U.S. Officially Rejoins Paris Climate Agreement
Now that the U.S. is back Mother Nature will definitely stop changing the climate!
America officially rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, which means more trips for John Kerry on his private jet to Europe.
America has so much catching up to do because Lord knows she polluted Earth too much during President Donald Trump’s administration:
Starting Friday, the U.S. is back in the deal but with plenty of catching up to do to meet its emissions-cutting commitments and restore its diminished standing on the world stage.
U.S. emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases plunged last year, but that was an anomaly owing to the coronavirus pandemic, which put the brakes on large segments of the economy. As the country rebounds, emissions are expected to rise once again, and President Joe Biden’s administration is racing to find ways to put the U.S. on track to meet even more ambitious targets that scientists say are needed to avert the worst effects of global warming.
That’s especially true when it comes to building back U.S. credibility to persuade China, by far the world’s largest emitter, to move faster.
“We have to show we are not just talking the talk but walking the walk,” said Todd Stern, the lead U.S. negotiator for the Obama administration on the 2015 climate agreement. “Our capacity to be impactful will start at home. Everybody understands the United States has got to get a really revved-up effort.”
If you didn’t click on the linked article I’ll tell you it’s from NBC News. It’s not an opinion piece, but man, Josh Lederman’s lovefest with the climates makes one think it is an opinion piece!
World leaders are so happy to have us back in line with them, but according to Paris accord author Laurence Tubiana, this is no time to celebrate.
“The climate crisis is deepening, and this is the year we need all major polluters to step up and deliver strong plans to deliver a safe, clean and prosperous future for everyone,” Tubiana declared.
Did Tubiana just criticize America? Probably because America is the cause of all problems, of course.
Oh, it’s going to be a glorious Friday as the leaders mark this historic day while preparing for trips all around the world as they shame us little people who throw an aluminum can in the garbage:
The Biden administration is reentering the agreement with plenty of pomp. On Friday, John F. Kerry, Biden’s special climate envoy, will join the Italian and British ambassadors to discuss ways of working together. And the White House is planning to host a broader summit of presidents and prime ministers on April 22 to mark Earth Day.
All of that is prelude to a U.N. climate conference in Scotland in November, where world leaders will be expected to arrive with more ambitious climate pledges. Existing commitments to cut emissions are, according to many estimates, woefully inadequate to forestall dangerous warming that is already evident around the world in the form of wildfires, drought, melting glaciers, loss of species, coastal flooding and other extreme weather.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Don Quixote, call your office.
Doesn’t Don Quixote ride an ass?
Maybe that could be the updated symbol for the Democrat party, Don Quixote sitting on his ass.
Brave Sir Robbin: Doesn’t Don Quixote ride an ass?
No. Don Quixote rode a broken-down horse named Rocinante. His squire, Sancho Panza, did ride a donkey.
Another great boondoggle to make the Biden, Pelosi and Kerry families richer, through kickbacks in the form of consulting fees to siblings and children.
With a kickback, of course, to the principal actors!
A Treaty that doesn’t need to be approved by Congress and the states.
Fixed that for you. The states have nothing to do with international treaties and have no choice in the matter. They are expected to STFU and do as they’re told.
Well, they originally had a say in the matter through their ability to determine their own Senators.
Then the states gave that say away when they agreed to allow the citizens to vote for their Senators instead of the legislature(s) simply appointing them.
Put the reigns of government into the hands of the ignorant voters. Worst decision the states ever made.
No, they didn’t. They elected senators for six year terms, just as they do now, and had no say in what those senators did. If they didn’t like a senator’s performance their only option was to wait for his term to end and vote for someone else to replace him.
If that’s called having a say, then we still have that. The only thing that has changed is who in a state votes in those six-yearly elections. It used to be only the members of the state legislature, now it’s all the state’s citizens.
As Lucifer said, the states have no role in approving treaties. But it’s irrelevant because this isn’t a treaty, it’s just an agreement. It’s not binding on anyone, and it certainly doesn’t have the force of law in the USA.
In the USA a treaty is a law, ranking equal with a statute passed by both houses and signed by the president. This is not a law, and if it required the president to do something he didn’t have the authority to do he would not be able to comply. The reason these informal agreements are lawful is that they only require those things that the president can do anyway. So he can choose to agree with foreign leaders that he will do them.
The same applied to 0bama’s Iran deal. The only reason it was valid was because he had the authority to do everything it required of him. The only way to block the deal was for the congress to pass a law repealing the president’s authority to waive the Iran sanctions, and to do that over his objection would need 2/3 of each house. The deal’s opponents tried hard to get those numbers, but too many Democrats caved in to 0bama’s pressure and voted against restricting his authority.
Yes, they are enriching themselves but the sad part is I think they actually believe this crap too.
Trump and McConnell should have called BS on the Paris accords and submitted the “treaty” to the Senate for ratification. We’d be better positioned to find politicians in robes to overturn this policy nightmare if the Senate had resoundingly rejected it. I note that Obama didn’t treat it as a treaty because he well knew that it wouldn’t be ratified and many of his henchmen in the Senate would have had to justify their vote for higher energy prices to their constituents. Like Casey Stengel used to say about the Mets–can’t anyone here play this game?
That is nonsense. There is no difference between 66 senators voting to consent to a treaty, and no senators at all doing so, which is currently the case. Either way the senate hasn’t consented so it isn’t a treaty. Bringing it up and voting it down wouldn’t change that, and wouldn’t give a court any grounds for overturning it. Its validity comes simply from the fact that the president has the authority to do everything it requires of him, and he chooses to do so. He can change his mind at any time. And he can’t do anything that exceeds the authority the congress has given him.
“Nonsense” seems a little strong. I don’t purport to be an expert on executive power, but I seem to recall from law school that in Youngstown Steel the Supreme Court put some bounds on the use of executive power. If I recall correctly, executive power is strongest when it complies with express legislative empowerment and weakest when it contradicts clear legislative intent. Absent some vote in the legislature, the Paris Accords fall somewhere in the middle and the courts would need to decide whether the use of executive or emergency powers was authorized. I believe that Youngstown Steel is still good law. The issue would be whether executive actions taken by Biden exceeded his authority under the Constitution and an outright rejection of the Paris Accords by the Senate would make the case stronger that he was acting in a manner explicitly rejected by the legislature.
