Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Hemp plastic is sustainsble and good for Vermont.
It would make a cool pair of skis too.

Good call...I suppose hemp could AUGMENT some of our hydrocarbon demand but...not likely we could pave our interstates using hemp oil

[Big Bob]

Notice how there are many massive repaving operations going on this summer. All around NH and Mass they are repaving dozens of miles of pavement. Wonder what that is? OIL IS RELATIVELY CHEAP. Only cognitive dissonance allows you to desire that oil is eliminated from OUR PRESENT NEEDS. There is simply no escaping how important oil is to our way of life. It may go away someday but the technology to make that happen is simply not there no matter how much hard core environmentalists and Democrats may want to force it today.

NH raised its gas tax a few years back about 0.04 cents per gallon with a lot of the additional money raised going toward additional paving projects. The cost of HMA in place has not dropped in price lately due to low oil prices. The big 2 in NH, Continental and Pike are just making more money on it. The will put it down for less than a little guy and buy it at the plant.

[Woodsrider]

Hemp plastic is sustainable and good for Vermont.
It would make a cool pair of skis too.

Good call...I suppose hemp could AUGMENT some of our hydrocarbon demand but...not likely we could pave our interstates using hemp oil

Hempcrete is an amazing building material and you definitely could pave the interstate with it. The economics and scale is not there yet and may never be compared to cheap oil. But it is a very promising crop and solves a boat load of problems. Vermont is in its third year of growing industrial hemp. Killington locals are at the forefront too.

[Mister Moose]

Cow fart legislation passed in California.

SACRAMENTO (AP) — California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.

The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.

The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions associated with manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Methane is one of several gases known as short-lived climate pollutants that don’t persist for long in the atmosphere but have a huge influence on the climate.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/0 ... gislature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Streamtracker]

While too many here deny we are in trouble, it is good to see the industry is getting behind climate mitigation and adaptation.

http://www.tetongravity.com/video/ski/w ... ngs-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

While too many here deny we are in trouble, it is good to see the industry is getting behind climate mitigation and adaptation.

http://www.tetongravity.com/video/ski/w ... ngs-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK. Some folks believe the nonsense the bed-wetters are peddling....we've all noticed.

Half of the post was about how less kids are going outdoors from this new generation…and that will impact ski areas! Yeah maybe.

They are probably scared to go outside and drive a car to a ski area because the bed-wetters in our culture convinced them we hover on the precipice of a warmist apocalypse and their combustion of hydrocarbons will insure our doom.

Typical over-reaction to the proclamations of the new generation of insane environmental activists masquerading as scientists. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If it was just the fantasies if the misinformed screwing up their own lives I would simply sit back and laugh. Unfortunately their infectious insanity becomes part of public policy and harms the REAL world.

As an example our national and international policies on biofuels are probably on balance quite destructive. Well-intentioned but still destructive. Using biofuels is, I suppose, intended to allow for “carbon-neutral” fuels production and be “sustainable.” In the name of this dictate we plow more land without making more food (even while people starve) and the price of food increases.

If we were sane we would simply take the glut of geological hydrocarbons we have found and use them for the next century or so until we find some more reasonable replacements. Instead we force societies to engage in destructive policies involved with using valuable cropland or forest to produce "carbon neutral biofuels." Silly and harmful. The USA ethanol fuel mandate is classic envirionmental insanity.

Following is a very green analysis of a specific example of how mandates to increase biofuels production are actually quite destructive in REAL LIFE.

Guatemala: Biofuels Production Leads to Violent Evictions

http://www.wilderutopia.com/internation ... evictions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BIOFUEL INTERESTS PROVOKE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION

I am all for SANE environmentalism which still does exist amidst all the nonsense.

[rogman]

SEB, your post saddens me, it must be awful to go through life harboring such anger and bile. I feel sorry for those that have to live with you, and put up with your crazy drunk uncle rants. Meanwhile, in the real world...

The insurance industry is starting to take serious notice of the impacts of climate change, and is formatting rules for dealing with them. Obviously the flooding in Baton Rouge, West Virginia, and Texas are having a serious impact. There is considerable evidence that these events were worsened by the warming climate. What was once a 100 year storm (which really means there is a 1% chance of it happening in any given year) is becoming far more common. A couple of articles from Insurance Journal (industry rag) "‘Game Changing’ Climate Disclosure Guidelines Coming Soon" http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 425850.htm

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

SEB, your post saddens me, it must be awful to go through life harboring such anger and bile. I feel sorry for those that have to live with you, and put up with your crazy drunk uncle rants. Meanwhile, in the real world...

