Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

How banning dangerous chemicals could save the US billions

Banning dangerous chemicals could save the US billions | Leonardo Trasande

Trump administration has argued that environmental regulations hold back economic productivity. Yet history suggests that the opposite is the case.

Look at phasing out lead in gasoline. To this day, the US receives a $200bn annual economic stimulus package each year because lead levels in children plummeted when the US Environmental Protection Agency moved to protect children.

We’re talking not just about chemicals in cosmetics, but also in food packaging, aluminum cans, agriculture, electronics, carpeting and furniture. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) are recognized as a major public health threat by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

But what’s not recognized is that these chemicals cost the US $340bn each year, according to research I was part of, published in the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal.

 

[mspohr]

The Earth’s climate is paying for our addiction to plastic

The climate costs of a plastic planet | Carroll Muffett

A recent report by the Center for International Environmental Law and partners shows that plastic’s rapidly rising emissions put these critical goals at risk. In 2019, plastic production and incineration will add over 850m metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere – equivalent to the emissions from 189 coal-fired power plants. By 2050, these emissions could rise to 2.8bn metric tons, equivalent to 615 new coal plants.

Why are these emissions growing so rapidly? Because plastics are made almost entirely from fossil fuels. Natural gas, oil and coal account for 99% of what goes into plastic. Thus, plastic’s climate impacts begin not in the oceans, but at the wellheads and drillpads where plastic is born.

 

[mspohr]

G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis

G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis
G20 countries have almost tripled the subsidies they give to coal-fired power plants in recent years, despite the urgent need to cut the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis.

 

[ggies07]

G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis

G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis
G20 countries have almost tripled the subsidies they give to coal-fired power plants in recent years, despite the urgent need to cut the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis.

 

[Mader Levap]

Taken from investor's general thread.

You just made his point.

There is about as much "debate" about climate change with GW denialists as about evolution with creationists.

Serious debate about evolution among scientists ended long, long, very long ago. Currently we explore ramifications, play with DNA, try to create artificial species etc. Evolution itself is considered proven and as obvious fact as 2+2=4. Some people don't like that for various, mainly religious reasons. Though luck.

Sam thing with climate change - serious debate ended decades ago, now there is discussion about future, possible scenarios and severity, based on decades of measurements and models. Climate change itself is considered proven and as obvious fact as 2+2=4. Some people don't like that for various, mainly ideological reasons. Though luck.

TL;DR: Manufacturing controversy is not debate.

 

[Swampgator]

Taken from investor's general thread.


There is about as much "debate" about climate change with GW denialists as about evolution with creationists.

Serious debate about evolution among scientists ended long, long, very long ago. Currently we explore ramifications, play with DNA, try to create artificial species etc. Evolution itself is considered proven and as obvious fact as 2+2=4. Some people don't like that for various, mainly religious reasons. Though luck.

Sam thing with climate change - serious debate ended decades ago, now there is discussion about future, possible scenarios and severity, based on decades of measurements and models. Climate change itself is considered proven and as obvious fact as 2+2=4. Some people don't like that for various, mainly ideological reasons. Though luck.

TL;DR: Manufacturing controversy is not debate.

This should move off topic. But before we go, there a a LOT of serious scientists who debate much about AGW theories. I read their papers weekly.
ECS for example is only estimated by lots of authors. If is not known with almost certainty like the gravitation contact. Do you know what ECS is? Does it's value matter for this subject? Can you explain why we have plunged into Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today? Did you even know that for the majority of the 4+ billion years the Earth has been around, CO2 levels were higher than present day? This is what the poster was eluding too. Just dismissing and name calling is not productive, even though you believe with religious certainly you are correct.

 

[S'toon]

This should move off topic. But before we go, there a a LOT of serious scientists who debate much about AGW theories. I read their papers weekly.
ECS for example is only estimated by lots of authors. If is not known with almost certainty like the gravitation contact. Do you know what ECS is? Does it's value matter for this subject? Can you explain why we have plunged into Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today? Did you even know that for the majority of the 4+ billion years the Earth has been around, CO2 levels were higher than present day? This is what the poster was eluding too. Just dismissing and name calling is not productive, even though you believe with religious certainly you are correct.

Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[Mader Levap]

This should move off topic.

What offtopic? Title of this thread is "Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion". This is why I answered here, not on thread where your comment originated.

But before we go, there a a LOT of serious scientists who debate much about AGW theories.

"Debate"? How nice, vague, insinuating word.

ECS for example is only estimated by lots of authors. If is not known with almost certainty like the gravitation contact.

Oh, "our knowledge is not perfect, therefore climate change is false" argument. Can you guess how impressed I am?

Can you explain why we have plunged into Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today?

Source? I know there were ice ages in past and there were significantly higher CO2 levels in past. Do you have source that both things happened simultaneously at some time?

Did you even know that for the majority of the 4+ billion years the Earth has been around, CO2 levels were higher than present day?

Of course I know that. Why you are even saying that? I can only conclude that you are implying that since Earth in past had different - including higher - levels of CO2, therefore it is impossible that currently rising CO2 levels are caused by human activity. This is obviously nonsense.

Just dismissing and name calling is not productive, even though you believe with religious certainly you are correct.

Projecting much?

