Posted on 03/14/2017 8:23:48 AM PDT by MtnClimber
On Thursday, new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box," and made a statement that has gotten a lot of attention. The statement was: "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."
I would have said that that statement was just a rather obvious truism. I mean, we have an enormously complex climate system, affected by literally dozens of factors, many of them hugely larger than us puny little humans -- things like the sun, solar wind, oceans, clouds, volcanoes, aerosols, multiple atmospheric "greenhouse gases" of which water vapor is the dominant one, tilt of the earth's axis, position of the solar system in the galaxy, and plenty of other things that we don't even know about. And in the era of reasonably good measurements, world average temperatures (a poorly defined concept to begin with) have varied within a range of around one to two degrees, with the accuracy of measurement not much less than the amplitude of the variation. With all that going on, does somebody claim to have the method to know precisely how much of the variation in temperatures derives from human activities? To what level of accuracy? Tenths -- or hundredths -- of one degree? Really? Where's the proof? The whole concept is inherently implausible. I don't even understand how Pruitt's statement is remotely controversial.
Well, needless to say, Pruitt's statement has caused a total freakout in the progressive press and media.
(Excerpt) Read more at manhattancontrarian.com ...
My favorite, that I've seen a few times, is that "The Pacific Ocean will rise 20 cm over the next century".
Setting aside the fact that 20 cm is a little less than 8 inches, and we should be able to figure something out in 100 years to deal with it....
.... that's 2mm/year. How would you even know? Heck, you can't measure the water in your bathtub accurately to within 2mm. They're worried - gravely worried - about a 2mm rise over a massive ocean?
Fools, all.
>There is just as much of a hole in the science about a warmer planet as there is for it’s cause. We are in the midst of and inter-glacial warming period for this planet. It might happen that humans will last long enough to see the coming of the next ice age. Will we finally be done with this nonsense when that time comes? Or will the ice age be caused by the previous man made global warming?
We’re actually in the tail end of a inter-glacial period and the overall trend has been back to full glaciation for quite a while.
And even if there is sea rise, what is ti due to? The coast of Finland is GROWING, the sea RECEDING, the land rising. Ditto for the Arctic Islands of Canada. It’s called “Ice Age Rebound.”
WHERE does that water go????????????????????????
If you wish to amuse God tell him of your plans.
+/- a few million years I suppose.
Let's not forget, our existence as a species in this current form (however you want to measure it or date our creation), is a relative flash in the pan when measuring global climate changes. We've only been "thinking" for about 100K years. We started recording history for the future about 15K years ago (all arguable). By the time the next ice age starts to endanger our species, I would expect we have colonized other locations in our solar system and/or galaxy. Suffice it to say, I am not worried about global warming or global cooling for myself or the fruit of my loins for the next several generations. ;o)
Absolutely true. Liberals like to have it both ways. "Deserts will Flood and the turtles and lizards will die!" - But now we can grow food there. "The oceans will rise and cities will be flooded!" - New Orleans has been below sea level since the French settled it. We'll adapt. We want to keep the deserts because of turtles. But we don't want deserts because the poor will starve!
> +/- a few million years I suppose.
>Let’s not forget, our existence as a species in this current form (however you want to measure it or date our creation), is a relative flash in the pan when measuring global climate changes. We’ve only been “thinking” for about 100K years. We started recording history for the future about 15K years ago (all arguable). By the time the next ice age starts to endanger our species, I would expect we have colonized other locations in our solar system and/or galaxy. Suffice it to say, I am not worried about global warming or global cooling for myself or the fruit of my loins for the next several generations. ;o)
The current warm era is called the Holocene and it started about 12-15,000 years ago. The over all cooling trend started 6,000 years ago. The previous intergalactic called the Eemian (which was much hotter than the current one) was about 130,000 years ago and lasted 15,000 years. Since we don’t know what causes ice ages or warm periods it’s hard to say exactly when the Holocene will end. However if it does end any time soon we better have a lot of underground cities and ton’s nuclear power plants to say warm when it does it us. We’re also no longer sure that ice ages happen slowly, the climate record seems to indicate rapid freezing is the norm.
