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

originally posted by: crusadors
SMH.....I have a degree in Environmental policy and analysis with a minor in environmental health. Humans are F*&king the the environment. I dont understand why the bible people are so naive. How can you not see around you the effects we are having on this planet. Deforestation, strip mining, dumping, nuclear waste, energy waste, plastics in our oceans, etc. We humans are dirty filthy beings with no respect or regard for our planet. Some countries do it better than others, even the good ones are still bad.

Absolutely! We are the most disgusting, most destructive creature to ever exist upon the Earth. In short...the Earth and all other life would be better off with us gone. However...we are not a significant cause of global warming, climate change, etc. We trash the planet, and we need to stop...but it won't stop climate change.

So lets simplify this argument. You have the believers and the non-believers in climate change. The non-believers see our governments trying to use climate change as a method of control, power and income. Something they have always held as a religion. They lie, cheat and steal to take these things from the people. Especially the left has this text-book plan. Find a problem that allows them to take more control from the people. Climate change is just such an example.

Then you have the believers. Mostly the left type of people who continue to follow the "if the left said it...it may not be true but we should do it to grow our mutual views" attitude. They fight for the liars so the liars remain in power because they want them in power. They are too stupid to see the affects of the actions and will be hurt by it also...but they are such brainwashed, indoctrinated individuals that they can't see past their addiction.

Bottom line. Man isn't significant enough to contribute much to climate change. It is a lie. Climate change is happening as it always has and always will. It is a process the Earth goes through. Like rain, volcano, earth quakes, etc. but you would never see them trying to convince us that those things are caused by humans. They believe we are stupid...just not drool-cup stupid.

And back to the beginning. We are filthy, disgusting beings. We deserve to become extinct and it will happen soon enough. Probably by our own doing. And to paraphrase George Carlin..."the Earth is fine. We are screwed. The Earth will shake off the history of mankind like a bad case of the fleas, fix itself and continue to live a very happy life without us."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AuranVector

You know there is no carbon tax in the US, right?

Hi Phage. Yes, I know there is no Carbon tax right now. But the Democratic Party has been pushing it hard for years.

If they win in November, they will force the approval of the Carbon Tax.

originally posted by: Phage
More CO2 does not lessen water requirements.

I have proved several times that your claim is wrong, yet again...

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide makes trees use water more efficiently
May 11, 2015

...
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, Chair of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the report, said: "The observed water use efficiency increase, in response to atmospheric CO2 increase, is something we are able to reproduce with global vegetation models giving us more confidence in the whole ecosystem response to CO2.

"However, our models simulation also indicate that globally, other drivers, such as climate change and land use change, also impact on the plant hydrological cycle."

"By measuring the ratios of heavy to light carbon isotopes of tree-ring cellulose we are able to reconstruct various physiological metrics such as water use efficiency and their environmental drivers", said Kerstin Treydte co-author of this study and a specialist in tree-ring isotopes at the WSL.

On average, 100 kilograms of water released by a tree through the stomata equates to one kilogram of tree biomass created. The study showed that reduced stomatal opening increased water use efficiency by 14% in broadleaf species and by 22% in needleleaf species.
...

Read more at: phys.org...

More efficient use of water means more water for human and animal consumption.

What do higher carbon dioxide levels mean for crops?

Friday 06 May 2016


According to a new Nasa study, published this week in Nature Climate Change, higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are likely to increase water-use efficiency in crops, and could potentially mitigate yield losses associated with other effects of climate change.

Though the researchers behind the study acknowledge that ongoing climate change is likely to lead to extremes in temperatures and water scarcity for most areas, the latest research suggests crops might react to higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in two beneficial ways. Firstly, crop yields could rise as plants increase the rate of photosynthesis, speeding up growth. Secondly, they could use less water through pores in plants’ leaves, which open to collect carbon dioxide and release water vapour - as concentrations of CO2 increase, the pores don’t open as widely.
...
The researchers also examined the impacts of different climate change scenarios - some keeping atmospheric CO2 levels at year 2000 levels, others in which concentrations of carbon dioxide double by the year 2080 (a ‘business as usual’ scenario, in which emissions aren’t tackled).

