Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide
Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (835 Views)
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
For pro-free-marketers, the big bright spot of the Trump administration is the hatchet he's taking to the Environmental Protection Agency: doing things like packing the agency with global warming skeptics and rolling back absurd new automobile mileage mandates.

The man in charge of this is new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who up to now has been cautious about saying anything that would express his skepticism that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming.

Except now he's done it. In a CNBC interview, the host asked, "Do you believe that it's been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?" Pruitt answered: "No, I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

This was met with howls of outrage and derision at such an assault on established science. But it might not surprise you to hear—because this is becoming something of a theme these days—that Pruitt is absolutely right, and it's the media commentators who don't understand the scientific issues.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/scott-pruitt-is-absolutely-right-about-carbon-dioxide/ar-AAoft80?li=BBnb7Kz

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
There are also competing theories about completely unrelated factors that could be more important in driving the climate. Over geological history, carbon dioxide levels have been far higher than today during periods when the earth was colder. This certainly suggests that carbon dioxide is not the "control knob" and we need other factors to explain the climate of the distant past. (The most intriguing alternative theory, from Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, is that variations in the strength of the sun's magnetic field affect how many cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere, which in turn affects cloud-formation, which affects how much of the sun's heat is reflected back into space.)

A first-hand understanding of the science is not what most science reporting consists of today.

But a first-hand understanding of the science is not what most science reporting consists of today. Instead, it consists of conveying to the public the conclusions handed down by some accepted authority. That's the approach taken by PolitiFact, which countered Pruitt with this: "'Pruitt is incorrect. CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming. That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists,' said Anne Slinn, executive director for research of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Not in dispute? At all? Has anyone told her that the lowest estimate of climate sensitivity comes from MIT's own Richard Lindzen?


:)


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

CO2 has been understood to be a greenhouse gas since the 1860s. The potential for human emissions to cause warming was theorized in the 1890s. We have a century of study supporting what is now widely accepted science. We can not yet perfectly predict every effect of climate change, but the general trends are not in question. Reputable scientists will continue to debate specific models, & strengths of various feedbacks, but none of that quibbling about detail (which is how science works) is doubt about the basic mechanics. To represent it as such is either deliberately dishonest, or profoundly ignorant. Pruitt is therefore either corrupt or scientifically illiterate, so shouldn't be anywhere near public policy on the environment.
Hatred is a security blanket for idiots.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 13 2017, 08:05 PM
CO2 has been understood to be a greenhouse gas since the 1860s. The potential for human emissions to cause warming was theorized in the 1890s. We have a century of study supporting what is now widely accepted science. We can not yet perfectly predict every effect of climate change, but the general trends are not in question. Reputable scientists will continue to debate specific models, & strengths of various feedbacks, but none of that quibbling about detail (which is how science works) is doubt about the basic mechanics. To represent it as such is either deliberately dishonest, or profoundly ignorant. Pruitt is therefore either corrupt or scientifically illiterate, so shouldn't be anywhere near public policy on the environment.
No, CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas.

The youtube video that I keep throwing-up here answers those questions, especially from minutes 10 to 22 in the video. (Look,...!)
Furthermore, the film makes the point that Al Gore got it all wrong when he pointed rise and fall of CO2 as being a precipitator of global warming (also in the film) and point out that the rise in CO2 throughout history ALWAYS followed the rise in global temperatures, by 800 years or so, not preceding it! A very, very important point.

Again, watch..... :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
W A Mozart
Mar 13 2017, 08:17 PM
nNeo
Mar 13 2017, 08:05 PM
CO2 has been understood to be a greenhouse gas since the 1860s. The potential for human emissions to cause warming was theorized in the 1890s. We have a century of study supporting what is now widely accepted science. We can not yet perfectly predict every effect of climate change, but the general trends are not in question. Reputable scientists will continue to debate specific models, & strengths of various feedbacks, but none of that quibbling about detail (which is how science works) is doubt about the basic mechanics. To represent it as such is either deliberately dishonest, or profoundly ignorant. Pruitt is therefore either corrupt or scientifically illiterate, so shouldn't be anywhere near public policy on the environment.
No, CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas.

The youtube video that I keep throwing-up here answers those questions, especially from minutes 10 to 22 in the video. (Look,...!)
Furthermore, the film makes the point that Al Gore got it all wrong when he pointed rise and fall of CO2 as being a precipitator of global warming (also in the film) and point out that the rise in CO2 throughout history ALWAYS followed the rise in global temperatures, by 800 years or so, not preceding it! A very, very important point.

Again, watch..... :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4


Mozart
Mozzie, are you a climate scientist, researcher, or involved otherwise in any scientific field and/or research?

"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good?" - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

"Minor"
Posted Image

Attached to this post:
Attachments: EvansPuckrin06.jpg (72.94 KB)
Edited by nNeo, Mar 13 2017, 09:51 PM.
Hatred is a security blanket for idiots.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adolph Hipster
Member Avatar

lucash
Mar 13 2017, 09:39 PM


Mozzie, are you a climate scientist, researcher, or involved otherwise in any scientific field and/or research?