It is nonsense. Youngstown is completely irrelevant. The president’s authority to do what he needs to to carry out these agreements comes from congress. If the agreement requires him to do something he has no authority to do, then he cannot do it, plain and simple.
The senate refusing to consent to a treaty would not change that at all. (1) The senate is not the legislature. (2) Failing to get 2/3 to consent to a treaty does not even mean the senate is against it. And (3) Withdrawing the president’s authority to do those things, like any change in the law that the president opposes, would need 2/3 of each house; anything less than that and the law stays the same, which means the president retains the authority congress gave him. No court could rule otherwise, and certainly no court would do so.
“U.S. emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases plunged last year, but that was an anomaly owing to the coronavirus pandemic, which put the brakes on large segments of the economy.”
This gross distortion is what we call a lie. “Greenhouse gas” emissions in the US have been decreasing on an absolute basis since the year 2005 (15 years years folks) and on a per capita basis since 1973 (48 years). On a per capita basis, CO2 emissions in the US are down almost 50% since 1973 and 14% in absolute terms since 2005.
But were in an existential climate crisis folks, and we all must give up our freedoms to our cultural and corporatist elite overlords who must travel and gather in all the nice places on the planet while we deplorable smelly serfs must eat bugs, fake meat, and shiver in the cold to save the planet. An if you disagree, you get cancelled. And if you still resist….
Do the Earth a favor and save your overlords some effort. Check your white supremist, homophobic, racist, terrorist – insurrectionist privilege and die already.
Those figures are misleading. Whilst some progress has been made in terms of reduction since the US has the largest economy it therefore pollutes the most in general terms. This means that the overall reduction needs to be more relative to other nations. Further the overall climate system wont care about the stats it will respond to the physics ie the level of greenhouse emissions present in the atmosphere thus ensuring that changes in the underlying climate systems is pretty important to ensure that no negative changes occur.
“Those figures are misleading.”
They are not misleading. They are called facts. The article in the post stated a reduction in CO2 emissions in 2020 was an “anomaly.” This is incorrect – a lie. The US is a leader in the reduction of the emission of Co2. That’s a fact, and not misleading in the least.
“Whilst some progress has been made in terms of reduction since the US has the largest economy it therefore pollutes the most in general terms.”
CO2 is essential for life on earth. Atmospheric CO2 has declined 90% over the last 150 million years. Plants today are relatively starved for CO2. The optimal CO2 concentration for plant growth is 4 to 5 times higher than current levels. If the rate of decrease in atmospheric CO2 continues from its postulated levels from 150 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels will drop below 150 parts per million in 2 million years, ending all life on earth. A warm atmosphere is necessary for biodiversity and bio-density. Cold weather causes a decline in both. The existential climate threat that is being used to control human life and activity amounts to a 3 inch rise in sea levels over the next 25 years, if the estimates prove accurate, which they have not. There is no climate crisis.
Thank God for increasing CO2 levels.
“This means that the overall reduction needs to be more relative to other nations. Further the overall climate system wont care about the stats it will respond to the physics ie the level of greenhouse emissions present in the atmosphere thus ensuring that changes in the underlying climate systems is pretty important to ensure that no negative changes occur.”
The hubris that man can stop climate change is astounding. CO2 has negligible effect. Atmospheric CO2 levels lag earth temperature changes by about 800 years and has to do with CO2 solubility in the oceans at certain temperatures.
The thing that really drives earth temperatures is that big bright thing in the sky. If you shall notice, as it rises in the sky, it gets warmer. As it sets and disappears, it gets colder. The longer it stays away, the colder it gets.
Our ancestors knew how important this thing was. They watched it intently and charted its every move. They prayed to it. They sacrificed human beings to it so as to try and not make it angry.
There are tons and tons and tons of SCIENTIFIC studies showing earth temperature is heliocentric, that is, it is controlled by the Sun.
The earth is actually a lot colder now that it has been. Geologically speaking we are in a very prolonged cold period. The reason is that the Sun is cooling. Global temperature will cycle around, but we will not have much influence on it. As the Sun continues to cool, more CO2 will become trapped in the oceans, and atmospheric CO2 will continue to decline, dropping below the point where life on earth is possible. We probably have about 20,000 years before another ice age with most of the northern hemisphere land mass covered by ice.
I do not call this prospect a crisis either, because the pace of change is slow enough to allow mankind, the most adaptable creature of all, to adapt.
There is no climate crisis. However, if you think there is, please by all means act upon it. Stop using electricity. Do not travel anywhere by any conveyance other than your feet. Do not utilize the massive global logistical infrastructure to deliver food and manufactured items to your door. Get yourself a loin cloth and go live in the woods somewhere. By all means. We will not bother you. But most of all, allow us to live the sort of life we want to live, and leave as alone.
No they are misleading because as I said it was from a position of being the worlds largest polluter. A reduction from a very large number which isnt enough to meet the required target isnt mitigated by being a relatively large % because the US has more work to do compared to a number of other countries.
Your reference to CO2 levels historically make no sense. At that time the temperatures were several degrees higher and guess what so were the sea levels by something like 15-25m. That would have severe consequences for most coastal settlements.
Your comments re a drop below 150 PPM make any sense either, the levels are way higher than any time in the last 800,000 years
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=The%20global%20average%20atmospheric%20carbon,least%20the%20past%20800%2C000%20years.
“The thing that really drives earth temperatures is that big bright thing in the sky. If you shall notice, as it rises in the sky, it gets warmer. As it sets and disappears, it gets colder. The longer it stays away, the colder it gets.”