Their results showed yield losses for all four crops grown at 2000 levels of atmospheric CO2, due to higher temperatures and drier conditions. However, all four crops fared better under the ‘business as usual scenario’ due to increased photosynthesis and crop water productivity partially offsetting other impacts of climate change.
...

www.farming.co.uk...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have proved several times that your claim is wrong, yet again...

I don't know who you "proved" it to but those articles are actually very interesting, thank you for posting them.

More efficient use of water means more water for human and animal consumption.

No. Increased efficiency means that trees and plants may show more growth for a given amount of water. How does that make more water available?

Despite the CO2 induced stomatal closure, the models showed that the consequences of a warming climate - lengthened growing seasons, increased leaf area and increased evaporation - resulted in a 5% increase in forest transpiration - the cycle of water through trees. This increase cancels out any savings in water from improved efficiency.

phys.org...

originally posted by: Phage
...
No. Increased efficiency means that trees and plants may show more growth for a given amount of water. How does that make more water available?
...

No Phage...this is what water efficiency means directly from the EPA.

What is Water Efficiency?

Water efficiency is the smart use of our water resources through water-saving technologies and simple steps we can all take around the house. Using water efficiently will help ensure reliable water supplies today and for future generations.
...

www3.epa.gov...

When trees, plants, and in general plant life use water efficiently they use less water leaving more for human and animal consumption.

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 make plant life in general use water more efficiently, grow faster making harvests faster, and produce more harvests.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No Phage...this is what water efficiency means directly from the EPA.

Yeah, but that doesn't really have much to do with the articles you linked. The EPA is talking about how humans use water, not how it affects plant growth. Plants using water more efficiently means they produce more growth for the same amount of water. Read what you linked.

On average, 100 kilograms of water released by a tree through the stomata equates to one kilogram of tree biomass created. The study showed that reduced stomatal opening increased water use efficiency by 14% in broadleaf species and by 22% in needleleaf species.

When trees, plants, and in general plant life use water efficiently they use less water leaving more for human and animal consumption.

Interesting. I've never considered plant life a competitor for water. Tell me, do people in arid areas kill all the plants so they can have more water? That would seem to be a good idea where water is scarce.

Do farmers in arid regions irrigate their crops rather than drink?

a reply to: Phage

Phage, it's obvious you don't even know what argument to make and instead now you want to claim that water efficiency means something different for plants than it is for humans?...

And where the hell did i write that people have to kill plants in arid areas?...

it's obvious we also need plants, but yes they need water hence they are competing with us for the use of water which is a natural resource... When plant life makes better use of water, they use less water... That's what it means...

But yet again, another absurd argument made by Phage...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Phage, it's obvious you don't even know what argument to make and instead now you want to claim that water efficiency means something different for plants than it is for humans?...

It does. Are you claiming that for humans water efficiency means more growth for a given amount of water. Because that's what it means for plants. As your articles say.

And where the hell did i write that people have to kill plants in arid areas?...

You didn't. I asked you if that's what competition between humans and plants for water would entail. It was a question. It seemed like a reasonable question. If water is scarce and plants are competing for it, kill the plants. Eliminate the competition.

it's obvious we also need plants, but yes they need water hence they are competing with us for the use of water which is a natural resource

I find it ironic though, that you are using sources which quite explicitly talk about warming and the role of humans in it in order to press a rather minor point. That, in a warming world the increase of anthropogenic CO2 would have a small mitigating effect on plant growth in some regions.

originally posted by: Phage
...
I find it ironic though, that you are using sources which quite explicitly talk about warming and the role of humans in it in order to press a rather minor point. That, in a warming world the increase of anthropogenic CO2 would have a small mitigating effect on plant growth in some regions.

I rather find it ironic that you keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that even many of the former proponents of AGW, can't for the life of them understand why it hasn't gotten warmer when CO2 levels have kept increasing. And Phage, don't use the warming brought by El super Niño to claim it has been warmer and hence it must be CO2, because as you should know by know el Niño is an anomalous event not caused by CO2 nor anthropogenic CO2...