The term "Useful Idiot" comes to mind.
Kellyanne Conway on Trump: "Says He's For The Little Guy But He's Actually Built A Lot Of His Businesses On The Backs Of The Little Guy."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Attaburnsinhell

Mozart polishing the Pruitt turd

The atmosphere is made up of these basic elements- Oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 and methane. CO2, unlike Oxygen and nitrogen, absorbs heat, being that it's carbon based, like coal.
CO2 controls the temperature of the earth. Measured in parts per million, too little CO2 and the Earth would an ice age. Too much creates a greenhouse effect. For thousands of years the range of CO2 in the atmosphere ranged between 300 and 350ppm. We know this from ice core samples taken in Greenland and Antarctica.
According to these ice core samples, in the last 50 years the numbers spiked, from 350 up to 400ppm. That coincides with the increase in usesge of fossil fuels, which leaves a fingerprint signature in the CO2.
The numbers and the facts dont lie. Global warming is due to the increased use of fossil fuels over the last 50 years, beyond the planet's ability to absorb the CO2
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
Adolph Hipster
Mar 13 2017, 10:28 PM
lucash
Mar 13 2017, 09:39 PM


Mozzie, are you a climate scientist, researcher, or involved otherwise in any scientific field and/or research?

The term "Useful Idiot" comes to mind.
True! :cheers:
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good?" - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adolph Hipster
Member Avatar

Great Plains Wildfires March 2017

The record-breaking wildfires that erupted in early March in the Great Plains are consistent with the long-term increasing wildfire activity observed in the western US grasslands, activity driven by climate change trends in the Great Plains region.[1] Since the 1970s, large grass and shrubland fires have increased by more than 100,000 acres per decade. The frequency and intensity of wildfires in the Great Plains are increasing as the combination of higher temperatures, untamed underbrush and more extreme drought elevate wildfire risk. Formal attribution work has identified the fingerprint of global warming in the record hot temperatures that swept across the US east of the Rockies in February 2017, as climate change increased the likelihood of such heat by threefold.

Posted Image

http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/events/great-plains-wildfires-march-2017
Kellyanne Conway on Trump: "Says He's For The Little Guy But He's Actually Built A Lot Of His Businesses On The Backs Of The Little Guy."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Who caused the global warming when Antarctica was covered by forests 50 million years ago ???....There were no coal fired power plants or EPA then............... :dunno:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adolph Hipster
Member Avatar

Robert Stout
Mar 14 2017, 12:17 AM
Who caused the global warming when Antarctica was covered by forests 50 million years ago ???....There were no coal fired power plants or EPA then............... :dunno:
The winter months would have been dark, as they are today, but the weather was far warmer.
Organic molecules preserved from Eocene soil bacteria confirmed the temperature readings derived from pollen.
Dr Bendle added: 'Our work carries a sobering message. Carbon dioxide levels were naturally high in the early Eocene, but today CO2 levels are rising rapidly through human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.
'We haven’t reached Eocene levels yet but we are increasing at a rate faster than any time in Earth’s history.
'Atmospherically speaking, we are heading rapidly back in time towards the Eocene. Already CO2 levels are at a peak not seen since the Pliocene warm period 3.5 million years ago.
'The biggest threat lies in the fact that Antarctica today is covered with ice, enough to potentially raise global sea-levels by 60 metres if the continent once again reaches Eocene temperatures, which would have devastating effects all over the world.'

Lead author Professor Jvrg Pross, from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, said: 'If the current CO2 emissions continue unabated due to the burning of fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, as they existed in the distant past, are likely to be achieved within a few hundred years.
'By studying naturally-occurring climate warming periods in the geological past, our knowledge of the mechanisms and processes in the climate system increases.
'This contributes enormously to improving our understanding of current human-induced global warming.
'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2182505/Scientists-reveal-green-lush-past-Antarctica--warn-return.html#ixzz4bGtKYOVZ
Kellyanne Conway on Trump: "Says He's For The Little Guy But He's Actually Built A Lot Of His Businesses On The Backs Of The Little Guy."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adolph Hipster
Member Avatar

Humans to blame for bulk of Arctic sea ice loss: study

https://www.yahoo.com/news/humans-blame-bulk-arctic-sea-ice-loss-study-164317653.html
Kellyanne Conway on Trump: "Says He's For The Little Guy But He's Actually Built A Lot Of His Businesses On The Backs Of The Little Guy."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Full 44 Page PDF Report: https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf
Presented to the UN Climate Summit in Marrakech, Morocco – November 2016
Key climate data highlights:
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.
Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Introduction:
CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”
The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not ‘save’ the planet.



Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 13 2017, 09:49 PM
"Minor"
Posted Image

Quote:
 
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Posted Image



Minor, very, very minor....

Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Mar 13 2017, 10:28 PM
lucash
Mar 13 2017, 09:39 PM


Mozzie, are you a climate scientist, researcher, or involved otherwise in any scientific field and/or research?