Really? You haven’t actually mentioned why that explains the uptick in temperature rises we have seen year on year. Well the thing is the sun is currently in a cooler phase so when its cycle changes to more solar activity temperatures may well get worse than they currently are. The sun aspect of climate change feedback and forcings has been debunked for well over a decade.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
“The earth is actually a lot colder now that it has been. Geologically speaking we are in a very prolonged cold period. The reason is that the Sun is cooling. Global temperature will cycle around, but we will not have much influence on it. As the Sun continues to cool, more CO2 will become trapped in the oceans, and atmospheric CO2 will continue to decline, dropping below the point where life on earth is possible. We probably have about 20,000 years before another ice age with most of the northern hemisphere land mass covered by ice.”
Depends on the time scale you use, relatively speaking whilst humans have existed its been pretty stable which has allowed us to survive and thrive.
You seem to miss the problem with climate change, currently the planets climate is in equilibrium thus it maintains a relatively stable set of temperatures and weather patterns are relatively consistent. The problem is increases in temperature, ocean salinity, acidification and other weather/climate mechanisms could permanently change. That could mean permanent damage on a massive scale to bio diversity, sea level rises, more droughts etc
Your comment about CO2 being trapped in oceans doesnt make sense either. It is a huge carbon sink but as ocean temperatures rise there is an increased risk that it will cause some of the carbon sinks to be released exacerbating the problem.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/greenhouse-gases-lurk-in-oceans-could-make-warming-far-worse#:~:text=The%20oceans%20absorb%20a%20third,carbon%20sink%20on%20the%20planet.&text=The%20few%20CO2%20reservoirs,fields%20in%20the%20deep%20ocean.
You seem to be referencing climate arguments that were made a LONG time ago. None of which have stood up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Id suggest https://skepticalscience.com it goes through a vast amount of the arguments and rebuts all of them.
Can you cite any sources that support your assertion that climate change isn’t bad.
Your side is the one claiming the end of the planet – show us how dropping CO2 to levels below what is required for plants to live is a good idea. Cold weather kills people. Ice ages are detrimental to life on earth. The Medieval Warm Period was incredibly prosperous to man and was warmer than today. We could use the planet warmer, not colder. Simple facts.
@tlcomm2
That argument makes no sense, CO2 levels are rising way above the norm for the last 800,000 years and not by a little. The danger is rising CO2 levels not sever reductions.
Your interpretation of the medieval warm period is inaccurate. There is evidence that in some places temperatures were greater but also in others that is was cooler. The mechanisms for those differences are different from the factors affecting climate change today which are very well understood. The forcing factors of the medieval period do NOT compare to the contemporary situation.
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
No, Mark, the medieval warm period was global and was warmer than today.
As I’ve stated Milhouse that’s not precisely correct. In some areas the temperature was higher in others it was cooler. The average temperature was not higher than average temperatures of today. The reasons are likely to be linked to natural events such as increased solar or volcanic activity. The global average of the medieval warm period sits roughly in comparison with the mid 20th century
Milhouse: No, Mark, the medieval warm period was global and was warmer than today.
When you look at the various studies, different parts of the world experienced warming during different time so may not represent a significant increase in the mean temperature. There may have been a moderate warming with regions warming as the heat pulse moved through the climate system.
No, Mark, as the links I provided show, the MWP was a global warm period. The people who told you otherwise were simply lying for political purposes.
Uhg it seems to be sending my comments to somewhere else on the page.
Brave Sir Robbin: CO2 is essential for life on earth.
That’s right.
Brave Sir Robbin: The existential climate threat that is being used to control human life and activity amounts to a 3 inch rise in sea levels over the next 25 years, if the estimates prove accurate, which they have not.
Wang et al., Reconciling global mean and regional sea level change in projections and observations, Nature Communications 2021: “The observed trends from GMSL and the regional weighted mean at tide-gauge stations confirm the projections under three Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios within 90% confidence level during 2007–2018.”
In other words, observations confirm predictions of sea level rise. However, late 21st century sea-level rise is still subject to uncertainty due to non-linear accelerations from ice-sheet contributions.
Brave Sir Robbin: The hubris that man can stop climate change is astounding.
You are conflating natural and artificial climate change, the latter of which is outpacing the former.
Brave Sir Robbin: CO2 has negligible effect.
That’s not correct. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. If you increase the overall greenhouse effect by 10%, then that implies an increase in Earth’s surface temperature of about +3°C.
Brave Sir Robbin: Atmospheric CO2 levels lag earth temperature changes by about 800 years and has to do with CO2 solubility in the oceans at certain temperatures.
That’s right. CO2 is both cause and effect. If the Earth’s surface warms, for whatever reason, the oceans emit CO2, which causes the Earth to warm, which causes the oceans to emit more CO2, a classic positive feedback. Changes in albedo also act as a positive feedback. These feedbacks also work in reverse. That’s one reason why the Earth tends to oscillate between two stable points, ice ages and ice-free ages.
Brave Sir Robbin: There are tons and tons and tons of SCIENTIFIC studies showing earth temperature is heliocentric, that is, it is controlled by the Sun.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?! Indeed, changes in insolation result in changes to the Earth’s climate. Such trends are reinforced by changes in greenhouse gases and by changes in albedo. You can’t explain Earth’s climate history without considering these interrelated phenomena. However, changes in insolation do not explain the current warming trend.
Brave Sir Robbin: We probably have about 20,000 years before another ice age with most of the northern hemisphere land mass covered by ice.
The impending ice age has been postponed for 50 millennia or so. See Ganopolski et al., Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception, Nature 2016.
Brave Sir Robbin: However, if you think there is, please by all means act upon it. Stop using electricity. Do not travel anywhere by any conveyance other than your feet. Do not utilize the massive global logistical infrastructure to deliver food and manufactured items to your door.
That would be ineffective. Strong economic growth is necessary for the technological innovation required to revamp humanity’s energy infrastructure.
Brave Sir Robbin: But most of all, allow us to live the sort of life we want to live, and leave as alone.
If you dump your waste products in the stream, then people have a right to take action.
Take a hike, Wang Chung.