Can you tell us again how well have Global Circulation Models done to "predict" warming that supposedly CO2 causes?...

Actually, here, let me help you.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

rather find it ironic that you keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that even many of the former proponents of AGW, can't for the life of them understand why it hasn't gotten warmer when CO2 levels have kept increasing

The chart you posted shows that it has gotten warmer.
But I see it does not include 2014 or 2015. And I see that it does not include GISTEMP. Another thing odd about it, it doesn't seem to show the spike from the 1998 El Nino. Why is that?


www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

originally posted by: Phage
The chart you posted shows that it has gotten warmer.

The Earth was already warming since 1600s, as the Earth warms the atmosphere can contain more water vapor. Water vapor being the main greenhouse gas that causes the most warming has kept increasing causing more warming. In the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather and climate occurs, water vapor causes about 97% of the greenhouse effect.

What you seem to be implying is that CO2 has been increasing temperatures, but you ignore that the greenhouse gas that causes the most warming is water vapor. If the warming had/s been caused by CO2 then the warming should have been constant, but it isn't, which shows that the warming is being caused by water vapor. Vater Vapor content does varies, and since the warming has been going through stages of being less warming, or stagnated, and even lowered at times this shows that water vapor is the main cause of the warming that has not remained constant.



If you look at the above temperature graph you would notice the yellow line I crossed from around 2002 until the beginning of 2007. Global temperatures were decreasing despite the fact that CO2 kept increasing. Then suddenly in 2007 and until the beginning of 2009 global temperatures dropped dramatically.

As you should know by now the anomalous weather event known as "El Niño" is not caused by CO2, it is solar driven.

If you look at the graph below, you will find the three most recent El Niños we have experienced.



The one from 1998-1999 was a super El NIño, the one from 2009-2010 wasn't so strong, and the one that started in 2015 and we are still experiencing has become a "Super El Niño" once again. Those are temperature "anomalies" which have nothing to do with CO2.

If we look at temperatures from the middle of 2002 until 2015, minus El Niños we can see temperatures have not been increasing, but have on overall been decreasing. This despite the fact that CO2 levels have kept increasing. Hence it is impossible for CO2 to be the cause for global warming as the AGW camp claim.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If the warming had/s been caused by CO2 then the warming should have been constant

Why? Are there no other processes which affect the rate of warming? The IPCC certainly doesn't think so. www.ipcc.ch...

Vater Vapor content does varies, and since the warming has been going through stages of being less warming, or stagnated, and even lowered at times this shows that water vapor is the main cause of the warming that has not remained constant.

It's true that water vapor content is not static. It is also true that it has a limit. I'm not sure though, how you can say that warming is caused by water vapor when it is temperature which determines the amount of water vapor.

Global temperatures were decreasing despite the fact that CO2 kept increasing. Then suddenly in 2007 and until the beginning of 2009 global temperatures dropped dramatically.

Yeah. Well, we know that satellite derived temperatures are problematic, but why do you prefer the model of Roy Spencer over other global temperature models? But again, what climatologists claim that CO2 is the only thing that influences atmospheric temperatures. The IPCC has a whole lot to say about internal processes (which include ENSO), among other things.

This despite the fact that CO2 levels have kept increasing. Hence it is impossible for CO2 to be the cause for global warming as the AGW camp claim.

No, it's not impossible. It just indicates that there are other factors which influence atmospheric temperatures. But the trend is still there.


Want a correlation with CO2 increases? Let's look at something that deals with heat (which is really what we're talking about) rather than temperature.


Interesting, isn't it?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ah, I see you are using his new model version 6.0 beta 5.

Better questions for you:
Why did his 'temperature records' change?
Why does this chart show stratospheric cooling and warming of the troposphere?

originally posted by: Phage
Why? Are there no other processes which affect the rate of warming? The IPCC certainly doesn't think so.

If the warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 like you and the policy makers of the IPCC want people to believe, then there shouldn't have been a decrease in global temperatures from 2002-2015.

