Trump pulls out of Paris climate agreement

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 18, 2017 9:07:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I only recently found out about this competing solar theory.

As the article mentions, the phenomenon of warming on Mars is attributed to Mars' precession by the consensus community. Dr. Abdussamatov's model predicts cooling in the coming decades, hence we won't have to wait long before finding out whether he's correct.

Bimetal brought this up a few years ago; and I know D23 has pointed out a few times in the last couple years that the magnetic field around Earth has more to do with climate than anything. Good point VtL!

An interesting chronology building on the link quoted:

-Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict
-Aurora 'solar minimum' good news for the North, bad news for everywhere else, expert says
-Are we living in a warm peak between ice ages?
-The Sun Is Nearly Spotless, Hinting at Solar Lull

[Deleted]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.85fb35025b7a

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 19, 2017 0:29:49 GMT -5 oped said:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.85fb35025b7a

ibid.:

Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

...all of them based on a class of global climate models that has never--in 50 years--demonstrated the ability to accurately predict how the climate will change.

This doesn't bother you?

[Deleted]

No, it doesn't bother me. Inexactness in a system that big with so many moving parts is expected. There is also the phenomenon of how our ongoing decisions impact projected returns, as in the first bathroom stall potential. We can see how our efforts have impacted the environment to date (take lead for instance) and we can see how our efforts to minimize our impact result in better quality. Attempting to control our impact will never be a bad thing, and it could very well help us avoid some very bad things. Does inexachness bother me in climate discussions? No. I

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 19, 2017 5:06:30 GMT -5 oped said:

No, it doesn't bother me. Inexactness in a system that big with so many moving parts is expected. There is also the phenomenon of how our ongoing decisions impact projected returns, as in the first bathroom stall potential. We can see how our efforts have impacted the environment to date (take lead for instance) and we can see how our efforts to minimize our impact result in better quality. Attempting to control our impact will never be a bad thing, and it could very well help us avoid some very bad things. Does inexachness bother me in climate discussions? No. I

But, we can- with the "Paris Accords" control the earth's temperature 100 years from nowto within less than 1 degree Celsius? 

I'm sorry, but such a 'plan' is absurd on its face. 

We don't need to make so precise (and expensive) a plan-- which will trap the poorest people in developing nations in poverty by paying off their governments to prevent modernization and economic development (and of course preserving 'nature' as a museum to be viewed and enjoyed only by the richest of the rich)-- to control an impact we can't even prove that we're having.

The largest concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water, and the greatest contribution to carbon-- if that's even a concern-- among other pollution comes from volcanic activity. In fact- let's take just one: Mt St Helens which began erupting again in 2004:

www.nbcnews.com/id/6635776/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mount-st-helens-top-washington-polluter/#.WUfHOGjytPY

Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens. Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

Those emissions are so high that if the volcano were a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit, Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology, told The Seattle Times.

All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas. Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant near Centralia owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day. Tough to get those kind of results from a volcano.

"You can't put a cork in it," said Greg Nothstein of the Washington Energy Policy Office.

[billisonboard]

Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens. Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

... Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant near Centralia owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day. ...

So instead of 250 to 450 there is 77 to 277 tons a day. Half full.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 19, 2017 8:38:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Washington state's top polluter isn't a pulp mill, a power plant or refinery. It's the newly awakened Mount St. Helens. Since the volcano began erupting in early October, it has been pumping out 50 to 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze.

... Normally, the state's No. 1 polluter is a coal-fired power plant near Centralia owned by the Canadian firm TransAlta. The plant churned out 200 tons a day of sulfur dioxide until regulators demanded $250 million worth of renovations, bringing the level down to 27 tons a day. ...

So instead of 250 to 450 there is 77 to 277 tons a day. Half full.

That's one volcano in one state-- that began erupting in 2004.

