E.P.A. Scrubs a Climate Website of ‘Climate Change’

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

        Interesting how you posted the chart but left out the rest of the analysis.

   

Yeah... except I didn’t post the chart.  I just quoted the person who did.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

13 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

CO2, CH4, H2O, solar effects, oceanic cycles, etc.  How has CO2, which is a fairly weak GHG compared to others become the cause dejure of the MDL as the major forcing factor of man made global warming?  I realize the MDL is against Big Oil and stuff, so this whole thing seems like a political tactic.

2

 

CO2, CH4 < primarily man-made, solid proof of impact

 

H2O, solar effects, oceanic cycles, etc.  < not caused by man little or no proof of impact

 

How has CO2, which is a fairly weak GHG compared to others < where is this evidence? More models that you have whipped up?

 

 

become the cause dejure of the MDL < de jour to correct your French. 

as the major forcing factor of man made global warming?  <this comes from science, not politics

I realize the MDL is against Big Oil and stuff, so this whole thing seems like a political tactic. < seems in your subjective view, that's fine. In reality, the issue has enjoyed support from Republicans until recently.  Why the shift?

 

 

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

        Interesting how you posted the chart but left out the rest of the analysis.

   

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? Link to this page What the science says... Select a level...  Basic    Intermediate    Advanced     Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect. Climate Myth... It's cosmic rays "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then."  (Henrik Svensmark)

 

that was my doing

Edited October 26, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce

[Dashinka 24,797]

4 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

 

CO2, CH4 < primarily man-made, solid proof of impact

 

H2O, solar effects, oceanic cycles, etc.  < not caused by man little or no proof of impact

 

How has CO2, which is a fairly weak GHG compared to others < where is this evidence? More models that you have whipped up?

 

 

become the cause dejure of the MDL < de jour to correct your French. 

as the major forcing factor of man made global warming?  <this comes from science, not politics

I realize the MDL is against Big Oil and stuff, so this whole thing seems like a political tactic. < seems in your subjective view, that's fine. In reality, the issue has enjoyed support from Republicans until recently.  Why the shift?

 

 

that was my doing

I don’t build the models, I only use and critique the models made by the vaunted climate “scientitist”.  Still haven’t found one that is all encompassing, or doesn’t use brash assumptions which appear to come to the conclusion they want.  Btw, it is interesting how those that claim this is all manmade conviently ignore the natural factors such as solar, or oceanic cycles which are the primary drivers of our environment.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

 

1) CO2, CH4 < primarily man-made, solid proof of impact

 

2) H2O, solar effects, oceanic cycles, etc.  < not caused by man little or no proof of impact

 

3) How has CO2, which is a fairly weak GHG compared to others < where is this evidence? More models that you have whipped up?

 

 

 

4) as the major forcing factor of man made global warming?  <this comes from science, not politics

 

1) CO2 is far from primarily man made.  The real issue with man made CO2 is the lack of absorption.  Even with our relatively small amounts produced, we don’t do much (if anything) to eliminate CO2, so the natural balance is slowly going out of whack.  

 

2) No proof of impact???  What do you reckon caused the last few ice ages, when you and your family were not around?

 

3) CO2 is an insulator gas.  Keeps the heat in our atmosphere, right?  But what’s to say it’s not also keeping heat OUT at the same time? What if the CO2 levels were lower, but due to solar activity, our temps would actually be higher?  No way to really know for sure, but the possibility exists.

 

4) I say it’s both.  There are those here on earth who care not one little bit about the state of our planet, but care quite a bit about politicizing it and making money out of it.  At the same time, there are people who actually care about the state of our planet. 

 

But what to do about it?  Do you think anyone in the US (or the rest of the world, minus a handful of countries) will stop driving cars, or buses, or flying planes, in order to reduce emissions?  Think any country is willing to shut down their factories that create jobs, and manufacture “stuff” that we need and that generates a monetary profit, all in the interest of the planet?  I have my doubts.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Interesting, your pic shows an advanced tab, but when I go to the site, I only see basic and intermediate.