Do you know what event occurred around 2006 that would significantly have caused temperatures to decrease on Earth? The Sun went through a period in which it's conveyor belt had slowed down to a crawl.

science.nasa.gov...

On Earth we didn't immediately feel these effect because of our oceans. After having been storing warmth from our sun when the sun's energy decreased our oceans kept releasing the stored energy. Imagine putting an iron rod on a fire and keeping it there, if you take the iron rod away from the fire, the iron rod keeps energy in the form of heat for a while until it has released all the energy that it had been storing. Our oceans store massive amounts of energy in the form of heat during the times our Sun's activity had been at it's highest in recent history.

originally posted by: Phage
It's true that water vapor content is not static. It is also true that it has a limit. I'm not sure though, how you can say that warming is caused by water vapor when it is temperature which determines the amount of water vapor.

Water vapor content in the atmosphere has no limit. I said the greenhouse gas that causes the most warming is water vapor. I didn't say that only water vapor causes warming...

Our sun, and changes occurring to the environment in which our Solar System is in also affect temperatures and other natural events that happen on Earth.

As for your reference to the IPCC... don't make me laugh, are you talking about the same IPCC which proclaimed to have over 2,500 experts in Climate Change, and later we found out it was only about 50 experts and the rest were environmentalists and people who had expertise in things like "helmet safety"?... Are you talking about the same IPCC that has ignored what the majority of the real experts in Climate Change and other topics related to Climate Change tried to tell them?

46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

originally posted by: Phage
Yeah. Well, we know that satellite derived temperatures are problematic, why do you prefer the models of Roy Spencer over other global temperature models? But again, what climatologists claim that CO2 is the only thing that influences atmospheric temperatures. The IPCC has a whole lot to say about internal processes (which include ENSO), among other things.

Oh, you mean the ground temperature data that which includes the heat island effect caused by asphalt, AC exhausts, etc?...

The same temperature data that has been tampered with in places like South America?

Here is one of the many samples of the tampering.



Temperatures in that region had been decreasing, but then the adjusted data showed a complete opposite to what the ground temperature stations actually said was happening.

Just like in Puerto Casado, many other regions in South America the ground temperature stations also showed a decrease in temperatures, but when the data was adjusted they changed completely the graph to show the opposite.

originally posted by: Phage
No, it's not impossible. It just indicates that there are other factors which influence atmospheric temperatures. But the trend is still there.

Then CO2 does not causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp... It's one or the other. Either CO2 is the main factor that has changed the climate or it isn't... You can't have them both at your whim.

BTW, the tampering of ground temperature data wasn't done just to South America.

Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2014 at 7:57 pm said:

‘Australian Met Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Records’

Date: 23/08/14
Graham Lloyd, The Australian

The (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.

Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.

Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.

In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
...

www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz...

And what happened to Dr. Marohasy for finding out the temperature data for Australia was being tampered with?...

About
Current Situation

In September 2015, I was appointed a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). This followed the termination of my adjunct position at Central Queensland University (CQU) on 1st July 2015. The specific reason given was that after 5 years and 17 peer-reviewed publication with the CQU affiliation, my work was ‘not well integrated into emerging research clusters’. This followed the kerfuffle and ousting of Bjorn Lomborg from the University of Western Australia in May 2015. Indeed universities can be so political, and in modern Australia so intolerant of dissent.

My work at CQU was wholly funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation, and this will continue to be the source of funding for my employment at the IPA.
...

jennifermarohasy.com...

Then there is the data tampering with the Russian temperatures, the fact that the CRU tampered with Russian temperature data, the fact that the CRU had deleted raw temperature data, etc, etc...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If the warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 like you and the policy makers of the IPCC want people to believe, then there shouldn't have been a decrease in global temperatures from 2002-2015.

There wasn't.

Do you know what event occurred around 2006 that would significantly have caused temperatures to decrease on Earth? The Sun went through a period in which it's conveyor belt had slowed down to a crawl.

And that reduced solar irradiance? How much?

Water vapor content in the atmosphere has no limit.

Of course it does. The maximum amount is 100% relative humidity. The cooler it is, the less water vapor there can be before it condenses. The limit is determined by temperature.