When Mt. St. Helens initially erupted in 1980 - 1986-- we are talking TENS OF MILLIONS of TONS (not including CO2) and again- one volcano.
volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/st_helens/st_helens_monitoring_104.html


Now, should we talk Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 in the PI? Let's talk ACTUAL (not projected) climate change. Try 1.3 degrees of actually MEASURED cooling...
pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html

The climactic event lasted about 9 hours and erupted over a cubic mile of rock material. It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 19, 2017 5:06:30 GMT -5 oped said:

No, it doesn't bother me. Inexactness in a system that big with so many moving parts is expected. There is also the phenomenon of how our ongoing decisions impact projected returns, as in the first bathroom stall potential. We can see how our efforts have impacted the environment to date (take lead for instance) and we can see how our efforts to minimize our impact result in better quality. Attempting to control our impact will never be a bad thing, and it could very well help us avoid some very bad things. Does inexachness bother me in climate discussions? No. I

You seem to think that TPTB's plans for addressing climate change are sweet nothings that we ought to be doing anyway. Some tighter emissions standards here, some wetland protection there, a bit of funding for green development...

If so, you either haven't read what these people have written or you're willfully ignoring it. The gravity of what they're insisting absolutely must be done cannot be overstated. Mankind could not design a system more effective for annihilating the middle class than carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. The only saving grace for the victims of cap-and-trade thus far is that it quickly fails unless an economy is closed. The only truly closed economy on Earth (besides North Korea's) is the global economy. Cap and trade must be implemented on a global scale in order effectively cap emissions.

Global scale requires global regulation, and global power to enforce said regulation. It requires centralized control of global resources. It also requires supranational exchanges, which is why the Money Boys like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are in love with the idea.

To make matters worse, the power behind the carbon credits movement is the same cabal who believe the world is drastically overpopulated and that westerners in particular consume vastly more than they should. In their brave new world, you--a prole like the rest of us--don't own a car, you don't own a house, you don't have more than two kids, you don't fly more than you absolutely need to, you don't commute more than you absolutely need to, you don't eat meat, you don't own your own household appliances, you don't live longer than 70 years, and you don't own a tenth of the crap you currently own. If you don't believe me, read what these people write.

Back in the 1960's, TPTB recognized that climate change ("global warming") was the key to making their dreams come true. A way of centrally monitoring, regulating, controlling, and suppressing every living human being on Earth. Hence they started jumping on scientists to pump out Doomsday: 1990, then Doomsday: 2000, Doomsday: 2015, Doomsday: 2050, Doomsday: 2100, and on and on, predicting imminent "hockey stick" spikes in global temperatures for well over 50 years, and proposing measures such as mass coastal evacuations that--had they been implemented--would have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

We're not just talking about "inexactness". We're talking about permanent world-changing policies based on a bunch of unproven models bought and paid for by some of the most evil, power-hungry cretins on Earth. If we're going to throw away life as we know it to "save the planet", it would be nice to have just a bit of concrete proof that the climate models aren't a goal-seeking fiction.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 19, 2017 15:27:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 19, 2017 5:06:30 GMT -5 oped said:

No, it doesn't bother me. Inexactness in a system that big with so many moving parts is expected. There is also the phenomenon of how our ongoing decisions impact projected returns, as in the first bathroom stall potential. We can see how our efforts have impacted the environment to date (take lead for instance) and we can see how our efforts to minimize our impact result in better quality. Attempting to control our impact will never be a bad thing, and it could very well help us avoid some very bad things. Does inexachness bother me in climate discussions? No. I

You seem to think that TPTB's plans for addressing climate change are sweet nothings that we ought to be doing anyway. Some tighter emissions standards here, some wetland protection there, a bit of funding for green development...

If so, you either haven't read what these people have written or you're willfully ignoring it. The gravity of what they're insisting absolutely must be done cannot be overstated. Mankind could not design a system more effective for annihilating the middle class than carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. The only saving grace for the victims of cap-and-trade thus far is that it quickly fails unless an economy is closed. The only truly closed economy on Earth (besides North Korea's) is the global economy. Cap and trade must be implemented on a global scale in order effectively cap emissions.

Global scale requires global regulation, and global power to enforce said regulation. It requires centralized control of global resources. It also requires supranational exchanges, which is why the Money Boys like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are in love with the idea.

To make matters worse, the power behind the carbon credits movement is the same cabal who believe the world is drastically overpopulated and that westerners in particular consume vastly more than they should. In their brave new world, you--a prole like the rest of us--don't own a car, you don't own a house, you don't have more than two kids, you don't fly more than you absolutely need to, you don't commute more than you absolutely need to, you don't eat meat, you don't own your own household appliances, you don't live longer than 70 years, and you don't own a tenth of the crap you currently own. If you don't believe me, read what these people write.