“The Pacific Ocean will rise 20 cm over the next century”.
Oh yeah, all the ocean calculations are a real hoot!
Like calculating global ocean temperatures from buckets hauled up onto cargo ships...to 1/10 of a degree!
Or “adjusting” the sea level data up by .3mm per year, because the ocean floor is sinking....
>> Since we don’t know what causes ice ages or warm periods it’s hard to say exactly when the Holocene will end. However if it does end any time...
>HINT: GIANT THERMONUCLEAR BALL IN THE SKY
Likely, however we know almost nothing about the history of the sun. We have far more data on the history of the planet but no way to explore the sun’s past in order to build models for future predictions.
“However if it does end any time soon we better have a lot of underground cities and ton’s nuclear power plants to say warm when it does it us. “
We should, using our industrial might, pump trillions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere to help forestall the ending of the Holocene.
>“However if it does end any time soon we better have a lot of underground cities and ton’s nuclear power plants to say warm when it does it us. “
>>We should, using our industrial might, pump trillions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere to help forestall the ending of the Holocene.
CO2 is an entirely too weak greenhouse gas to achieve that no mater how much we produce. Even the global warmist models required a positive water vapor feed back loop caused by CO2 to work and that modeled effect was proven to not exist about 15 years ago. Since then they really haven’t had any kind of working theory as to why CO2 would cause a lot of warming.
I call him Bill Nye, the SciFi guy.
Per doubling and with NO feedbacks, co2 will cause about 1C warming.
Currently, atmospheric co2 increases about 2ppm per year and we have about 400ppm in the atmosphere, so at this current rate, it’ll take about 200 years to double it and get 1C warming.
Now, if we were to give tax breaks to fossil fuel run factories, automobiles, truckers, etc, and encourage co2 production, perhaps we could cut that down to 1C in 100 years!
>Per doubling and with NO feedbacks, co2 will cause about 1C warming.
>Currently, atmospheric co2 increases about 2ppm per year and we have about 400ppm in the atmosphere, so at this current rate, it’ll take about 200 years to double it and get 1C warming.
The problem here with that idea is the negative feedback loop that occurs when increasing CO2 that reduces heat and CO2 retention. It’s called “plants grow faster and bigger with extra CO2”:
You’re going to have to pick a better gas to warm the planet up. In all likelihood it’s useless trying to warm it up using the greenhouse effect because it’s almost certainly the the output level from the sun that regulates the temperature of the earth and any amount of gassing won’t have the desired effect when the levels of sunlight drops in the future.
“The Pacific Ocean will rise 20 cm over the next century”.
The Pacific Ocean will rise over 20 cm during the next earthquake.
Actually, we’re in an Ice Age, and are merely between Continental Glacial Advances.
If there was genuine, sustained Global Warming, we’d be returning to the condition of most of the planetary history. Pretty much, the swampy jungles typical of the Age of the Dinosaurs.
We evolved, as a species, for Ice Ages. . .
Which began in 1880.
So on an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, how much accuracy can you really infer?
I've always maintained that liberals must be young earth creationists, who think the world is 6000 years old.
Even in that scenario, 140 years out of 6000 ain't jack squat.
“The problem here with that idea is the negative feedback loop that occurs when increasing CO2 that reduces heat and CO2 retention. It’s called “plants grow faster and bigger with extra CO2”:”
Well I was theorizing with NO feedbacks, however even if Co2 caused little or no warming, with your negative feedback, we’d still then have crops that “grow faster and bigger”...
Looks like a win win either way!
Time to pour it (co2) on.
>Well I was theorizing with NO feedbacks, however even if Co2 caused little or no warming, with your negative feedback, we’d still then have crops that “grow faster and bigger”...
>Looks like a win win either way!
>Time to pour it (co2) on.
Yep. Nothing but good seems to come from CO2 increases. Which is why a lot of future farming will happen in cities due to the high CO2 content of the air combined with cheap LED lights. Just don’t expect to stop an ice age with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.