Oh, you mean the ground temperature data that which includes the heat island effect caused by asphalt, AC exhausts, etc?...

Sort of. It's the data that shows the same increases in rural areas that it does in urban areas.

Temperatures in that region had been decreasing, but then the adjusted data showed a complete opposite to what the ground temperature stations actually said was happening.

You know that the adjustments also sometimes work in the other direction, right?

Then CO2 does not causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp... It's one or the other. Either CO2 is the main factor that has changed the climate or it isn't... You can't have them both at your whim.

I'm not sure massive is the right word. Not as yet anyway. But you are confusing the trend with the variation within the trend. CO2 is the primary cause for the trend.

a reply to: Phage

If CO2 was the "primary trend" then temperatures should have kept increasing because CO2 levels have kept increasing, hence it cannot be CO2 causing the "massive warming" claimed by the AGW camp.

BTW, you were talking about relative humidity ok.

originally posted by: Phage
...
You know that the adjustments also sometimes work in the other direction, right?
...

That only occurs if the ground temperature station was moved from a mountain, to a valley for example, and even then the adjusted data wouldn't be going to opposite way that the ground temperature station was recording for that area. We have had this conversation before, and I have shown areal pictures of Puerto Casado, it is all located in a valley and it is all at around the same ground level. There is no way temperatures would have changed from showing a cooling effect into a warming effect like the adjusted data showed, and like I said, this happened for most of South America's ground temperature stations.

originally posted by: Phage
And that reduced solar irradiance? How much?

It was reduced, but you know full well that solar irradiance is not the only factor from our sun that affects the climate and weather. Changes in the strength of the sun's geomagnetic storms, and in general changes in the Sun's geomagnetic activity also affect Earth and it's climate

originally posted by: PhageOf course it does. The maximum amount is 100% relative humidity. The cooler it is, the less water vapor there can be before it condenses. The limit is determined by temperature.

I am still not understanding what in the world you are trying to imply. I was referring to the greenhouse effect of water vapor being 97%, but that is not the same as relative humidity which is what you responded when I mentioned the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

We are nowhere close to even 5% saturation of Earth's atmosphere with water vapor. So water vapor levels could keep increasing which would continue to increase global temperatures, and since water vapor levels do vary, and are not constant this is the reason why we have seen global temperatures not correlating with the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere which has kept increasing constantly.

originally posted by: Phage
Sort of. It's the data that shows the same increases in rural areas that it does in urban areas.

What? I think you are a bit confused, satellite temperature data is the one that shows temperatures even in all rural areas, most ground temperature stations are located in cities or very close to city limits.

Back in 2013 the government closed 600 ground temperature stations as they were deemed unreliable, but those are not all the ground temperature stations that are within cities or close to city limits.

originally posted by: Phage
I'm not sure massive is the right word. Not as yet anyway. But you are confusing the trend with the variation within the trend. CO2 is the primary cause for the trend.

You can't have it both ways, either CO2 is the cause of the warming, which then temperatures should have correlated with the increase of atmospheric CO2,which they haven't, or CO2 is not the cause of the warming.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Changes in the strength of the sun's geomagnetic storms, and in general changes in the Sun's geomagnetic activity also affect Earth and it's climate

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.)

I am still not understanding what in the world you are trying to imply. I was referring to the greenhouse effect of water vapor being 97%, but that is not the same as relative humidity which is what you responded when I mentioned the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

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

We are nowhere close to even 5% saturation of Earth's atmosphere with water vapor.

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.

So water vapor levels could keep increasing which would continue to increase global temperatures

Why would water vapor levels rise?

What? I think you are a bit confused, satellite temperature data is the one that shows temperatures even in all rural areas, most ground temperature stations are located in cities or very close to city limits.

No. I'm not confused. Ground stations show the same rising trend in rural areas that they do in urban areas.

You can't have it both ways, either CO2 is the cause of the warming, which then temperatures should have correlated with the increase of atmospheric CO2,which they haven't, or CO2 is not the cause of the warming.

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.