 

[Dr. J]

Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today

Here's one answer: Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

 

[nwdiver]

I read their papers weekly.

The same ~24 papers every week? Seems tedious. What's the alternative hypothesis????

 

[Brando]

24 was all the Koch Brothers could afford to buy off.

 

[SR22pilot]

This should move off topic. But before we go, there a a LOT of serious scientists who debate much about AGW theories. I read their papers weekly.
ECS for example is only estimated by lots of authors. If is not known with almost certainty like the gravitation contact. Do you know what ECS is? Does it's value matter for this subject? Can you explain why we have plunged into Ice ages in the past when CO2 levels were 5X higher than today? Did you even know that for the majority of the 4+ billion years the Earth has been around, CO2 levels were higher than present day? This is what the poster was eluding too. Just dismissing and name calling is not productive, even though you believe with religious certainly you are correct.

Yes I know all of that. Do you really think climate scientists don’t? Do you think they haven’t look at that? When CO2 was in the 3000 to 4000 range the sun was dimmer. The high CO2 kept the planet warm so, if you know how to turn down solar output then let the scientists know. The scientists also understand the ice ages and why CO2 lags global temperatures throughout those swings.

 

[Brando]

Here's one answer: Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The Ordovician Period lasted almost 45 million years, beginning 488.3 million years ago and ending 443.7 million years ago.* During this period, the area north of the tropics was almost entirely ocean, and most of the world's land was collected into the southern supercontinent Gondwana.

450 million years ago?? The Ordovician Period
I don't think we know IF there were any land based plants or animals yet.

From the Lower to Middle Ordovician, the Earth experienced a milder climate — the weather was warm and the atmosphere contained a lot of moisture. However, when Gondwana finally settled on the South Pole during the Upper Ordovician, massive glaciers formed, causing shallow seas to drain and sea levels to drop. This likely caused the mass extinctions that characterize the end of the Ordovician in which 60% of all marine invertebrate genera and 25% of all families went extinct.

 

[SageBrush]

Source? I know there were ice ages in past and there were significantly higher CO2 levels in past. Do you have source that both things happened simultaneously at some time?

It should not surprise you. CO2 is but one of a host of forcings. Through Earth history solar radiation has varied a lot, as has the overall greenhouse effect.

@Swampgator is trying to sound informed but he obviously lacks understanding of basic concepts.

 

[Swampgator]

It should not surprise you. CO2 is but one of a host of forcings. Through Earth history solar radiation has varied a lot, as has the overall greenhouse effect.

@Swampgator is trying to sound informed but he obviously lacks understanding of basic concepts.

Oh really? Since you understand the "basic" concepts, what is the ideal level of Co2? What is the ECS value? Has the current warming exceeded past warm periods? Has it been proven to be man made? Even IPCC is not 100% sure. They are 51% sure. Sounds like a coin toss.

I fully understand that CO2 in the absence of any feedbacks causes some warming by radiating IR back to the surface. That is basic physics. What we don't understand is the complex system of feedbacks in the climatic system. We understand SOME of them. But not all. And those feedbacks matter.
Do you understand the AMO, the PDO, the effects of solar insolation, the earths eccentricity, precession, etc that are described by the Milancovitch cycle?
Can we even measure a global mean temperature with any precision? Have you looked at UAH data? Hadcrut? Do you understand the limitations of those datasets?

I sure don't. And most climate scientists don't fully understand them either.
What I do know is that the climate change hysteria is overblown.

 

[Swampgator]

The same ~24 papers every week? Seems tedious. What's the alternative hypothesis????

I don't know where you got that stupid graph. The alternative hypothesis for what? That the earth is warming? Nobody debates that. The earth has cooled and warmed in regular cycles throughout it's history. Duh.
The question is the current warming unusual in a historical context. The answer to that is NO.
Another question: Is the current warming caused by increases in CO2. The answer to that is maybe. Even IPCC says so. You do realize that warming itself raises the CO2 level as per Henry's law? Another question is has manmade activity (burning fossil fuels) been the sole reason for the increase in CO2. That answer is no. But, man has been responsible for some of the increase, there is no doubt about that. Argument from consensus is a weak way to argue a point. Usually bullies use that tactic. Guys like Micheal Mann. Real scientists always know that consensus is not a part of the scientific method.

 

[Swampgator]

Here's one answer: Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

Please check your sources. That website is run by climate alarmists. Should I quote to you excepts from Watts up with that? That would be the equivalent and you would reject it.

 

[JRP3]

What I do know is that the climate change hysteria is overblown.

Actually you don't know that. That's the main point, we're running an uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere. Not a good idea.

 

[jerry33]

Please check your sources. That website is run by climate alarmists. Should I quote to you excepts from Watts up with that? That would be the equivalent and you would reject it.

The issue with this chart is the timescale and that CO2 is not the only factor in earth's temperature. It's way too coarse for what happened over the past 150 years.

The validity of science is in repeatability. When there are many independent studies--particularly from independent governments and political organizations (WHO for example) that don't get along with each other all that well--and they all get the same results, it's not bullying by consensus, it's validation.

 

[SageBrush]

Another question: Is the current warming caused by increases in CO2. The answer to that is maybe. Even IPCC says so.

Quote IPCC here -- or are you just playing a game since under 100% certainty is 'maybe' ?