The insurance industry is starting to take serious notice of the impacts of climate change, and is formatting rules for dealing with them. Obviously the flooding in Baton Rouge, West Virginia, and Texas are having a serious impact. There is considerable evidence that these events were worsened by the warming climate. What was once a 100 year storm (which really means there is a 1% chance of it happening in any given year) is becoming far more common. A couple of articles from Insurance Journal (industry rag) "‘Game Changing’ Climate Disclosure Guidelines Coming Soon" http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 425850.htm

The insurance industry exists to make money. Bedwetters accepting the narrative that "the sky is falling" makes it much easier for the industry to exact exorbitant premiums. Just sayin'.

If there are a thousand different specific locations on the planet (there are certainly more) and there are at least ten different types of weather events (heat, flood drought, etc (there are certainly more)) and we are viewing a decade of global weather.....just by pure chance.... how many "once in a century" outcomes would we expect???? I hope you see my point.

Only the unwashed are impressed by bedwetters howling over the types of weather events which always have happened on this planet. It's a tough planet to live on! Look at the topology of Vermont. Notice the deeply carved river channels. How were they produced? Events like Irene have happened COUNTLESS times in the past. Only our arrogance leads us to believe we live in exeptional times.

Although....it is impressive that the USA is experiencing (using various metrics) the LONGEST HURRICANE DROUGHT in recorded history!!

Do you think that is impressive too?

Do you blame CO2?

And by the way I am not angry at all.

I usually laugh my ass off when I read the stuff you bed-wetters post. You have replaced late night comedy (which mostly sucks these days) as my daily dose of impossibly ironic humor.

Thanks.

[Streamtracker]

Interesting new report out on ocean warming. As some of you may know, the extra heat captured by our planet due to increased concentration of green house gases goes mostly into heating the oceans. Nearly 90% of the extra energy goes into the oceans and only 1% into heating the air. Had all the energy that heated the oceans gone into heating the air, air temperatures would be about 36C warmer on average. Eventually that extra heat is going to come back and bite us. This extra heat has already begun to change the biology, chemistry, and physical charaterisitcs of the ocean system. The later has further impacts on weather patterns.

You can download the report here: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a bit long, but has a good two-page executive summary, cut and pasted below.

Executive Summary

The scale of ocean warming is truly staggering with the numbers so large that it is difficult for most people to comprehend.
Ocean warming may well turn out to be the greatest hidden challenge of our generation. Whilst some may be aware of the implications of a warming ocean for coral reefs, few know about the many other consequences for the ocean. In 1956 the influential meteorologist Carl- Gustav Rossby, now considered by some as the ‘father’ of ocean warming, speculated that over the course of a few centuries vast amounts of heat might be buried in the oceans or emerge, perhaps greatly affecting the planet’s climate. He warned that “Tampering can be dangerous. Nature can be vengeful. We should have a great deal of respect for the planet on which we live”. His theory has been borne out as the consequences of increasing human activities have indeed injected vast quantities of heat into the ocean, shielding humanity on land, in so doing, from the worst effects of climate change. This regulating function, however, happens at the cost of profound alterations to the ocean’s physics and chemistry that lead especially to ocean warming and acidification, and consequently sea-level rise.
Key warming facts
warming at about twice the average rate of global warming.
• There is likely to be Arctic warming and ice loss, and possibly the essential removal, in some years, of the summer Arctic sea ice within the next few decades. In the Antarctic the extent of the sea ice has been growing at a rate of ~1.3% per decade, although there is strong inter-annual variability.
• Over the last 20 years there has been an intensification and distinct change in the El Niño events, with a shift of the mean location of sea surface temperature anomalies towards the central Pacific.
• Currently 2.5 Gt of frozen methane hydrate are stored in the sea floor at water depths of 200 – 2000 m. Increasing water temperature could release this source of carbon into the ocean and ultimately into the atmosphere.

Marked biological manifestations of the impacts from ocean warming and other stressors in the ocean have taken the form of changes in biogeographical, phenological, biodiversity, community size, and species abundance as well as ecological regime shifts. Such shifts often interfere, or are predicted to interfere, with the benefits we expect from the ocean. More precise interactions, such as the relative importance of direct physiological effects and indirect effects through other abiotic pathways, and species interactions remain largely unknown. The problem is that we know ocean warming is driving change in the ocean – this is well documented - but the consequences of these changes decades down the line are far from clear.