 

Also, from your site above:

“Firstly, it is not representative of the actual processes going but only shows a snapshot in time. 
Secondly, there is no CO2 balance in biomass input/output: CO2 is constantly being locked up/ released at varying rates so there is no dynamic equilibrium.
In (geologically)ancient times CO2 concentrations were as high as 6000ppm...for a long time high enough to preclude oxygen breathers evolving...until sufficent CO2was locked up by plant life ( the oceans would have been more or less saturated) and O2 levels raised by algae and cyanobacteria.
There is no balance! Check out the Oxygen Cycle.”

 

 

Very astute observations.

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don’t build the models, I only use and critique the models made by the vaunted climate “scientitist”.  Still haven’t found one that is all encompassing, or doesn’t use brash assumptions which appear to come to the conclusion they want.  Btw, it is interesting how those that claim this is all manmade conviently ignore the natural factors such as solar, or oceanic cycles which are the primary drivers of our environment.

They have not been ignored, they are just not the primary drivers.

[Póg mo 1,749]

33 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 

3) CO2 is an insulator gas.  Keeps the heat in our atmosphere, right?  But what’s to say it’s not also keeping heat OUT at the same time? What if the CO2 levels were lower, but due to solar activity, our temps would actually be higher?  No way to really know for sure, but the possibility exists.

 

 

You mean like in a glass house?

[Póg mo 1,749]

Meanwhile over at NASA:https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Edited October 26, 2017 by Póg mo

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

1) CO2 is far from primarily man made.  The real issue with man made CO2 is the lack of absorption.  Even with our relatively small amounts produced, we don’t do much (if anything) to eliminate CO2, so the natural balance is slowly going out of whack.  

 

2) No proof of impact???  What do you reckon caused the last few ice ages, when you and your family were not around?

 

3) CO2 is an insulator gas.  Keeps the heat in our atmosphere, right?  But what’s to say it’s not also keeping heat OUT at the same time? What if the CO2 levels were lower, but due to solar activity, our temps would actually be higher?  No way to really know for sure, but the possibility exists.

 

4) I say it’s both.  There are those here on earth who care not one little bit about the state of our planet, but care quite a bit about politicizing it and making money out of it.  At the same time, there are people who actually care about the state of our planet. 

 

But what to do about it?  Do you think anyone in the US (or the rest of the world, minus a handful of countries) will stop driving cars, or buses, or flying planes, in order to reduce emissions?  Think any country is willing to shut down their factories that create jobs, and manufacture “stuff” that we need and that generates a monetary profit, all in the interest of the planet?  I have my doubts.

 

 

     Basic science say's so. CO2 blocks light mainly in the infrared spectrum. Most of the suns energy is in the visible range. Much of the absorbed energy reflected or radiated by the earth is in the infrared spectrum.   That is why CO2 is called a "greenhouse" gas. All greenhouse gasses will exhibit this effect of absorbing energy. The good thing is, life as we know it actually depends on this. The bad thing is more does not necessarily equal better.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

     Basic science say's so. CO2 blocks light mainly in the infrared spectrum. Most of the suns energy is in the visible range. Much of the absorbed energy reflected or radiated by the earth is in the infrared spectrum.   That is why CO2 is called a "greenhouse" gas. All greenhouse gasses will exhibit this effect of absorbing energy. The good thing is, life as we know it actually depends on this. The bad thing is more does not necessarily equal better.  

Good explanation, thanks for that.

[Dashinka 24,797]

17 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

     Basic science say's so. CO2 blocks light mainly in the infrared spectrum. Most of the suns energy is in the visible range. Much of the absorbed energy reflected or radiated by the earth is in the infrared spectrum.   That is why CO2 is called a "greenhouse" gas. All greenhouse gasses will exhibit this effect of absorbing energy. The good thing is, life as we know it actually depends on this. The bad thing is more does not necessarily equal better.  

It might be better if one is vegetation.  But seriously, I am not sure anyone is arguing the scientific nature of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is not the worst actor out there in terms of the greenhouse effect.

 

https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases

Edited October 27, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It might be better if one is vegetation.  But seriously, I am not sure anyone is arguing the scientific nature of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is not the worst actor out there in terms of the greenhouse effect.

 

https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases

 

    Yes, currently CO2 is only the second largest contributor as far as greenhouse gasses go, which is still rather significant. Water vapor and the positive feedback loop we have discussed previously, IIRC.