The big problem I see what what you’ve said is that you heavily overestimate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide and also much more prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Water vapor alone is more than enough to sustain life on Earth from the warming effect, but, of course the carbon dioxide supports plant life and we really need at minimum a doubling of carbon dioxide for life to flourish.
@ironclaw
No one is estimating anything these are physics models predicting temperature change based a an understanding of a) the physics of various climate mechanism b) historic temperature data and c) policy going forward that impact upon emission levels. If you look at the models they accurately model the year on year rise.
They are NOT estimates
“If you dump your waste products in the stream, then people have a right to take action.”
And you have no right to rule how I or anyone else gets to live their lives because some jackass with a PhD creates a computer model that cannot be validated and which been statically proven to be wrong. They do not even accurately back test. I can create a computer model that can forecast anything I want. You can go back and look at all the predictions over the past many decades. If they had come true we would all be dead today. There is no climate crisis much less an “existential” threat. The fear mongering is intended to frighten the people out of the both their money and freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Ironclaw: The big problem I see what what you’ve said is that you heavily overestimate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide and also much more prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
You might be a bit dated on your science. Water vapor is an intrinsic part of the equations of the greenhouse effect. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Brave Sir Robbin: And you have no right to rule how I or anyone else gets to live their lives because some jackass with a PhD creates a computer model
And you have no right to continue to dump pollutants in the stream just because you wave your hands and say you can’t see mercury dissolved in the water.
@Brave sir robbin
Those models you imply are inaccurate are in actual fact very accurate. Modeling the trend line to represent historic data and consistently correctly projecting year on year increases.
You seem to think that you have the right to screw everything up for everyone else. You don’t. Society has laws to stop people doing things are detrimental to society as a whole. Now that we know more about the causes of pollution, global warming etc don’t you think it wise to do something about it? You seem to think global warming is a single issue it isn’t. Let’s take cars as an example the emissions from a combustion engine give all sorts of nasty chemicals. There has been lots of studies recently done due to lockdowns highlighting the contrast between heavy traffic and asthma for example. Investment in green tech helps tackle a whole plethora of issues.
Yes the US needs to do more, but there is economic benefits to be won too. A number of companies have made a virtue of it and made a lot of money at the same time, standing with one foot in the past isnt going to work.
Thats because those companies are specialising in harvesting subsidies by the fuckload.
Remove subsidies and watch green energy die like a Chinese Death Kooties victim but the difference is this one deserved to die like a Chinese Death Kooties victim.
And no…because I know your know fuck all puny liberal mind is there already….real forms of energy generation being allowed to keep more of the profits they make is NOT a subsidy no matter how much your fevered little know fuck all puny liberal mind wants it to be.
Fuck. Them. All.
All energy industries have subsidies. Oil, coal, gas, nuclear get plenty of tax breaks/subsidies which are specific to there industry; indeed some of these have been priced as being something like 19x the subsidies of Renewables. Additionally subsidies can gradually be reduced over time for solar and wind, that’s certainly been the case in the UK where the tariff has been reduced over a long period of time. In fact industries like coal are well documented as being in decline in the US, its a diminishing industry.
Further the economic case for green tech has been made a number of times. It just doesn’t make any sense to continue to invest in carbon intensive power generation because the cost in terms of replacing it and the knock effects are so high. The impact of increased sea levels means more flood defences, greater requirements in flood alleviation schemes etc.
You haven’t actually demonstrated any knowledge of the subject so its a bit rich for you to throw intelligence insults out isn’t it.
Yes – I am tired of seeing special car lanes on our highways for rich people who can afford expensive highly taxpayer subsidized electric vehicles. The proles get to sit in clogged traffic while the overlord class gets to zoom past everyone else in their special reserved traffic lanes.
The same rich people are also given highly subsidized special parking places, often in even more preferable locations than those afforded to handicapped persons.
Then, these same rich people, subsidized by the taxpayer and given these special privileges, spit on the less well to do and lecture them about how smelly, deplorable, stupid, and immoral they are.
And they wonder why they are despised.
Well as electric becomes more common place the unit price of cars will go down. There are plenty of cars in Europe which are relatively cheap and electric is that not the case in the US?
Its a deliberate attempt to get people to by electric because the combustion engine causes too many emissions. Air pollution and emissions wise electric is much much better.
Population density in Europe is far greater and people drive significantly less. What you simply want is to trap folks in big cities without a method of transportation. I think COVID worked against that end goal for lefties – people are fleeing cities to remote locales for safety and finding it a far more satisfying lifestyle. Gotta go burn a couple more logs in my cozy fire now – FREE CO2 😉
Electric cars merely move the pollution from the tailpipe to another locale. Folks are dying in Texas due to windmills that froze, causing power outages. Triple the electric car usage and see what that does to our power grid.
I’ve never looked at driving stats nor are they hugely important in context. Electric vehicles are ideally suited for city driving given the shorter distances and stop/start tendencies The range will increase for electric vehicles so they are likely to dominate going forward. I think many places will ban the combustion engine for common useage circa 2030/2035 so you might not have a choice unless you can come up with a valid exemption
Oh and with regard to Texas that was an issue with gas not wind. Wind wasn’t expected to pick up at this time of year anyways . The power loss in the most part was from Gas.
“Oh and with regard to Texas that was an issue with gas not wind. Wind wasn’t expected to pick up at this time of year anyways . The power loss in the most part was from Gas.”
This is called gaslighting and is simply not the case.
@brave sir robbin
No it’s not it’s verifiable fact.
Wind power was anticipated to contribute a minimal amount because we broadly speaking know what the wind speed does on a cylical basis that’s a matter of public record.
Additionally it’s verifiable that the gas supply was the predominant power source that failed some 30gw of power generation was offline, coal and nuclear had problems as well but this is more anecdotal. The issue with nuclear and coal was that when they attempted to generate more power from other sources when the gas failed it turned out coal and nuclear were struggling with the cold as well.
