US Politics Mega-thread - Page 853

On February 06 2014 09:33 oneofthem wrote:
you are not aware of much then. most sources indicate a sizeable increase in the intensity of extreme temperature events.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

a collection

but then maybe you read le national review and don't believe no climate science

On February 06 2014 09:38 Introvert wrote:


I was talking about hard statistics on increasingly frequent "extreme" whether, not a bunch of predictions.

On February 06 2014 10:21 Roe wrote:


The whole point of statistics in science is to make predictions...

there are a bunch of studies with figures between 20-40% increased effect of extreme weather effects from a range of past time periods. all you have is 'i am aware' or 'i think' which is not very persuasive

None of the actual competent people propose economic suicide; hating the idea because of a few of the extreme idiots in it isn't a good system.

On February 06 2014 11:13 Jormundr wrote:
Let's go back to the basics here.

Introvert, Danglars, do you agree that
1. Our CO2 output has increased monumentally in the past 200 years
2. CO2 is mainly stored in the air, the ocean, and plants (namely trees).
3. We killed off about half of our forests in the same 200 years.

If you do, then can you agree that
1. We can't keep p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ creating more CO2 than can be sequestered indefinitely, or t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶y̶ our lungs will fail.
2. Changes in atmospheric composition are likely to affect both climate and weather.

On February 06 2014 10:56 Danglars wrote:
Every alarmist goes by name of scientist in some field, and most scientists with the most dire of predictions would deny being an alarmist. It's not so easy. I wish the IPCC was what it claimed to be. It's increasingly issuing laughable reports.
I laughed. This is exactly what is proposed time and time again. If only angels would issue placards saying "Climate Alarmist" and "Concerned Scientist" alongside "Competent Solution Proposer" and "Incompetent Solution Proposer." Am I right?

On February 06 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:




But that's not what I was asking for. Someone made the statement along the lines of "climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events."


I want the hard data, not future predictions. Are extreme weather events actually happening more often? How reliably do we know this? So far as I'm aware, that claim is false.

And increased effects, compared to past times? You mean they are comparing bad weather now to some event they know about from the past? That seems guesswork at best. Still doesn't contain the answer to the question I'm asking.

On February 06 2014 11:41 oneofthem wrote:

if you actually read the abstract for the studies linked you'll see that they are indeed actually happened trends.

and you've basically gone full young earth with the "seems guesswork at best." pls

On February 06 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:




But that's not what I was asking for. Someone made the statement along the lines of "climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events."


I want the hard data, not future predictions. Are extreme weather events actually happening more often? How reliably do we know this? So far as I'm aware, that claim is false.

And increased effects, compared to past times? You mean they are comparing bad weather now to some event they know about from the past? That seems guesswork at best. Still doesn't contain the answer to the question I'm asking.

On February 06 2014 10:32 xDaunt wrote:

What does make sense, however, is spending resources to prepare for the effects of climate change. That's where I would focus our efforts.

On February 06 2014 11:28 Introvert wrote:


Let's not get too simple.

We'll take your first set of statements, but...

I'll ignore things like details on exactly how much CO2 we have in comparison to the rest of the gasses in the atmosphere (tiny). Also, aren't there also more trees (at least in America) than there was in 1800? I'll have to find that stat too. And finally, a minor quibble. Trees don't store CO2, they actively convert it back to Oxygen. It's not like killing all the tress releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere, just whatever CO2 the tree happens to be converting into carbs (IIRC). It's the Oceans that appear to be storing much of it, which is something scientists just recently figured out (once again making me very hesitant to invest billions into fixing the problem when it's not even understood. They missed the OCEAN.)

So, sure, we have certainly been "harvesting" the land for some time now.


For the latter set, I agree that there could be a point where it could be too much. I'm just not convinced that we've reached it. The earth has an amazing set of equalizing mechanisms. Now, these things COULD affect weather and climate, but I've yet to see solid evidence of it. Is it actually changing certain ecosystems? Seems like it's a distinct possibility (again, not my area of study), but weather? haven't seen it. Which is really what I was asking about.

Can someone reliably verify that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency? Are we sure it's due to Climate Change?

On February 06 2014 12:46 Jormundr wrote:

In response:
That's a good thing to ignore, as it has little relevance to the discussion. There are less trees. Even if forests increased in size during this period (they didn't), we're talking about CO2's effect on the atmosphere, which is a global force, not a regional one. Trees are definitely carbon sinks. Burning trees does in fact release CO2 (wood combustion). However cutting trees down for building materials and re-planting the trees increases the size of the carbon sink. The first wikipedia source on oceanic carbon sequestration that I clicked on was published in 1995. Doesn't seem very recent. Most of the things I've read suggest that 30-40% of CO2 ends up sequestered in the ocean, mostly through acidification.

