| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: (The IPCC downgrade their forecasts as a matter of course!) |
 |
|
| They water down everything so they can achieve consensus, which means it worse than they report right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hard to say. Clear that the impact is huge, and duration is long. Less clear how rapidly it will progress. Adaptation will cost trillions. Think of it as a tax paid to coal and oil companies and the current greedy by the future generations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last group of posts from techno ,Mac, and fred are great stuff guys.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: (The IPCC downgrade their forecasts as a matter of course!) |
|
|
| frederick23 wrote: | | They water down everything so they can achieve consensus ... |
What universal consensus has been reached? Please let us know so we can make some informed decisions about it. Al Gore screaming "CONSENSUS" doesn't make it so any more than do Obummer and Rice shouting "It was the video! It was the video" or "You can keep your plan and your doctor". Similarly, shouting "DENIER" or "hurricanes" or ""my back yard was hot today" proves nothing more than that the accuser is fresh out of relevant facts.
BTW, Frederick, I don't have to read what the left coasties are claiming about me or about what I've said about AGW. I can assure you, and the archives prove, that they're lying. It's what they do, and it's why they're killfiled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"BTW, Frederick, I don't have to read what the left coasties are claiming about me or about what I've said about AGW. I can assure you, and the archives prove, that they're lying. It's what they do, and it's why they're killfiled."
Maybe you can explain what being "killfiled" is all about, and what that means in your world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow. I knew the number was rising but that's a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, but if you pick just a few of the points, and draw a line through them, you can prove that global warming is a hoax. For $400 an hour. When biologists do that for developers, we call them biostitutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just for fairness, let's look at all of the testimony from January 16. Here's the head of EPA's:
| Quote: | WASHINGTON – Remarks of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy as prepared for delivery:
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
In June of last year, the President reaffirmed his commitment to reducing carbon pollution when he directed many federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare for the anticipated climate changes that have already been set in motion.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. Reducing carbon pollution is critically important to the protection of Americans’ health and the environment upon which our economy depends.
Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security, and environmental imperative that presents an economic challenge and an economic opportunity. As the President has stated, both the economy and the environment must provide for current and future generations, and we can and must embrace cutting carbon pollution as a spark for business innovation, job creation, clean energy and broad economic growth. The United States’ success over the past 40 years makes clear that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand.
The President’s Climate Action Plan directs federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change.
Cutting Carbon Pollution
EPA plays a critical role in implementing the Plan’s first pillar, cutting carbon pollution. Over the past four years, EPA has begun to address this task under the Clean Air Act.
Our first steps addressed motor vehicles, which annually emit nearly a third of U.S. carbon pollution. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with the auto industry and other stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for Model Year 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. Over the life of these vehicles, the standards will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and businesses and cut America’s oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons.
EPA’s and NHTSA’s standards for model year 2014 through 2018 heavy-duty trucks and buses present a similar success story. Under the President’s Plan, we will be developing a second phase of heavy-duty vehicle standards for post 2018 model years.
Building on this success, the President asked EPA to work with states, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power plants.
Power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. In March 2012, the EPA first proposed carbon pollution standards for future power plants. After receiving over 2.5 million comments, we determined to issue a new proposed rule based on this input and updated information.
In September 2013, the EPA announced its new proposal. The proposed standards would establish the first uniform national limits on carbon pollution from future power plants. They will not apply to existing power plants. The proposal sets separate national limits for new natural gas-fired turbines and new coal-fired units. New large natural gas-fired turbines would need to emit less than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to emit less than 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. New coal-fired units would need to emit less than 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Operators of these units could choose to have additional flexibility by averaging their emissions over multiple years to meet a somewhat tighter limit.
The standards reflect the demonstrated performance of efficient, lower carbon technologies that are currently being used today. They set the stage for continued public and private investment in technologies like efficient natural gas and carbon capture and storage. The proposal was recently published in the Federal Register on January 8, and the formal public comment period is now open. We look forward to robust engagement on the proposal and will carefully consider the comments and input we receive as a final rule is developed.
As noted, the proposed rule would apply only to future power plants. For existing plants, we are engaged in outreach to a broad group of stakeholders who can inform the development of proposed guidelines, which we expect to issue in June of this year. These guidelines will provide guidance to States, which have the primary role in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution from the existing plants in their states. We recognize that existing power plants require a distinct approach, and this framework will allow us to capitalize on state leadership and innovation while also accounting for regional diversity and providing flexibility.
The EPA’s stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rulemaking is extensive and vigorous. We held eleven public listening sessions around the country at EPA regional offices and our headquarters in Washington, DC. We have participated in numerous meetings with a broad range of stakeholders across the country. And all of this is happening well before we propose any guidelines. When we issue proposed guidelines in June, the more formal public process begins – including a public comment period and an opportunity for a public hearing – which will provide yet further opportunity for stakeholders and the general public to provide input.
Cutting Methane Emissions
The Climate Action Plan calls for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to address emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that also contributes to ozone pollution, but which has substantial economic value. EPA is working with other agencies to assess emissions data, address data gaps, and identify opportunities to reduce methane emissions through incentive-based programs and existing authorities.
Curbing Emissions of HFCs
The Plan also calls on the US to lead through international diplomacy as well as domestic action to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases whose emissions are otherwise expected to nearly triple by 2030. Moving forward, the EPA will use its authority under the Clean Air Act to encourage the investment, purchase, and use of climate-friendly alternatives.
Preparing for Impacts of Climate Change
Even as we work to avoid dangerous climate change, we must strengthen America’s resilience to climate impacts we’re already experiencing and those that can no longer be avoided. The President’s Plan calls for a broad array of actions on this front. EPA is incorporating research on climate impacts into the implementation of our existing programs and developing information and tools to help decision-makers – including State, local and tribal governments – to better understand and address these impacts. Further, EPA is working closely with our federal agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our national resilience, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies, protecting our water utilities, and protecting and restoring our natural resources in the face of a changing climate.
International Efforts
Our changing climate is also a global challenge, and the President’s Plan recognizes that the United States must couple action at home with leadership abroad. Working closely with the State Department, EPA continues to engage our international partners in reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities. These include public-private partnership efforts to address emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the Global Methane Initiative, as well as bilateral cooperation with major economies.
Conclusion
The President’s Plan provides a roadmap for federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate – promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth. EPA looks forward to working with other federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical efforts.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. |
Here is a link to the entirety of Judith Curry's 14 pages, not an excerpt sent out by conservative sources: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
Then there is the testimony of Andrew Dessler (graphics do not copy):
| Quote: | What we know about climate change
Andrew E. Dessler
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
My name is Andrew Dessler and I am a professor of atmospheric sciences at
Texas A&M University. I have been studying the atmosphere since 1988 and I
have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, including
studies of the cloud and water vapor feedbacks and climate sensitivity. In my
testimony, I will review what I think are the most important conclusions the
climate scientific community has reached in over two centuries of work.
Let me begin by describing some important points that we know with high
confidence — and how that has led me to personally conclude that climate
change is a clear and present danger.
1. The climate is warming.
By this I mean by this that we are presently in the midst of an overall increase in the temperature of the lower atmosphere and ocean spanning many decades.
This can be seen in Figure 1, which shows the global average surface
temperature, and Figure 2, which shows the heat content of the ocean (both
figures plot anomalies, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit). A mountain of
ancillary data supports these observations of warming: e.g., satellite
measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere, loss of ice on the
planet, observations of sea level rise.
Fig. 1. Global annual average temperature anomaly in °F; the gray line is the
annual average and the black line is a smoothed time series. Data are from
the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis [Hansen et al., 2010],
downloaded from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Other analyses show
nearly identical results.
2. Most of the recent warming is extremely likely due to emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activities.
This conclusion is based on several lines of evidence:
a. Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 400 parts per million today.
Methane levels have more than doubled over this period, and
chlorofluorocarbons did not exist in our atmosphere before humans.
b. The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and it predicts that the increase in greenhouse gases will warm the climate.
c. The actual amount of warming over the last century roughly matches
what is predicted by the standard model1
of climate. This is shown in Fig. 3.
d. Reconstructions of paleoclimate data over the last 60 million years
show that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide exert a strong control on the
climate system.
e. There is no alternative explanation for the recent warming other than an
enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.
1 Following particle physics and cosmology, I’ll refer to the mainstream theory of climate science as the standard model. A climate model is a single
computational realization of the physics embodied in this standard model. |
If you are actually interested in debate, you can read the full text of his comments here, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06
and all the witnesses, in written statements or web cast here:http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=e07101a7-0715-7690-b6e9-c39e56a3b468&Witness_ID=5c3d086e-a4df-4660-b157-977f08ec8691
There's a lot more than what Techno passed on in a selective part of Curry's testimony. Doesn't seem to me that anyone with any credibility is saying climate isn't changing. Just questions about the rate. if the actual rate of warming over the last century is 0.8 degrees rather than 1.2 degrees, that would be great news indeed. But it doesn't make this not a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I note that the claim of the Pulkovo Observatory, namely that global warming has occurred IN PARALLEL on both Earth and Mars, (Mars having negligible CO2 greenhouse gasses, or active geology, indicating that solar cycle activity on both planets is the single most dominant cause), has not been addressed! Why? Is the research wrong, or an inconvenient fact?
And please, stop insisting that some of us 'deniers' have always disputed that warming has taken place. It is the cause (natural cyclic, or human) which we question! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