Whilst rising CO2 levels and increasing warming can occasionally have positive effects, the overwhelming evidence and predictions shown in this report are for a cocktail of negative effects, which we are only just starting to understand, but about which we know enough to be very concerned. The warming signs are clear to see,
Sea surface temperature, ocean heat content, sea- level rise, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are increasing at an accelerating rate with significant consequences for humanity and the marine species and ecosystems of the ocean.
There is likely to be an increase in mean global ocean temperature of 1-4oC by 2100. The greatest ocean warming overall is occurring in the Southern Hemisphere and is contributing to the subsurface melting of Antarctic ice shelves. Since the 1990s the atmosphere in the polar regions has been
not only the current prevalence of bleaching of coral reefs around the world, but the increasing confidence of predictions that all coral reefs will be so affected by 2050, unless we change our ways, and quickly. Ocean warming and climate change are ultimately contributing to global homogenization of biodiversity, as vulnerable species become extinct and “non-native” species from different biogeographic regions spread, overlap, and become established across the world’s ocean.
All these changes and predictions for the future matter from moral, social, ecological and economic perspectives. The value of our relationship with the ocean sometimes seems difficult to cost, but is the ultimate relationship that enables life to exist on Earth. Where it is quantified it runs to trillions of dollars a year, directly and indirectly affecting many of the benefits we have so far taken for granted. The greatest losses will likely fall upon those people who rely upon the ocean for day-to-day subsistence – typically the poorest coastal nations. With issues of such importance at stake we need to vastly improve the science and knowledge available as we move forward into an increasingly compromised ocean world. This is a common conclusion by many scientists who have contributed to this report.

Key recommendations based on the evidence presented in the report are that there is a need for:

Recognition of impact severity. There is a need for a much greater recognition of the unequivocal scientific evidence of impacts on key marine and coastal organisms, ecosystems, and services even under the low emissions scenario (RCP2.6).

Concerted joined-up global policy action for ocean protection. There is a need to join up action across global conventions with respect to climate change and environmental protection.

Comprehensive protection and management. There is a need to ensure that we rapidly fill gaps in protective regimes, such as protecting the High Seas.

Updated risk assessments. A re-evaluation is needed on the risks that impacts from ocean warming and other stressors pose to humanity, to the viability of the very species and ecosystems involved, and to the provisioning of goods and services we derive from the environment.

Closing gaps in fundamental science and capability needs. There is a need to rapidly assess science, observing and modelling capacity and their needs in light of the widespread changes happening from ocean warming and other stressors.

Acting quickly to keep future options open. The concerns among the scientific community that as atmospheric CO2 increases, the options for the ocean (i.e. mitigate, protect, repair, adapt) become fewer and less effective must now be recognized.

Achieving rapid and substantial cuts in greenhouse gases Greenhouse gas mitigation at the global scale appears to be the overarching solution.

The evidence in this report shows a complex story of change in the ocean, change that is underway, is often already locked in for future decades, and is beginning to impact our lives. This is no longer a single story of challenges to coral reefs, but stories to changes across species and ecosystem scales, and across geographies and the world. It is pervasive change, driven by ocean warming and other stressors that is already operating across scales and in ways we only barely understand. It is critical that we sit up and recognize these issues and act, or we will be poorly prepared if at all for an uncertain changing future.

[madhatter]

only one thing listed that americans cared less about, interestingly it also is a lopsidedly partisan subject...in fact, of that list they were the only things that a majority simply do not find to be of any importance...

[Streamtracker]

IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING WHY SHOULD THERE BE OTHER EFFECTS OF CO2?
It seems (seemed?) a reasonable hypothesis that the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Some of you think of this as a scientific truth rather than a hypothesis but I really don’t care.

The CO2 has been going up for the last 17 years and the atmospheric temperatures have not gone up. This is really not disputed. Some claim the earth is still heating (oceans) but almost no one claims there has been statistically significant ATMOSPHERIC warming for at least 15 years.

When this atmospheric temperature stasis started to occur there was lots of yelling that it wasn’t significant until the trend lasted longer. The first target was ten years. Then when the pause lasted ten years the target was changed to 15 years. Now that we have passed 15 years with no warming the “consensus” explanations have become interesting. Other factors (which the skeptics had been berated for considering as significant) were “masking” the warming. Or….The deep ocean was somehow stealing the heat which was not appearing in the atmosphere…without any heating in the intervening oceanic levels. Or…. We really shouldn’t worry about warming… what we should worry about is Climate Change!

Oh my.

Firstly climate has probably never been very stable in the history of the earth.

Our proxies for ancient temperature generally have low temporal resolution but nevertheless proxies like ice cores seem to show decadal variations at least as dramatic as our current changes. The CO2 changes are indeed more dramatic than any we can resolve with our low resolution proxies but the temperature changes are not. And there is a multitude of data showing weather events much more dramatic than our current events.

