted that vapour and clouds in the atmosphere act as a good reflection source of new incoming radiation (terrestrial albedo was it?).

If we assume both are true and minimal outgoing radiation by the earth, we get that we retain a lot of the old radiation inside our local system and less coming in...which would imply we hit a maximum at some point if we assumed 100% reflective. However, that won't happen. Of course, the interaction of these two parameters are what will drive everything, if true. Though it can be safe to say that our earth won't ever hit 1.0 in reflection.

Originally Posted by photon

Just because the mass media reports on something doesn't mean it's really that significant, there have been lots of reports (including ones on water vapour), which, just as in "climategate" the media latched onto and widely reported on, but on further analysis the report didn't actually say what the media reported, or the report itself was flawed.

I understand that. I usually wait until media dies down and peer review is completed to see if there is any real backing to the argument first.

Originally Posted by photon

"So many reports" usually ends up being one paper broadly reported on by the media vs the thousands of papers which go unreported on because they are boring (in that they simply add more support to the consensus).

Of course. I'm not going by media though. I'm going by the academic world (which, of course, has its own media set up, leading to similar issues!) and discussions with a climate change prof whom I still talk to.

[Kipperriffic]

I thought about it again and to be honest: So what?
Polar ice melts and raises sea levels, so what? Its not worth any regulations on industries and higher taxes. Coastal areas will be under water? So what? People will slowly move away. It isn't like it is going to happen overnight and everyone will drown (what Al Gore would have you believe haha). The amount of efforts required to reduce emissions is not worth it. And the argument about "saving the polar bears" is just nonsense. Again, species of Polar Bears is not worth strict regulations are higher taxes. And precisely for that reason there will never be a "solution" for this "Global Warming". The consequences of not doing anything are not worth avoiding. We'll adapt.
At the same time, there are more important and urgent problems such as pollutions in rivers. Now that directly effects the population living in poor countries. People die TODAY because of that and that is something to be concerned about.
And secondly if the emissions are affecting the air quality, then that is a concern.

But Global Warming? Who cares?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

I thought about it again and to be honest: So what?
Polar ice melts and raises sea levels, so what? Its not worth any regulations on industries and higher taxes. Coastal areas will be under water? So what? People will slowly move away. It isn't like it is going to happen overnight and everyone will drown (what Al Gore would have you believe haha). The amount of efforts required to reduce emissions is not worth it. And the argument about "saving the polar bears" is just nonsense. Again, species of Polar Bears is not worth strict regulations are higher taxes. And precisely for that reason there will never be a "solution" for this "Global Warming". The consequences of not doing anything are not worth avoiding. We'll adapt.
At the same time, there are more important and urgent problems such as pollutions in rivers. Now that directly effects the population living in poor countries. People die TODAY because of that and that is something to be concerned about.
And secondly if the emissions are affecting the air quality, then that is a concern.

But Global Warming? Who cares?

Wow...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

I thought about it again and to be honest: So what?
Polar ice melts and raises sea levels, so what? Its not worth any regulations on industries and higher taxes. Coastal areas will be under water? So what? People will slowly move away. It isn't like it is going to happen overnight and everyone will drown (what Al Gore would have you believe haha). The amount of efforts required to reduce emissions is not worth it. And the argument about "saving the polar bears" is just nonsense. Again, species of Polar Bears is not worth strict regulations are higher taxes. And precisely for that reason there will never be a "solution" for this "Global Warming". The consequences of not doing anything are not worth avoiding. We'll adapt.
At the same time, there are more important and urgent problems such as pollutions in rivers. Now that directly effects the population living in poor countries. People die TODAY because of that and that is something to be concerned about.
And secondly if the emissions are affecting the air quality, then that is a concern.

But Global Warming? Who cares?

Bleeding heart liberals with a Messiah complex who want to save the world by placing sacrifices and burden of cost on others. Costs will be huge and net effect negligible? Who cares, the warm and fuzzy feeling is well worth it (while driving in AC-ed SUV to work nonetheless)!

[Kipperriffic]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Bleeding heart liberals with a Messiah complex who want to save the world by placing sacrifices and burden of cost on others. Costs will be huge and net effect negligible? Who cares, the warm and fuzzy feeling is well worth it (while driving in AC-ed SUV to work nonetheless)!

Well I am a Liberal too AND a conservative, but in proper sense of the word and depending on the topic. The words "conservative" and "liberals" are thrown around way too carelessly and not many know their actual definition and meaning in context.

But anyways, I think there are people who are genuinly concerned about environment, which is fine. But I think a lot of people watch politicians and so called "experts" fight over "Global Warming" and don't realize that politicians are trying to score political points and play on their confirmation bias. I mean republican party goes out and says "global warming doesn't exist" - I don't think they've a clue about it but are just trying to strengthen their political base. Because people like a political party FIRST and THEN go on to support its ideas. It really should work the other way.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by evman150

You have made a bad assumption here - that all (most) people are conscientious if not altruistic actors.