The term "Useful Idiot" comes to mind.
I'd like a Moderator to step-in here.


This guy (see above) has been hurling personal insults at me, over a number of blogs and has been getting away with it.
Why? He needs to barred from the site, warned or reprimanded.

I could easily respond in kind, but I'll wait for a Moderator to make a comment here...

Mozart
Edited by W A Mozart, Mar 14 2017, 02:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

We are not responsible for moderating comments made on other blogs.

As for here, every member is permitted a single School Yard level comment or insult towards another member; one per day in a 24 hour period measured midnight to midnight East Coast Time USA.

Be aware please if you choose to insult back in kind that topic authors are held to a higher standard. So a school yard aimed at another member by the topic author would result in that topic being closed.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Mar 14 2017, 03:04 AM
We are not responsible for moderating comments made on other blogs.

As for here, every member is permitted a single School Yard level comment or insult towards another member; one per day in a 24 hour period measured midnight to midnight East Coast Time USA.

Be aware please if you choose to insult back in kind that topic authors are held to a higher standard. So a school yard aimed at another member by the topic author would result in that topic being closed.

You mean, like, I get ONE school yard insult of my choosing? Every 24 hours? How do you people keep track? Where are these rules so most of us can study them. When can I respond? I can hurl personal insults as well. Big boy, and all that. If I do that, however, then you shut this thing down, right? Or is this a liberal-conservative thing? "Liberal" moderators will allow insults (they kinda agree with them anyway,.... :usa: ) to flow from fellow contributors, then clamp-down on conservatives for responding? Slippery slope here.

I don't mind people making comments, but this "guy" has gone way overboard. I will ignore him, and make every effort to highlight personal attacks. I will be fascinated to see how 'liberal' moderators respond.


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

W A Mozart
Mar 14 2017, 03:24 AM
Coast2coast
Mar 14 2017, 03:04 AM
We are not responsible for moderating comments made on other blogs.

As for here, every member is permitted a single School Yard level comment or insult towards another member; one per day in a 24 hour period measured midnight to midnight East Coast Time USA.

Be aware please if you choose to insult back in kind that topic authors are held to a higher standard. So a school yard aimed at another member by the topic author would result in that topic being closed.

You mean, like, I get ONE school yard insult of my choosing? Every 24 hours? How do you people keep track? Where are these rules so most of us can study them. When can I respond? I can hurl personal insults as well. Big boy, and all that. If I do that, however, then you shut this thing down, right? Or is this a liberal-conservative thing? "Liberal" moderators will allow insults (they kinda agree with them anyway,.... :usa: ) to flow from fellow contributors, then clamp-down on conservatives for responding? Slippery slope here.

I don't mind people making comments, but this "guy" has gone way overboard. I will ignore him, and make every effort to highlight personal attacks. I will be fascinated to see how 'liberal' moderators respond.


Mozart
We don't "keep track" of anyone. Violations are either reported or a moderator notices during the course of their normal posting.

You get the same single insult per day that everyone else gets. Avoid if you are the topic author.

It has nothing to do with politics, the rules are the rules and the School Yard rule has existed for a decade plus.

The rules can be found here:
http://unitedstates.com/boardrules/
News Board Rules - http://unitedstates.com/boardrules/forum/?f=3274633







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Mar 14 2017, 12:32 AM
Robert Stout
Mar 14 2017, 12:17 AM
Who caused the global warming when Antarctica was covered by forests 50 million years ago ???....There were no coal fired power plants or EPA then............... :dunno:
The winter months would have been dark, as they are today, but the weather was far warmer.
Organic molecules preserved from Eocene soil bacteria confirmed the temperature readings derived from pollen.
Dr Bendle added: 'Our work carries a sobering message. Carbon dioxide levels were naturally high in the early Eocene, but today CO2 levels are rising rapidly through human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.
'We haven’t reached Eocene levels yet but we are increasing at a rate faster than any time in Earth’s history.
'Atmospherically speaking, we are heading rapidly back in time towards the Eocene. Already CO2 levels are at a peak not seen since the Pliocene warm period 3.5 million years ago.
'The biggest threat lies in the fact that Antarctica today is covered with ice, enough to potentially raise global sea-levels by 60 metres if the continent once again reaches Eocene temperatures, which would have devastating effects all over the world.'

Lead author Professor Jvrg Pross, from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, said: 'If the current CO2 emissions continue unabated due to the burning of fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, as they existed in the distant past, are likely to be achieved within a few hundred years.
'By studying naturally-occurring climate warming periods in the geological past, our knowledge of the mechanisms and processes in the climate system increases.
'This contributes enormously to improving our understanding of current human-induced global warming.
'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2182505/Scientists-reveal-green-lush-past-Antarctica--warn-return.html#ixzz4bGtKYOVZ
If a huge climate change could take place in a few hundred years, I have plenty of time to adjust to it....That is a load off my mind................... :biggrin:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply