EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

originally posted by: Phage

No, I don't know that. Now it's time for you to repost those various studies which don't really say quite so definitively what you say they do. (But the Sun doesn't have geomagnetic storms or geomagnetic activity. That stuff is exclusive to Earth.)

In this you are right, i meant to say solar magnetic storms which had been increasing in strength, and about those studies, I excerpted what the studies say didn't make up anything at all...

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. I know you don't understand that water vapor content (of which relative humidity is a measure) is dependent upon temperature.

And the Sun's overall activity had been increasing until 2006, when it suddenly dropped in activity. Less than a year later and Earth's global temperatures also dropped even though CO2 levels were still increasing.

BTW, I understand really well that water vapor content is dependent upon temperature, but the saturation of water vapor hasn't reached 100%, so I don't get the point of you bringing this up.

originally posted by: Phage
Once again, "saturation" of water vapor depends upon temperature. When temperatures fall, the atmosphere can hold less water vapor, that is why dew forms, that is why it rains.

I know water vapor depends upon temperature, and so does CO2 since CO2 always lags temperature changes. I know that if temperature was to cool water vapor content in the atmosphere decreases, but again remember that the Sun's activity had been increasing until 2006, which you have tried to deny in the past.

originally posted by: Phage
Why would water vapor levels rise?

Increases in the total irradiance from the Sun, changes in Earth's magnetic field, changes in the environment the solar system encounters as it travels through the LIC (Local Interstellar Cloud) All of which have been occurring despite you trying to deny it.

originally posted by: Phage
Trend, not variation within the trend. There are factors other than CO2 which influence atmospheric temperatures and cause variation. The trend correlates to the increase in CO2 concentrations. So does ocean heat content.

Except for the fact that the AGW camp proclaims that CO2 is the most important factor affecting temperatures, but it isn't...

Understand this, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but observation tells us it does not causes the massive warming claimed by your AGW camp.

Again, if it was the most important factor, or even important at all the trend in warming should have been increasing, but it has been all over the place, including a decrease in global temperatures for almost 13 years.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Increases in the total irradiance from the Sun, changes in Earth's magnetic field, changes in the environment the solar system encounters as it travels through the LIC (Local Interstellar Cloud) All of which have been occurring despite you trying to deny it.

I have not denied that any of those things occur. I question whether they have a greater effect on climate than increasing CO2 levels, if they have any effect at all. Please explain how those things would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor levels.

I know that if temperature was to cool water vapor content in the atmosphere decreases, but again remember that the Sun's activity had been increasing until 2006, which you have tried to deny in the past.

That might be because it isn't true.

Except for the fact that the AGW camp proclaims that CO2 is the most important factor affecting temperatures, but it isn't...

No. The claim is that the increase in CO2 levels is the primary cause for the current trend in increasing temperatures.

Understand this, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but observation tells us it does not causes the massive warming claimed by your AGW camp.

What massive warming? We have not, as yet, seen massive warming.

Again, if it was the most important factor, or even important at all the trend in warming should have been increasing, but it has been all over the place, including a decrease in global temperatures for almost 13 years.

The overall trend is an increase in global temperatures. There was not a decrease in global temperatures for 13 years.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Invariably the cost of any change in energy consumption or generation can be computed. There is always a cost associated with modifying the infrastructure. There is always 'frictional' costs associated with any change.
Moving away from the crude (pun here!) methods of the past necessitates costs.
Considering the OVERWHELMING pollution in so many different aspects of our global functions (land, sea and air) we can also add those corrective costs. Since pollution is caused principally by ONE type of commodity (carbon based fuels) the disuse of it will result in greatly slowing the demise of the ecosystems. To retain the trappings of civilization may be difficult or impossible.
Think of a diet for the truly obese. (We are ecosystems ourselves.) If you say change nothing, you are committing to probable early deaths. If you say reduce caloric intake to nothing, death is also inevitable.
You still need to balance the need for nutrients while nixing BS ingredients which give you empty calories. You need to train and diet in order to maintain proper synergies amongst the system components.
In order to have high productivity and a healthy environment we need to reduce our intake of calories, we need to improve efficiencies. We need to modify our transportation system. We need to rid ourselves of Armed Forces. We need to change food production.
Virtually everything needs to be changed. Or we will die as a species.
You can not consume your own unmodified waste repeatedly or you will die.
Simple, eh?
The fact that costs will be incurred has nothing to do with survival of the species. You will pay the price for profligate unconsidered prosperity. Not having planned for bad outcomes from repeated infractions of terrible (and lying) corpserations and their power mad owners, the Elites, the SHTF.
Marginal humans will be sacrificed as part of the cost of these changes necessitated by emergencies of catastrophic dimensions.
Unless you think that the hordes of starving, penniless and powerless people will just stay in place while they go through the throes of disaster and genocide, they will impact YOU first worlders. They will come to your lands. There will be no choice open to them.
This ain't Disneyland.

a reply to: largo

There are other ways to implement filters that will stop the majority of the true toxic materials into the environment. i understand your sentiment, but what the Obama administration, together with the UN want to do is to convert Europe and the U.S. into third world nations at the expense of the common people.

We have already made strides towards having cleaner technology that traps a lot of toxic materials that otherwise would endanger the environment. But the fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic, yet we get most environmental groups alongside governments and the UN going after CO2. Again, CO2 is very abundant on Earth, not everyone will be able to buy the pricey solar panels which last 10-15 years, and then they have to buy new ones all over again. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we also have some cars that have been dubbed as "environmentally friendly" such as electric cars, but do you have any idea how the batteries of those cars are made, and how long they last, or how much "CO2 is emitted as you charge them"?

How environmentally friendly are electric cars?
By Andrew Bomford BBC Radio 4's PM programme

...
Electric vehicles are seen by governments as an important part of cutting emissions and reducing global warming. After all, what comes out of the car is completely clean, but nonetheless some scientists are questioning their green credentials.

Concerns are focused on two areas:

How electric vehicles (EVs), and particularly their batteries, are manufactured

How the electricity which powers them is generated.

One recent study by scientists in EV-friendly Norway has found that in some circumstances electric cars can have a greater impact on global warming than conventional cars.

One of the authors of the report, at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, admits that he is shocked and disappointed that their findings are not more positive for EVs.

"The electric car has great potential for improvement, but ultimately what will make it a success or failure from an environmental standpoint is how much we can clean up our electricity grid - both for the electricity you use when you drive your car, and for the electricity used for producing the car."
...

www.bbc.com...

You read that right, so keep thinking you are helping the environment driving around in an electric car when in fact an electric car produces more "CO2" than a conventional car.

Not to mention the fact that the batteries die, just like a regular battery, they are costly, and bad for the environment as we have no way to get rid of them without harming the environment.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Back to the OP. Yes it is very much about reinventing the economy. Exploiting the world's resources for profit and power is wrong. The US dollar is tied to the oil trade.....go figure.

originally posted by: Phage
I have not denied that any of those things occur. I question whether they have a greater effect on climate than increasing CO2 levels, if they have any effect at all. Please explain how those things would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor levels.

First of all, it is only the AGW camp who claim that one factor is the main cause of global warming. You know full well through other discussions in this topic that my point is that there are many other factors affecting the changes occurring on Earth, including Climate Change. You keep trying to focus just in one, it isn't just one, and again "if" it was CO2 like you keep claiming it is, then temperatures should have continued to increase exponentially because CO2 levels have kept increasing.

I didn't say "they cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor levels"... You are yet again twisting around what I wrote. What i wrote is during the time that the sun's activity, such as the strength of magnetic storms and the increase in irradiance during times of quiet sunspot activity had been increasing they would have caused the amplified warming we had seen until recently.

This is what you don't seem to comprehend, the magnetic changes that the Sun has been undergoing have not been constant globally. In some areas magnetic storm strength had been increasing, and in others decreasing causing similar mayhem on Earth.

Small periodic changes occurring in the Sun will not be seen right away as changes in the Earth because our oceans respond to lower solar activity by releasing more stored heat, hence there is a lag in the response we see occurring on Earth. If you have been studying the Sun you should know this.

Yet the fact is, despite all the claims being made by the AGW camp, including you...

Here is again the testimony of one of scientist who used to be in the AGW bandwagon Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:

...
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

Hans von Storch(1), Armineh Barkhordarian(1), Klaus Hasselmann(2) and Eduardo Zorita(1)
(1) Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
...

www.academia.edu...

Is CO2 the main factor causing Climate Change YES OR NO?... The obvious answer is a resounding no.

So what else has been happening on Earth, and the Sun that would cause the mayhem we are seeing?... What else could cause a lot of warming in some areas, and stronger winters in others?...

What has been melting the Antarctic Phage?... is it CO2 like the AGW camp claim, or has it been the increase in underwater volcanic/magmatic activity which have been melting glaciers?...

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

June 10, 2014

...
Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth's crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...
The findings of lead author Dusty Schroeder and his colleagues show that the glacier sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine," said co-author Don Blankenship, a senior research scientist at UTIG and Schroeder's Ph.D. adviser. "And then you plop the most critical dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible."
...

news.utexas.edu...

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
...

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Despite you claiming the contrary and posting information which scientists have been saying is being tampered with, the Earth is indeed going through some major changes. An increase in global earthquakes, and a decrease in the magnetic field of Earth which point to changes occurring to the Earth's core which in turn also affect the climate.

BTW, Phage, i know you very well. You are going to try to point to the statement in that research that says " The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influence.

Notice how i put in bold the word may. That shows that comment in specific is a theory and not what the study itself presents. What the study presented as fact is...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences
...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are wrong.

Are you trying to deny thst anthropogenic CO2 is a significant step in terms of climate forcing?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Back to the OP. Yes it is very much about reinventing the economy. Exploiting the world's resources for profit and power is wrong. The US dollar is tied to the oil trade.....go figure.

So you admit it only has to do with playing a political game rather than doing real science.

It doesn't matter if it's oil, nuclear or green. The connection between the dollar or any other current will always be there.
Do you really believe if the world goes green, hunger for profit and power will stop?
Most people don't care if it's oil or green power, they don't care about the planet or mankind, their minds are already made up by the media and education.
We are all blind and we all have a fist sticking up our butthole. It's time we pull it out

The only way people will realize how vulnerable they are is with a major catastrophic event, like 500 millions people die on a single day. Maybe that will open our eyes.

The "let's be good to the planet by reducing our co2 emissions" hype, is just nonsense and has nothing to do with helping the planet. It's all a political game like you say.

"There's nothing wrong with the planet, the planet is fine the people are #ed" -G.C.-

originally posted by: jrod

You are wrong.

Are you trying to deny thst anthropogenic CO2 is a significant step in terms of climate forcing?

If I was wrong then temperatures would have increased dramatically already and would coincide with the increase in atmospheric CO2, yet they haven't. That is unless you point to the AGW "evidence' which is tampered temperatures, deleted raw temperatures, and false claims such as "the Himalayas will melt by 2035"...

You should learn what it means to follow the discussion in a thread and to make an intelligent argument instead of continuing to post false rhetoric.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Unfortunately most people are not aware, or don't want to be, of what is going on to the Earth and in fact the entire Solar System, and instead they want to "believe" that it is mankind causing this. Most people need to have some sort of control, and that is what the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hoax is all about....control.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any tangible evidence to back up your borderline guano psychosis claim?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any tangible evidence to back up your borderline guano psychosis claim?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

No. The us dollar value is tied directly to the oil trade. The oil trade is apparently the big player in the CO2 spike we are most definitely observing.

To end our addiction to oil the banking cartels will need to reinvent the economy and the value of the dollar.

originally posted by: jrod
Do you have any tangible evidence to back up your borderline guano psychosis claim?

So that's what you call an intelligent argument huh?...

In case you haven't noticed the evidence has been posted in this thread.

March 27, 2017

PRESIDENT TRUMP will start dismantling Obama's Environmental Regulations TOMORROW.


""President Trump will sign a sweeping executive order on Tuesday to begin the process of dismantling environmental regulations implemented under the Obama administration to aggressively fight climate change. 

The Energy Independence executive order, which Trump will sign at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attacks the core of President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan. A senior White House official said Monday that the order will unwind the “Clean Power Plan,” which set new standards for power plants and restricted greenhouse gas emissions.

The executive order also mandates that every agency conduct a 180-day review that identifies all regulations and rules that “impede” energy production. Mr. Trump plans to using the reports to craft his administration’s “America First” energy blueprint to serve what the administration calls the “twin goal” of protecting the environment and  strengthening the economy by promoting energy production. 

“You’ve got to make sure you have a strong economy. You’ve got to make sure that people are actually working, and to the extent that the economy is strong and growing and you have prosperity, that’s the best way to protect the environment,” the senior administration official told reporters about the order.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, echoed the Trump administration’s “pro-growth and pro-environment approach to how we do regulation in this country” on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Mr. Trump’s executive order also lifts the moratorium on federal coal leasing, rescinds restrictions on hydraulic fracking, and eliminates the National Environmental Policy Act, a set of guidelines for agencies to consider climate change into their decision making process.

While the Trump administration initiates a review of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the White House is lifting the moratorium on federal coal leasing, and rolling back the federal regulation of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. 

The senior White House official said that the president and the administration accept the scientific view of climate change but they disagree with the Obama administration over policy prescriptions. 

There is no mention of the Paris Agreement on climate change, from which Mr. Trump has previously said he would withdraw. Roughly 200 countries agreed to the climate plan that cuts greenhouse gases, but the senior administration official says that they have not made a final decision on the matter.""

Source: www.cbsnews.com...

-cwm

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

So this fox approaches the farmer with a big bunch of Excel reports and charts showing how he is the best choice to watch over the chickens. It shows how when he is not around more chickens disappear and that he has experience related to "chicken hijacking".

The smart farmer shoots the fox. A dumb farmer has an empty chicken coop.