Back in the 1960's, TPTB recognized that climate change ("global warming") was the key to making their dreams come true. A way of centrally monitoring, regulating, controlling, and suppressing every living human being on Earth. Hence they started jumping on scientists to pump out Doomsday: 1990, then Doomsday: 2000, Doomsday: 2015, Doomsday: 2050, Doomsday: 2100, and on and on, predicting imminent "hockey stick" spikes in global temperatures for well over 50 years, and proposing measures such as mass coastal evacuations that--had they been implemented--would have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

We're not just talking about "inexactness". We're talking about permanent world-changing policies based on a bunch of unproven models bought and paid for by some of the most evil, power-hungry cretins on Earth. If we're going to throw away life as we know it to "save the planet", it would be nice to have just a bit of concrete proof that the climate models aren't a goal-seeking fiction.

Right because in the end the greens are watermelons. Green on the outside- red in the middle. Climate Change is a phony emergency as a pretext for a global government of elites over a drastically reduced global population which lives just about at the poverty line and only in numbers required to support the elitists in the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed. Basically, everything these nutjobs accuse Republicans of-- they are.

[billisonboard]

Jun 19, 2017 15:02:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 19, 2017 8:38:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So instead of 250 to 450 there is 77 to 277 tons a day. Half full.

That's one volcano in one state-- that began erupting in 2004.
...

I don't toss things out my window because I see that there is already trash on the side of the road. YMMV.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 19, 2017 16:59:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 19, 2017 15:02:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's one volcano in one state-- that began erupting in 2004.
...

I don't toss things out my window because I see that there is already trash on the side of the road. YMMV.

And I don't regulate people into a lifetime of misery and poverty to make some billionaire hedge fund manager invested in a stupid "carbon exchange" under the guise of saving the planet a few hundred tons of a pollutant which could be released in the tens of millions of tons at any moment-- making the whole exercise pointless.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 19, 2017 16:31:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 19, 2017 15:27:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You seem to think that TPTB's plans for addressing climate change are sweet nothings that we ought to be doing anyway. Some tighter emissions standards here, some wetland protection there, a bit of funding for green development...

If so, you either haven't read what these people have written or you're willfully ignoring it. The gravity of what they're insisting absolutely must be done cannot be overstated. Mankind could not design a system more effective for annihilating the middle class than carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. The only saving grace for the victims of cap-and-trade thus far is that it quickly fails unless an economy is closed. The only truly closed economy on Earth (besides North Korea's) is the global economy. Cap and trade must be implemented on a global scale in order effectively cap emissions.

Global scale requires global regulation, and global power to enforce said regulation. It requires centralized control of global resources. It also requires supranational exchanges, which is why the Money Boys like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are in love with the idea.

To make matters worse, the power behind the carbon credits movement is the same cabal who believe the world is drastically overpopulated and that westerners in particular consume vastly more than they should. In their brave new world, you--a prole like the rest of us--don't own a car, you don't own a house, you don't have more than two kids, you don't fly more than you absolutely need to, you don't commute more than you absolutely need to, you don't eat meat, you don't own your own household appliances, you don't live longer than 70 years, and you don't own a tenth of the crap you currently own. If you don't believe me, read what these people write.

Back in the 1960's, TPTB recognized that climate change ("global warming") was the key to making their dreams come true. A way of centrally monitoring, regulating, controlling, and suppressing every living human being on Earth. Hence they started jumping on scientists to pump out Doomsday: 1990, then Doomsday: 2000, Doomsday: 2015, Doomsday: 2050, Doomsday: 2100, and on and on, predicting imminent "hockey stick" spikes in global temperatures for well over 50 years, and proposing measures such as mass coastal evacuations that--had they been implemented--would have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

We're not just talking about "inexactness". We're talking about permanent world-changing policies based on a bunch of unproven models bought and paid for by some of the most evil, power-hungry cretins on Earth. If we're going to throw away life as we know it to "save the planet", it would be nice to have just a bit of concrete proof that the climate models aren't a goal-seeking fiction.

Right because in the end the greens are watermelons. Green on the outside- red in the middle. Climate Change is a phony emergency as a pretext for a global government of elites over a drastically reduced global population which lives just about at the poverty line and only in numbers required to support the elitists in the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed. Basically, everything these nutjobs accuse Republicans of-- they are.

Apocalypse Delayed

In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.