So yes I suppose you are right it is an example of gas lighting , that is pretending that wind is the problem when the reality is the issue was the unusual weather conditions which Texas’s power grid isn’t designed to deal with.
Brave Sir Robbin: This is called gaslighting and is simply not the case.
Actually, that was correct. Here’s the projections for the season:
http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/197378/SARA-FinalWinter2020-2021.pdf
Notably, wind has almost met projections. The problem was the steep decline in gas and nuclear electricity production. A few million in upfront costs to winterize the system would have avoided billions in losses due to the collapse of the grid.
Tell me, can your electric car do what my gas-powered car can do? I can fuel my car from completely empty to completely full in less than 15 minutes, then I can drive for SIX hours until the fuel runs out, then I can repeat that process as many times as necessary. Since it takes a minimum of 8 hours to drive to visit my parents, yes, I really do need this capability. An electric car is worse than worthless in my life.
@ironclaw
You are missing the point, electric cars have lower emissions and are a relatively new technology. For significant proportion of people a modest range is fine, however the tech is improving all the time so at some point yes electric will be able to have a similar range as the combustion engine. No one said electric was a perfect solution but it is a necessary one in order to transition away from carbon intensive forms of transport.
mark311, it is you who is missing the point. If electric cars are so great, or become so, people will buy them. They are not great, so people are not buying them. Eco-fascists have decided that government should force this and other green disasters on an unwilling citizenry. To top it off, they have decided that destroying entire industries and jobs before there are viable alternatives is good policy. It is not. It is insane, cruel, and stupid.
They are destroying the lives of millions of people to create an energy vacuum that can only be filled by currently inefficient, ineffective green energy solutions. This is humane how? Where’s the logic or basic human decency in destroying current jobs in fossil fuels, etc. with the vague promise of some green job in 10 years? How does it make sense to switch to green energy ‘solutions’ that do not meet energy demands? How is it supportable to demand everyone embrace rolling blackouts, air conditioning bans, mileage monitoring by government to ensure people aren’t driving too far (according to government morons who know nothing about our lives, but want to ‘improve’ them by taxing miles they deem excessive), and all the other horrors and indignities you leftie loons feel you have the right to force on everyone?
You can type your twaddle about the coming climate apocalypse all you want, but no one here is buying it. Not only does green energy fail to meet demand, but government can’t stop the weather, or the climate–you do understand government is comprised of people, not gods, right? And they aren’t even the brightest people.
If they were, they might think it’s a good idea to have something viable to transition to BEFORE destroying what works. Or do you sell your house, knowing you have nowhere to live for the next decade? Toss out your refrigerator, which is working just fine, knowing that at some future point you’ll get another one . . . that is half the size and only works for two hours on alternate days? If that’s your choice for YOU, go for it, but don’t you dare force anyone else to go along with your insanity.
Fuzzy Slippers: If electric cars are so great, or become so, people will buy them. They are not great, so people are not buying them.
The price of conventional cars does not include the total costs of their use because they do not include the cost of greenhouse warming induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
Fuzzy Slippers: Where’s the logic or basic human decency in destroying current jobs in fossil fuels, etc. with the vague promise of some green job in 10 years?
As we’re talking about electric cars, the same plants and workers that produce conventional cars can produce electric cars. If they don’t adapt, then, just like when the Japanese innovated in the global car markets, there will be disruption in the industry.
Gee whiz. Anyone can make a car. They make cars in Vietnam. To stay competitive, the U.S. needs to produce the cars of the future — or be left behind.
Fuzzy Slippers: If they were, they might think it’s a good idea to have something viable to transition to BEFORE destroying what works.
Don’t know anyone who advocates “destroying what works.” Rather, there will be a period of transition, and the sooner and more decisively the transition begins, the lower the economic costs, and the less damage to the environment and climate.
The many Zachs:
Me: make a product that works for people, and they will buy it.
You: argle bargle gah
Seriously, this is your response? Even those subhuman Vietnamese can make cars so why can’t American pipe fitters, coal workers, and gas workers do it, too?
Further, the U.S. will not be producing cars because that’s not how green policy and “environmental justice” work. Instead, all such jobs will be done in China, India, and other off-shore nations who will pump up their already shocking contribution to greenhouse gases unfettered (since they ignore any climate deals if they bother to even join them), and America will foot the bill (not just in real terms, as in pallets of cash, but in terms of jobs for American workers in these industries and in every job supporting those workers from grocery stores to food production to retail to the restaurant and healthcare industries, and on. And on.).
The regressive left will look at the economic devastation across America, hiss “shut up” to the displaced workers who are clearly racist or they would love starving and being homeless for the Greater Good, and gloat about how America’s emissions have reached whatever goals. Then you leftie loons will be gleeful and pretend that America is “leading the way” . . . in simply shifting emissions and jobs overseas and not making a single bit of difference in global warming. Or climate change, or whatever the current term for the latest fear-mongering lunacy that has gripped your tiny little hearts.
If you don’t know of anyone who advocates destroying what works before there is a viable alternative, you are not paying attention. Since taking office last month, Biden has shut down the Keystone pipeline (telling workers they can get green jobs . . . someday, or that these highly specialized professionals should just learn to code), shut down all hope of energy independence (and jobs) by halting oil and gas lease options on public land, promised to increase the cost of everything with “justice” mandates and regulations across all aspects of government and American life, and long before he even took office he promised to end coal and ban fracking. All of this in the name of addressing climate change and “justice” without a single concrete means of handling either the massive job losses and economic impact that will be created or the complete lack of any viable alternative sources of fuel and energy.
I don’t think anyone would mind not using fossil fuels or whatever you guys are so brainwashed into thinking are evil, but the fact is that there is no viable alternate energy source that can come close to competing in any way (meeting demand, being cost-neutral, etc.). The way to achieve a transition to a different energy source (or group of green energy options) is to set them up, show they work, show they don’t cause the litany of “unintended consequences” we’ve all seen at the state and federal level, and demonstrate that they can be used at the same (or even lower) cost.
Until that happens, every single push to eliminate fossil fuels and other ‘bad’ energy sources will be met with resistance, particularly as it’s being done without a thought to the American people. Instead, bad policy is enacted, policy that displaces workers long (a decade or more) before there is any other option on offer, policy that will lead to energy shortages, blackouts, government energy fascists imposing energy restrictions on people (your house must be kept at this temperature, you can’t drive more than this much, you can’t use your [insert whatever] more than X hours a month, and on and on).
This is not good policy. This is not about the environment. This is not about climate. This is about “spreading the wealth,” taking the U.S. down a few pegs, amassing power, and consolidating control over a free people. It’s an abomination to all that is good and fair and just. Anyone who supports any part of it is, in my opinion, an enemy of freedom and of America.
@ Fuzzy slippers
You do realise that Tesla is one of the most valuable companies in the world. Electric cars are a relatively new technology and that takes time to develop a manufacturing base for and the tech to go with it. So it’s actually pretty impressive that Tesla has outstripped other larger and much more established car manufacturers.
So no you are wrong electric cars are very popular, sure they need to be developed further but the main issue is price per unit and range. Both those issues are being addressed by the market place.
The market is transitioning so no one is advocating the immediate destruction of existing industries. If you hadn’t noticed fossil fuel industries are still being subsidised. Then there is the free market hate to point it out but investors are looking for growth and those older industries don’t have potential for that whereas green tech does. This is shown by Trump’s failure to protect coal, even though he activity tried to protect it. The market didn’t and doesn’t consider it a viable long term industry.
You have one foot in the past and the world will move on with it without you.
Fuzzy Slippers: make a product that works for people, and they will buy it.
Cars without emission controls cost less than cars with emission controls. Cars manufactured in plants where they dump heavy metals into rivers cost less than those manufactured in plants where they don’t dump heavy metals into rivers. Without regulation, the former have a competitive advantage. Similarly with carbon dumping.
Fuzzy Slippers: Even those subhuman Vietnamese can make cars so why can’t American pipe fitters, coal workers, and gas workers do it, too?
Why would you call Vietnamese sub-human? That’s a pretty awful point of view.
Most all countries can produce conventional cars, even the least developed nations. If America’s claim to fame is making conventional cars, then America will be out-competed in the global marketplace by lower cost producers. To remain competitive means making the next generation cars — smart and green.
This is similar to the lie Trump told coal workers, that their jobs were coming back. They’re not. The future is coming on fast.
Fuzzy Slippers: The regressive left will look at the economic devastation across America, hiss “shut up” to the displaced workers
Actually, it’s generally those on the political left that want to make education more widely available and institute industrial policy to move the U.S. towards the economic future.
Zachs:
I thought so, too, when I read your comment implying that if even the Vietnamese can manage it, presumably despite some special something you imply they are missing, American workers can, too. You lefties are so casually racist and disgusting that you can’t even hear yourselves.
Read this and pretend President Trump said it (that should help you hear what you actually implied):
If EVEN THEY can, ANYONE can, right, Zachs? I mean, gee whiz!
Fuzzy Slippers: I thought so, too, when I read your comment implying that if even the Vietnamese can manage it, presumably despite some special something you imply they are missing, American workers can, too.
Not sure why you would treat being economically underdeveloped with “sub-human”. It’s not an uncommon belief on the right, but we hardly thought to see it expressed so explicitly.
In any case, you have it backwards. Making conventional automobiles, once the foundation of America’s economic ingenuity and prowess, just like much of mass manufacturing, is now globally standard technology. Even the Chinese, who have been the center of mass manufacturing over the last few years, is quickly developing, and is outsourcing to lower cost countries.
To remain competitive, the U.S. has to produce a new generation of automobiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1QcjsjjtRc
Oh, Zachs, you are too funny. You did not say one thing about the Vietnamese “being economically underdeveloped,” now did you? No. You instead said that they are less than “anyone”; using the Vietnamese as an example of the least of “anyone,” you implied that they are less than . . . what? Human was my guess. It’s still my guess since you did not offer any qualification at all until after I called you out on it, and we all know the left harbors the most racist people on God’s green earth.
Fuzzy Slippers: ou did not say one thing about the Vietnamese “being economically underdeveloped,”
That is exactly what we talked about, using Japan’s development as an example. You have consistently avoided the topic by diverting into some sort of racial theory of economic development.
The U.S. will only remain competitive by developing new technologies. Producing coal and internal combustion engines will not keep America competitive. That train has left the station.
Um, no, Zachs. Read the thread. You jumped on a comment I posted in response to mark311; in neither his comment nor in my response, nor in any subsequent response to my comment/s, did I, he, or you mention Japan or any country being economically undeveloped, except in the one where you bash Vietnam as less than “anyone.” You can claim “we” were talking about Japan, but it’s really just you. Now, only after you showed your true racist colors. It’s done.
Don’t worry, it’s not like it’s some kind of watershed revelation that you are a racist. You’re a leftist, it’s what you do and who you are. Everyone here knows that.
Fuzzy Slippers: did I, he, or you mention Japan
Indeed, our very first comment about Vietnam also mentioned Japan: “If they {Americans} don’t adapt, then, just like when the Japanese innovated in the global car markets, there will be disruption in the industry.”
We have clarified our views several times, redirecting the discussion to the topic of green energy and electric cars; but it’s clear you have no argument and just want to divert with some sort of racial theory of economic development.
LOL, you are ridiculous. You know, you KNOW, you let your mask slip and your racism shine. Your anti-Vietnamese comment had nothing to do with your later comment about Japan. I’d quote it (again), but just scroll up. Your racist dismissal of Vietnam and its people is right there for all to see.
What is wrong with you today? Can I get another Zach, please, this one is stupid. I haven’t engaged at all with anything beyond your overt racism because I said what I have to say about green energy and cars (etc.), and my views have not changed in the hours since I typed it up. My argument is right there, just below your flagrant racism.
Fuzzy Slippers: Your anti-Vietnamese comment had nothing to do with your later comment about Japan.