Secondly… how is this a scientific hypothesis?

In science you construct a chain of causal events which lead from a triggering factor to an outcome. When Global Warming first appeared as an idea all the activist scientists knew that no one would be scared if the outcome was merely a slightly warmer climate. So they extrapolated their theory to include more terrifying outcomes.

Because the atmosphere was hotter… methane would be released causing runaway warming.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…atmospheric water vapor would increase causing flooding
Because the atmosphere was hotter…species would be displaced as the seasonal patterns morphed.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…cyclonic activity would increase due to warmer ocean surface temperatures.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…droughts would increase because of increased evaporation
Because the atmosphere was hotter…mosquitoes would expand their range and terrorize northerners (ha!)
Because the atmosphere was hotter…ski resorts would have to close from lack of snow.
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…well just fill in the blanks… as long as it is bad (NEVER GOOD EFFECTS)

All of these ideas were worthy of consideration because they had a chain of purported causal links to atmospheric warming which MIGHT be caused by increase in CO2.

They have NO scientific basis unless there is atmospheric warming.

Well for the last 17+ years there has been no atmospheric warming.

So none of these ideas have ANY scientific basis. Simple as that actually.

Any believers in the consensus can interrupt me here and explain, not with an internet link but an actual explanation (to show you understand it), HOW any of these effects would be CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN CO2. Remember you CANNOT invoke an increase in atmospheric temperature because there has been none.

So, again... please explain, with a series of causal links (this is your hypothesis remember) how an increase in CO2 can increase flooding WITHOUT any increase in atmospheric temperature.

Remember NO LINKS, just a simple explanation. You should be able to explain ALL of them but I would like you to explain even one of them… just a simple explanation.

I don’t think you have one.

If you don’t have one… your faith in the consensus is merely an example of the magical thinking that pervades human cultures.

Which is fine… but it makes your shrieking at “deniers” deliciously ironic, as it seems you are the ones who have strayed from the path of science and become reliant on faith in authority.

You can change my mind with a simple explanation.

The Sgt. proving he is false expert again.

1) His whole post is in fact nonsense because the atmosphere has warmed over the least 17 years. That is a fact, not the lie the Sgt. keeps pushing. All five independent groups that analyze surface temperatures find warming in the last 17 years. Funny how the Sgt. fails to mention that.

2) No you do not need atmospheric warming every year or even in a stretch of a few years. Most of the extra heat goes elsewhere - only 1% into air. CO2 traps heat energy, where is goes in the planet is another matter. Learn this basic fact before parading as an expert.

3) Who has time to counter all the lies and correct all the logical flaws this character posts here? Not me, I have 400 students to teach this stuff to this semester.

[madhatter]

IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING WHY SHOULD THERE BE OTHER EFFECTS OF CO2?
It seems (seemed?) a reasonable hypothesis that the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Some of you think of this as a scientific truth rather than a hypothesis but I really don’t care.

The CO2 has been going up for the last 17 years and the atmospheric temperatures have not gone up. This is really not disputed. Some claim the earth is still heating (oceans) but almost no one claims there has been statistically significant ATMOSPHERIC warming for at least 15 years.

When this atmospheric temperature stasis started to occur there was lots of yelling that it wasn’t significant until the trend lasted longer. The first target was ten years. Then when the pause lasted ten years the target was changed to 15 years. Now that we have passed 15 years with no warming the “consensus” explanations have become interesting. Other factors (which the skeptics had been berated for considering as significant) were “masking” the warming. Or….The deep ocean was somehow stealing the heat which was not appearing in the atmosphere…without any heating in the intervening oceanic levels. Or…. We really shouldn’t worry about warming… what we should worry about is Climate Change!

Oh my.

Firstly climate has probably never been very stable in the history of the earth.

Our proxies for ancient temperature generally have low temporal resolution but nevertheless proxies like ice cores seem to show decadal variations at least as dramatic as our current changes. The CO2 changes are indeed more dramatic than any we can resolve with our low resolution proxies but the temperature changes are not. And there is a multitude of data showing weather events much more dramatic than our current events.

Secondly… how is this a scientific hypothesis?

In science you construct a chain of causal events which lead from a triggering factor to an outcome. When Global Warming first appeared as an idea all the activist scientists knew that no one would be scared if the outcome was merely a slightly warmer climate. So they extrapolated their theory to include more terrifying outcomes.

Because the atmosphere was hotter… methane would be released causing runaway warming.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…atmospheric water vapor would increase causing flooding
Because the atmosphere was hotter…species would be displaced as the seasonal patterns morphed.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…cyclonic activity would increase due to warmer ocean surface temperatures.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…droughts would increase because of increased evaporation
Because the atmosphere was hotter…mosquitoes would expand their range and terrorize northerners (ha!)
Because the atmosphere was hotter…ski resorts would have to close from lack of snow.
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…well just fill in the blanks… as long as it is bad (NEVER GOOD EFFECTS)

All of these ideas were worthy of consideration because they had a chain of purported causal links to atmospheric warming which MIGHT be caused by increase in CO2.

They have NO scientific basis unless there is atmospheric warming.

Well for the last 17+ years there has been no atmospheric warming.

So none of these ideas have ANY scientific basis. Simple as that actually.

Any believers in the consensus can interrupt me here and explain, not with an internet link but an actual explanation (to show you understand it), HOW any of these effects would be CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN CO2. Remember you CANNOT invoke an increase in atmospheric temperature because there has been none.

So, again... please explain, with a series of causal links (this is your hypothesis remember) how an increase in CO2 can increase flooding WITHOUT any increase in atmospheric temperature.

Remember NO LINKS, just a simple explanation. You should be able to explain ALL of them but I would like you to explain even one of them… just a simple explanation.

I don’t think you have one.

If you don’t have one… your faith in the consensus is merely an example of the magical thinking that pervades human cultures.

Which is fine… but it makes your shrieking at “deniers” deliciously ironic, as it seems you are the ones who have strayed from the path of science and become reliant on faith in authority.

You can change my mind with a simple explanation.

The Sgt. proving he is false expert again.

1) His whole post is in fact nonsense because the atmosphere has warmed over the least 17 years. by less than a rounding error of calculations based on data that may or may not be accurate...big deal...too bad you and others weren''t as easily swayed by reality as you are by belief on a whole host of subjects... That is a fact, a largely irrelevant one that most would dismiss, even more so if you actually told them by how much...not the lie the Sgt. keeps pushing. All five independent groups that analyze surface temperatures find warming in the last 17 years. Funny how the Sgt. fails to mention that.

2) No you do not need atmospheric warming every year or even in a stretch of a few years. Most of the extra heat goes elsewhere - only 1% into air. CO2 traps heat energy, where is goes in the planet is another matter. Learn this basic fact before parading as an expert.bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...

3) Who has time to counter all the lies and correct all the logical flaws this character posts here? who would listen to your BS anyway?Not me, I have 400 students to brainwash w liberal tripe that is only important to those with an agenda... this semester.

academia; where bullsh!t goes to get affirmed...it's been long since the day when university was for the best and brightest, now its for the dumbest and most capable of getting financial aid/student loans....safe spaces and trigger warnings for all...

no wonder none of em can find jobs...

[Streamtracker]

only one thing listed that americans cared less about, interestingly it also is a lopsidedly partisan subject...in fact, of that list they were the only things that a majority simply do not find to be of any importance...

So what! Climate change is a relatively slowly unfolding problem and our brains are wired to care most about what happens in short time frames - getting our next meal, avoiding a predator, finding a mate, etc. Luckily we have scientists who can expand our vision beyond what is in front us at the present moment. Unfortunately we have had a multi-decade, heavily funded bamboozlment industry whose goal is to sow doubt about science.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474685770 ... ate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rime & Reason]

academia; where bullsh!t goes to get affirmed...it's been long since the day when university was for the best and brightest, now its for the dumbest and most capable of getting financial aid/student loans....safe spaces and trigger warnings for all...

no wonder none of em can find jobs...

Says the little guy with no college degree, sitting at home all day while his wife works at a university to support him.

[madhatter]

only one thing listed that americans cared less about, interestingly it also is a lopsidedly partisan subject...in fact, of that list they were the only things that a majority simply do not find to be of any importance...

So what! Climate change is a relatively slowly unfolding problem and our brains are wired to care most about what happens in short time frames - getting our next meal, avoiding a predator, finding a mate, etc. Luckily we have scientists who can expand our vision beyond what is in front us at the present moment. Unfortunately we have had a multi-decade, heavily funded bamboozlment industry aka public schools, whose goal is to sow doubt about reality by pretending it's science.yeah like those who think there is some sort of science behind gender fluidity...and those who insist on battery powered cars and the like...and will adopt ANY policy position or politician that supports those causes...science has absolutely nothing to do with it..it's all belief...

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474685770 ... ate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

well you've convinced these guys anyway, the rest of the world populace should fall in line soon...

http://eaglerising.com/36553/black-live ... is-racist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;