But for sheer vivid lunacy, nothing matches this Good Morning America report from 2008

The images show Manhattan shrinking against the onslaught of the rising seas — in 2015. Last year. Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

It has been 45 years now since the first Earth Day. You would think that in this time frame, given the urgency with which we were told we had to confront the supposed threats to the environment—Harvard biologist George Wald told us, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken”

It's probably nothing though: Snow continues to fall in the Sierra ... yes, in June

[formerroomate99]

And may I just add that there are a lot of non-tree-hugger reasons to conserve and invest in alternative energy.  The US accounts for something like 25% of the world's oil demand.  A lot of that oil is found in countries that are not our friends.  Even if we don't directly buy from those countries, our oversized demand for oil is helping their bottom lines by increasing the price of oil.  Changing our habits even a little bit can have a huge impact on the number of dollars going to terrorists and tin pot dictators.
 

 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 19, 2017 23:46:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

And may I just add that there are a lot of non-tree-hugger reasons to conserve and invest in alternative energy.  The US accounts for something like 25% of the world's oil demand.  A lot of that oil is found in countries that are not our friends.  Even if we don't directly buy from those countries, our oversized demand for oil is helping their bottom lines by increasing the price of oil.  Changing our habits even a little bit can have a huge impact on the number of dollars going to terrorists and tin pot dictators.
 

 

I completely agree that oil imports from outside of North America should end. However, the fact of the matter is peak oil was another myth, and we are actually swimming in oil here.(to the point the US is now exporting LNG and some oil) When you factor in the energy content of coal and natural gas; it makes the most sense to invest in technology that process all that energy more efficiently and cleaner. Basically, there is no such thing as waste. A company like Petroteq Energy Inc is a good example of how 'traditional' energy sources are about to destroy 'alternative' sources.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Earth Day...isn't that the day started by a guy who composted his girlfriend? Oh, and then there's Rachael Carson-- a woman responsible for 3 million deaths a year because she was wrong about DDT but nobody cared because of the emotional hysteria over her bird-egg theory...

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2017 9:53:43 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Jun 18, 2017 9:12:12 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

You are saying that an unforseen conclusion is possible.  I can agree with that.  Until then, I'll believe in A G W when I read a published proof.  Don't make the mistake that I care one way or the other that A G W is proven.  I don't.  I feel that laws/regulations on an unproven theory are a mistake.  If an energy saturated, trace gas, can warm our planet, and its been proven.  I'm all for remedial activity. Man's contribution to this trace gas is almost immeasurable when considering the weight of our atmosphere. It doesn't create more heat. At saturation, energy transfer happens at speed of light radiating off the dark side. This includes
all gases, not just co2 which only account for a narrow band of energy retention that overlaps with water vapor.

The ramifications of making a Type I or a Type II error in this situation as so disparate as makes this stance unconscionable.  

Which applies to both positions of for or against AGW.    Back to the science.  One mustn't also forget that energy release from solids is squared every time the energy acquisition doubles.  This has a huge regulating affect on the planets surface temperature when the energy intake is also at a near constant to the area of the sky tended.  If the concept of a greenhouse gas insulating us from losing that energy on the release side with any mechanism described as an insulating factor (CO2/other), this will also remain true on the acquisition side as the insulating factor remains the same for radiation type moving in or out.  I'll believe in AGW when I read a published proof.  I do not care if it's possible or not.  I also do not believe in laws/regulation on an unproven theory.  My stance on toxics regarding use of fossil fuels is still the same, that toxics should be regulated.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 20, 2017 6:19:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Earth Day...isn't that the day started by a guy who composted his girlfriend? Oh, and then there's Rachael Carson-- a woman responsible for 3 million deaths a year because she was wrong about DDT but nobody cared because of the emotional hysteria over her bird-egg theory...

Right?? Plus, when talking about renewable energy mitigating carbon and being safer for the environment the points in this article are always ignored. Plus, that article doesn't mention how Solar Power Towers Are 'Vaporizing' Birds. Plus, even where wind power is working in South Texas.. they are running out of land to build on. Which is outlined in the first article, but is by far the biggest issue that is being ignored. If we put up enough wind and solar to power everything, plus have all cars electric; you can basically kiss all flying animals good-bye... But hey, it's better for the environment...

That said; I do love the idea of solar windows and the passive house!