The idea is that we don't want to reach that point. If the increase in CO2 output keeps accelerating, then we WILL reach a point where it is bad for us. The earth does have equalizing mechanisms. We've halved one of them (forests) resulting in a larger strain on the other two (oceans and air). Climate is changing. The temperature changes we've witnessed in the past 50 years are either indicative of an impending ice age or carbon dioxide trapping heat on the surface of the earth. This doesn't look like previous ice ages. Weather is not useful in this discussion especially not in the moronic "It's pretty hot over here, must be global warming" or "Feels pretty cold right about now, this global warming thing is bullshit" fashion that we see so much of. If a person made weather observations outside of their house hourly every day for 20 years, they would still not have enough data to draw a valid conclusion. Hence why it's called global warming, not regional warming. For ecosystems, greenland, Antarctica are pretty obvious examples.

On February 06 2014 12:46 Jormundr wrote:

In response:
That's a good thing to ignore, as it has little relevance to the discussion. There are less trees. Even if forests increased in size during this period (they didn't), we're talking about CO2's effect on the atmosphere, which is a global force, not a regional one. Trees are definitely carbon sinks. Burning trees does in fact release CO2 (wood combustion). However cutting trees down for building materials and re-planting the trees increases the size of the carbon sink. The first wikipedia source on oceanic carbon sequestration that I clicked on was published in 1995. Doesn't seem very recent. Most of the things I've read suggest that 30-40% of CO2 ends up sequestered in the ocean, mostly through acidification.

The idea is that we don't want to reach that point. If the increase in CO2 output keeps accelerating, then we WILL reach a point where it is bad for us. The earth does have equalizing mechanisms. We've halved one of them (forests) resulting in a larger strain on the other two (oceans and air). Climate is changing. The temperature changes we've witnessed in the past 50 years are either indicative of an impending ice age or carbon dioxide trapping heat on the surface of the earth. This doesn't look like previous ice ages. Weather is not useful in this discussion especially not in the moronic "It's pretty hot over here, must be global warming" or "Feels pretty cold right about now, this global warming thing is bullshit" fashion that we see so much of. If a person made weather observations outside of their house hourly every day for 20 years, they would still not have enough data to draw a valid conclusion. Hence why it's called global warming, not regional warming. For ecosystems, greenland, Antarctica are pretty obvious examples.

Note I'm not advocating any specific policy changes. I'm just violently opposed to the idiocy known as climate change denial. This field only exists because a propaganda war is financially worth it to prevent the cost of CO2 production from being included in production expenses (specifically in china). Note that this movement has NOTHING to do with scientific skepticism.
Also really irked that this is the conservative position. I mean really? Isn't that supposed to be the side of the spectrum that DOESN'T want things to change?
"We want to breath the same air we've always breathed! We want good, natural air, without any of these ungodly chimicals innit!"

WASHINGTON – Between 50,000 and 82,000 tons of coal ash flowed into North Carolina's Dan River on Sunday, prompting renewed calls for long-delayed federal rules on the disposal of coal waste.

The ash and water mixture spilled when a stormwater pipe broke at Duke Energy's Dan River Steam Station, a plant that is no longer in operation in Rockingham County, N.C. Duke estimated the amount spilled in a statement on Tuesday.

Coal ash is the residual when coal is burned to create power. It is often doused with water and left in containment ponds, but the slurry can contain potentially toxic elements like arsenic, mercury and lead. There are 676 slurry containment units at 240 facilities in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Forty-five of those units are considered "high hazard" -- as in, more likely to fail -- including two of Duke's Dan River containment ponds.

The spill happened just days after the EPA reached an agreement to release final rules for the disposal of coal ash. The agency has been working on the regulations for more than four years, and now plans to release them by Dec. 19, 2014. Environmental groups, represented by the nonprofit law organization Earthjustice, sued the EPA over the delayed rules, and a judge directed the agency to come up with a timeline for finalizing them.

One of the Obama EPA's earliest promises was to issue coal ash rules. In December 2008 -- just before Obama took office -- an earthen dike burst at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tenn., and released 1.1 billion gallons of coal slurry that damaged homes, and flowed into nearby streams and ponds. In her confirmation hearing a few weeks later, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said that the agency would assess new federal regulations on the waste; right now, rules are issued only at the state level.

In October 2009, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would have declared coal ash a hazardous waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, requiring special handling and disposal of the ash. The EPA sent the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget and, when it came back months later, instead of one rule, there were two potential new rules opened to public comment. The second option was more lenient, and would still leave enforcement up to the states.

But since then, the EPA has not moved forward on either rule. This prompted the lawsuit and the agreement released last week, that the agency would issue final rules by the end of 2014.