EPA chief Pruitt reveals Trump climate policy is built on a lie

NOTICE

Please knock of the personal stuff and stay with the topic.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Templeton
a reply to: carewemust

The title of the thread is the title the linked article. Maybe read the entire article before you question where I got the OP from.

Trump has been on record saying he does not believe in man made climate change, as has Pruitt. Now Pruitt is back peddling and saying it exists but thinks it is beneficial for us.

I read it, but I wonder if you did, or was the Trump hating headline enough for you. The article says that humans proliferated historically during STABLE weather. But that isn't what Pruitt posed is it. You read the article right?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: neo96

What astonishes me is that this scientific method, and lack of settled science, is particularly evident and accepted in Physics. To us physicists it's actually normal.

But in politicized climatology, suddenly this normal Science changing nature is shocking and theories suddenly take the form of ideologies.

Politics should have never coupled with climatology.

That's what I was saying in my own sweet way
But, what also needs to be aknowledged is that those politicians speaking out back then, and making the case, may not have had everything put on the the table back then, or perhaps even now...stuff get's obfuscated in the glossy print, in the old 'need to know' meme.
There was a big row back in 2012 when there was an insider leaker of the IPCC report drafts about the TSI, (Total Solar irradiation) where he highlighted a small section of draft on the Sun as being difficult to properly quantify it's total effect on the planet, thereby being a somewhat unknown quantity as to any effect of...let's say Global warming as a whole, and thereby making a nonsense of the end analysis in the IPCC report as a whole.
Of course he got kicked around the parlour over that, mostly because he leaked, and also because he had it wrong, or that it made no difference blah blah. But still, it's left a lot of doubt, when you have this guy, an actual contributor to the IPCC report at some time, getting the black ball.

The particular part in question,

8.SM.6.1 Further Information on Total Solar Irradiance, Uncertainties and Change Since the Maunder Minimum to Support Section 8.4the absolute measurements of TSI are extremely difficult with an abso- lute accuracy better than 0.1%. All TSI instruments since 1979 have been calibrated, relatively or absolutely. In order to maintain a reason- able accuracy in the annual to multi-decadal timeframe it is essential to have at least three independent sensors operating in space simul- taneously. The fundamental difficulties of the absolute measurements are described in Butler et al. (2008). Fox et al. (2011) quantified how the uncertainty in satellite TSI measurements could be improved by an order of magnitude by adding primary SI traceability on board. For instance, to reduce from 3.60% for Moderate Resolution Imaging Spec- trometer (MODIS)/Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) to 0.30% for Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial- and Helio- Studies (TRUTHS). This would reduce by 67 to 75% the time required to achieve trend accuracy.

I can say that there is a three satellite set-up as far as I know, now up there since 2015/2016, one that could take night-time temp measurements not possible with older stuff, I'm not sure if that set-up is inclusive of the requirments listed above though.

originally posted by: neo96
The entire global warming/climate change hysteria is built on a lie.

A lie that made Gore very,very rich.

Ah, no, that would have been Gore being on Apple's board of directors.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
We have always known about climate change.

Its the global warming due to fossil fuel, and pay me money and we can fix it part that is utter nonsense from the minds of sick twisted money grubbing psycho hogs.

Half-right; paying money is not going to fix it.

However, global warming is indeed due to rising CO2 levels driven by the burning of fossil fuels.

The “Arrogance” of Republicans’ Favorite Attack on Climate Scientists

Another article that highlights the illogical(unlessyou are pro fossil fuel) policies the Republic party is partaking in.

...
Scientists have published thousands of peer-reviewed articles detailing what will happen to our world if global warming continues unabated. The seas will rise, swamping our coastal cities; natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires) will become more extreme; there will be hotter heat waves, colder deep-freezes; and of course millions will die as a result. But humanity can avert this, scientists say, by preventing the average surface temperature of the Earth from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

To most people, that’s an educated warning. To Pruitt, that’s “arrogance.”

Republicans have tried this argument in the past, and it has not gone over well. “To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate,” Michael Griffin, George W. Bush’s NASA administrator, said in a 2007 interview with NPR. “I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
...

James Inhofe, the snowball-wielding climate-change denier and Republican senator from Oklahoma, put his unique twist on this talking in 2015: “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” (The Washington Post’s editorial board accused him of “benighted complacency.”)

Who should I trust, thousands and thousands of scientists or a few scores of politicians and friends with financial ties to the fossil industry?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: neo96

What astonishes me is that this scientific method, and lack of settled science, is particularly evident and accepted in Physics. To us physicists it's actually normal.

But in politicized climatology, suddenly this normal Science changing nature is shocking and theories suddenly take the form of ideologies.

Politics should have never coupled with climatology.

To physicists, who figured out over a hundred years ago that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming, the result is not in question.

1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.
2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface.
3) CO2 is one gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.
4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing.

That's it. That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming. Nobody can disprove this, but you are free to try.

Well, the sun is going into a cooling cycle, so maybe the global warming will make up for some of the loss of energy from the sun. I was wondering if it was true but read a new article that showed it will be happening. It will not be a bad cooling cycle, but it is supposed to happen.

originally posted by: Black_Fox
This

Back when comedians were smart and funny. Lucky I got to go see him once.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: neo96

What astonishes me is that this scientific method, and lack of settled science, is particularly evident and accepted in Physics. To us physicists it's actually normal.

But in politicized climatology, suddenly this normal Science changing nature is shocking and theories suddenly take the form of ideologies.

Politics should have never coupled with climatology.

To physicists, who figured out over a hundred years ago that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming, the result is not in question.

1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.
2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface.
3) CO2 is one gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.
4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing.

That's it. That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming. Nobody can disprove this, but you are free to try.

You can't disprove that a burning candle adds heat to a room either, but for all intents and purposes the effect is negligible. That's why the key question is how much of it are we causing, and nobody has been able to figure that out. There is no consensus on that. Even if we bend over backwards and completely revamp our society to eliminate our contribution, will it be enough to alter the trend? Nobody knows.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: neo96

What astonishes me is that this scientific method, and lack of settled science, is particularly evident and accepted in Physics. To us physicists it's actually normal.

But in politicized climatology, suddenly this normal Science changing nature is shocking and theories suddenly take the form of ideologies.

Politics should have never coupled with climatology.

To physicists, who figured out over a hundred years ago that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming, the result is not in question.

1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.
2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface.
3) CO2 is one gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.
4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing.

That's it. That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming. Nobody can disprove this, but you are free to try.

You can't disprove that a burning candle adds heat to a room either, but for all intents and purposes the effect is negligible. That's why the key question is how much of it are we causing, and nobody has been able to figure that out. There is no consensus on that. Even if we bend over backwards and completely revamp our society to eliminate our contribution, will it be enough to alter the trend? Nobody knows.

There are only a few greenhouse gases of sufficient quantity for their impact to be relevant; these are: water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane at a distant third.

Due to the overall atmosphere averaging out to about 255K, that water vapor in the atmosphere diminishes rapidly with altitude above the surface - it simply gets too cold, and water vapor content is highly dependent upon temperature.

Given that 255K is cooler than the temperature at which water freezes, what do you suppose warmed the surface enough such that water could exist in the atmosphere as a vapor?