Completely wrong.

His assumption doesn't require altruistic angels at all. In free market, in order to maximize your own selfish benefit, you must serve the needs of others (ie if a greedy baker wants your money, he must bake a bread you like/buy.

Under your assumption, however, the government should give subsidies to the baker baking bread no one wants so has money for "recreation, enrichment, empowerment." Plus it requires good altruistic angels paying for all of it.

[Azure]

I say the people that think that we should spend billions on fighting this so called global warming should be the ones paying for it. I'm all for being responsible and more efficient but I certainly don't always agree with the crazy regulations that some people think should be in place to stop something we don't even understand properly.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

I say the people that think that we should spend billions on fighting this so called global warming should be the ones paying for it. I'm all for being responsible and more efficient but I certainly don't always agree with the crazy regulations that some people think should be in place to stop something we don't even understand properly.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk

Azure, your one of the few people I think can be reasoned with in this debate, so here I go. Firstly you assume all of us think the carbon tax is terrific.

Far from it.

All most of us climate scientists and science nerds agree on is that #### is happening. How we move forward, or how we react to this information is up to debate.

But that is NOT the debate, its utterly about denialism, while the science is clear. Which is frustrating, because if we are to rely on anything, the scientific method should be the one true thing we give more respect over political and ideological nutcases.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

Polar ice melts and raises sea levels, so what?

Floating ice melts and raises sea levels?

You might want to check your understanding of the science again, it would seem it's a bit flawed so your conclusions are suspect.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

It is very very debatable. I am not the one cherry picking. I noticed you jumped over the 2 questions that still need to be answered and went straight at #3.

Tinordi, we have seen a very visible warming trend since the little ice age and over all since the last great ice age when North America was covered in ice.

► The earth has cooled during the past 10,000 years since the Holocene climate optimum.
► The earth has cooled since 1000 years ago, not yet achieving the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.
► The earth has warmed since 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age three centuries ago.
► The earth warmed between 1979 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since 2001.
The following facts are additional reasons for scepticism.
► In many places, most of the 11,700 years since the end of the last ice age were warmer than the present by up to 2C.
► Between 1695 and 1730, the temperature in England rose by 2.2C. That rapid warming, unparalleled since, occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.
► From 1976 to 2001, "the global warming rate was 0.16C per decade", as it was from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/1...ligion-in.html

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Azure, your one of the few people I think can be reasoned with in this debate, so here I go. Firstly you assume all of us think the carbon tax is terrific.

Far from it.

All most of us climate scientists and science nerds agree on is that #### is happening. How we move forward, or how we react to this information is up to debate.

But that is NOT the debate, its utterly about denialism, while the science is clear. Which is frustrating, because if we are to rely on anything, the scientific method should be the one true thing we give more respect over political and ideological nutcases.

Lets see if I can go 3 for 3.

When did humans start driving the climate change?
By how much and what should the climate look like?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bagor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/1...ligion-in.html

You are right Bagor. I did not give George Pell his due.Though I did mean to link it and totally forgot to do so. My very very bad.

I will no go back and link the source.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lets see if I can go 3 for 3.

When did humans start driving the climate change?
By how much and what should the climate look like?

Why do you even try to pose a question?

Its obvious no matter what you see or hear you will continue to deny it. I mean lets just look at how you played the climategate to be the undeniable fact that global warming was a conspiracy.

Now that we know that it was an utter lie, you are just as passionately correcting your opinion and claims.

OH WAIT, your not......

[photon]

Originally Posted by kirant

I wonder though how much of the changes are from the natural and how much from the human. We've seen real fast changes historically, and some around the speed of today (to the "fireball" earth, I think we saw much faster increases...if you trust the studies on the billions of years old temperatures).

Direct observations show CO2 raising significantly, and the increase correlates with the time when we started burning fossil fuels.

The ratio of radioactive isotopes is changing exactly as you would expect if the increase in CO2 was due to burning of fossil fuels (not to mention that the amount of Oxygen is decreasing at the rate indicated by burning of fossil fuels).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this has been measured both in the lab and in the real world, and real world measurements of varions greenhouse gasses over time show the link between changes in these gasses and change in radiative flux

So you have more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. All things being equal, that will result in more heat being retained by the earth, and that's exactly what's measured as well.

Changes happen for a reason, and the only thing that fits the signature of the observed changes currently is warming due to human released CO2.

Originally Posted by kirant

On a bit of a tangent is exactly what influences water has. Commonly accepted is that it's a feedback that magnifies the running of CO2. However, it's also noted that vapour and clouds in the atmosphere act as a good reflection source of new incoming radiation (terrestrial albedo was it?).

Sure, it's a question of which effect is greater. I think at this point the evidence is growing that the net effect of clouds is as a positive feedback (warming) and that if it is negative it's very small.

But I think this is one area where there's still a lot of research going on and there's no wide consensus yet.