That is incorrect. We mentioned Japan *before* Vietnam. And our point is exactly contrary to your racist theory of development. The world is rapidly industrializing. What was uniquely an America industrial advantage is now being duplicated by people around the world. Only by continued innovation can America hope to compete.
Let us know if you decide to address the topic of green energy or electric cars.
We also cited the observations of Brown & McFly (1990).
@Fuzzy slippers
You have contorted to equate Zachriel pointing out that Vietnam is a developing nation as somehow racist when you plainly called them sub human. The mental gymnastics you’ve undertaken to try and attack Zachriel is quite something. Instead of attacking him perhaps correct or clarify what you’ve said? I am of course hoping that you didn’t mean it and that you mispoke.
Uncle Sugar is back, baby! Now that the leftist death-to-America crowd back in charge the U.S. recommits to tithing in the Church of Gaia.
Pallets of cash extracted from current American taxpayers and generations yet unborn for everyone EXCEPT AMERICANS is back in style again. which I suppose is what the DNC propagandists mean by pre-DJT “normalcy” and “civility.” Under different false rationales than the pallets of cash for Iran under Obama.
How can we “officially” rejoin a treaty without “officially” submitting the treaty to the Senate?
Apparently, that’s a formality that applies only to non-leftists.
Because it isn’t a formal “treaty” as such. It is simply an “agreement” between countries to redistribute their wealth and tangentially perhaps reduce greenhouse emissions.
So it doesn’t need Senate approval and can be implemented simply by Presidential Executive Order and Administrative Branch regulation.
What Lucifer said. I just want to add that the reason the president has the authority to do all this is because congress gave it to him. It didn’t have to do that. If congress built less executive discretion into the laws it made then presidents would have less flexibility to make agreements like this, or like the Iran deal, without submitting them to be ratified as treaties (which would give them the necessary authority, since treaties are laws).
Climate change is the biggest hoax of the century so far. The idea that politicians can change the weather is just laughable. This is all about power and money. The other countries in the accord are playing the US for a sucker and the Biden Admin is stepping right into the trap again. What a bunch of dopes are running our country now. As a taxpayer I say, please stop spending our money so foolishly.
Do you seriously believe that climate change is a hoax?
I seriously believe it. The models it is predicated on are absolutely provable with statistical certitude as being wrong because we now have time to compare their predictions with outcome. Even it the average of such models are correct, and they are not and have overstated the problem and consequences, the actual impacts are both gradual and easy to adapt to. Many are actually beneficial to people.
Climate does change, with or without human influence. The issue is there is no climate emergency and certainly climate change is no “existential threat.”
Again, if you think it is and existential threat, please lead the way by example. Stop using electricity from non-green sources, do not travel by any means other than your feet, and do not rely upon the global supply chain for your food or manufactured items. Get a loin cloth and find a place in the woods to forage from nature. I promise we will not bother you. Just don’t force me to live the way you think I should, which includes making me pay for some wealthy guy’s expensive electric car, his special driving lanes, and preferential parking space, and above all, please do not fly around in your private jet between your mansions or just for a night out someplace, and then lecture me about how much I suck and am destroying the planet, but if just give you more power over my life….
Brave Sir Robbin: The models it is predicated on are absolutely provable with statistical certitude as being wrong because we now have time to compare their predictions with outcome.
Models vs. observation
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG
Brave Sir Robbin: the actual impacts are both gradual and easy to adapt to.
While humans can and will adapt, the costs of mitigation are less the sooner human take action, and the lower the environmental and ecological losses to future generations.
Brave Sir Robbin: Stop using electricity from non-green sources, do not travel by any means other than your feet, and do not rely upon the global supply chain for your food or manufactured items. Get a loin cloth and find a place in the woods to forage from nature.
That would be ineffective. Strong economic growth is necessary for the technological innovation required to revamp humanity’s energy infrastructure.
There was an interesting article on real climate on the original hansen model made in the 1980’s. It has proven rather accurate. So from where I’m standing it looks like you are making stuff up, the models you claim are inaccurate have shown a trend towards an increase in temperatures year on year which is exactly what we have seen.
For your standard of leading by example that’s a clear example of setting an impossible goal with out any clear thought on what’s required. There are many policies that lead towards a more sustainable future. You create a misleading picture when you claim that we should cancel electricity that’s just intellectually dishonest. There are a myriad of policies that could assist such as: subsidising green power, removing subsidies for carbon intensive power, standards for fuel economy, road maps for banning the combustion engine, investment in sustainable technology, improvements in house insulation etc etc none of these are drastic policies indeed in some cases they are consumer friendly
“There was an interesting article on real climate on the original hansen model made in the 1980’s.”
Are you serious?
“1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.”
Oh, and the failure of the power grid in Texas was the failure of wind-turbines which iced up coupled with the skyrocketing demand for electricity. The blades on wind generators, which were supplying something like 25% of the electricity for the sate at the time, iced across the state near simultaneously and became out of balance due to ice build up. To save these turbines from destruction, they had to be shut down. Texas did not have enough non-“green” power generation to fill the void resulting in load rejection across the grid. This is the actual fact, and anything else is false – period. Natural gas freezes at cryogenic levels. They use natural gas in much colder climates all around the world. The “technical” issues with nuclear power were, again, load rejection issues because there was not enough non-wind and solar to fill demand on the grid after the failure of the wind turbines.
Again, this is the fact, and saying anything else is spreading disinformation.
Brave Sir Robbin: “1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.”
That’s not an accurate quote. Nor was it published in a scientific study.
Brave Sir Robbin: The blades on wind generators, which were supplying something like 25% of the electricity for the sate at the time, iced across the state near simultaneously and became out of balance due to ice build up.
Not according to officials in Texas who say the problem is a failure of thermal electrical production.
“Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
@Brave Sir Robbin
I was referencing a specific climate model not some misquoted nonsense.
“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/
The above is a discussion of a number of climate models, overall it’s pretty apparent that the climate models have accurately predicted temperature changes for 40+ years. These models have continued to be updated and refined so the more recent models have smaller errors and project further into the future.
In other words you have no leg to stand on. There are no credible scientists advocating your position. It’s so bad in fact that two climate denying scientist forced ‘publication’ of climate contrarian material without anyone’s approval. The ‘brochure’ they published under the auspices of an official gov body turned out to be a series of very poorly constructed arguments that have long been debunked.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/attempt-to-red-team-climate-research-comes-to-a-pathetic-and-confused-end/%3famp=1
Can you actually support your claims at all with any scientific literature?
Sooooooo tired of this bullshit already, and it hasn’t even been a month.
Well, if you think the collapse of ERCOT and the Texas electrical grid was just a one off then think again, that is what will be happening nationally once Biden really implements the Paris Climate Agreement and destroys our electrical grid infrastructure with unreliable green technology.
Except it was primarily gas that failed, wind power wasn’t expected to pick up much slack given the season – it was primarily designed and implemented to support the summer time peaks
That’s funny. Tell Texans that are without power that wind power isn’t “essential” power. Wind generation is less that 15% of total but only produces 2% of their capacity because they froze in place.
That’s not correct, as I’ve pointed out wind doesn’t work very well in winter so it was expected to carry it’s full capacity. They tried to get more wind power out of the system but couldn’t because the entire Texan grid isn’t designed for the cold weather conditions that have been seen. The primary point of failure is gas which is supposed to supply half the electrical needs of the state. Again that’s not an issue with gas per se it was an issue with the fucking cold. Stop blaming wind when the system wasn’t designed to use nor was that the primary cause of failure.
Not true
From Feb 3 through the 9th, which had average weather, wind and solar together average 37% of all electric generation in the state. 34% of all generation was from wind power alone.
Wind power averaged 26% of the total for January.
After the cold snap, wind and solar generated about 10%.
The total requirement for power as pointed out by others was met according to official figures ( for a typical winter in Texas). (For wind power). You are right in saying that a substantial amount of wind power failed when it was needed to boost the grid beyond the normal anticipated requirements. I think around half the power generation capacity of wind failed. As did around half of the natural gas power generation.
The point remains that blaming wind is disengenious. The main cause was design of the grid relating to the extreme weather event. As I’ve said repeatedly now.
Milhouse: From Feb 3 through the 9th, which had average weather, wind and solar together average 37% of all electric generation in the state. 34% of all generation was from wind power alone.
Click … click … click
“Gas is failing in the most spectacular fashion right now,” Webber said.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/amp/
Texas only relies on 7GW from wind during winter months. The balance was supposed to come from thermal sources.
Mark says: “The point remains that blaming wind is disengenious.”
It certainly is not. Texas suddenly lost 15% of its electrical generation capacity because of the mass, sudden and widespread loss of it wind-generated capacity COUPLED with the skyrocketing demand for electricity due to the cold. Texas did not build adequate non-wind generation replacement capacity, resulting in the inability to keep the power grid energized and system-wide load rejection.
You either do not understand the technical issues, are allowing yourself to be mislead by liars, or are being disingenuous yourself.
““Gas is failing in the most spectacular fashion right now,” Webber said.”
Sigh – until blue in the face. The gas generators failed because of load rejection initiated by the mass failure of the wind turbines. The gas generators could not come on line to fill the loss of wind generation because there was not enough to fill the void in lost wind power generation COUPLED with the increased electrical demand on the grid.
The thing about wind power is you MUST have a fully redundant alternative power generation capability ready to kick in instantly, that means spinning generators, to maintain base load because of the variable nature of wind generation. This means a full non-green power infrastructure simultaneously in operation OR a continental size distributed wind generator network so that when the wind dies down in one place, there is enough power from other places that can be added, meaning highly redundant wind generators, something like 5 wind turbines in the system for each you want to draw power from. This is why wind power is not competitive with other forms of power generation if you want reliability, which everyone does, except for crazed eco-loons.
Brave Sir Robbin: Texas suddenly lost 15% of its electrical generation capacity because of the mass, sudden and widespread loss of it wind-generated capacity
Actually, wind generation didn’t collapse suddenly, but over the course of the day. Gas generation dropped dramatically in the AM.
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.rice.edu/dist/a/10087/files/2021/02/960×0-768×566.jpg
In any case, it was a failure of winterization. Wind power is used in many cold places, including Antarctica.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Euc_yetXIAAvQ0t?format=jpg&name=900×900
Brave Sir Robbin: The thing about wind power is you MUST have a fully redundant alternative power generation capability ready to kick in instantly, that means spinning generators, to maintain base load because of the variable nature of wind generation.
That would be the gas generators.
Now that’s a hoot. China and the CCP will do exactly what China and the CCP wants to do and will ignore the Paris climate agreement, the United States, and the rest of the West as they continue to work at world domination.
And we’ll all just sit here and let them do it.
The response to “climatic change” is a giant hoax, designed to reduce the influence of first world nations while making possible enormous transfers of wealth. None of the powers that be actually care whether climate change, as reported, actually exists.
First of all, we are basing the current predictions solely upon projected mean and average global temperatures. Fine. Except that, when we have years where these temperatures decline, they are either treated as anomalies and ignored, or simply ignored. In some cases, data is even created to maintain the illusion of continuous temperature increase. Remember the infamous “hockey stick” graph?
And, then we are basing projections of future global temperatures on “historical” data, which ignores the fact that we have seen periods of climatic change, where the global temperatures have dropped, for hundreds of years, during the age of man. Just another anomaly to be ignored?
The next big problem with the climate change debate, is hubris. One side of the debate makes the assumption that human beings and human activity is solely to blame for any increase in average global temperatures. They ignore the fact that the planet Earth is NOT a closed environment. It is both an working heat engine, through tectonic activity, as well as being subject to the introduction of heat energy from outside sources, most notably the Sun. And, both are variable. Think of the Earth as a terrarium in a freezer. It is heated by heating coils under the soil as well as a heat lamp outside. And, then make these heat sources variable. It really does not make any difference how many animals you place in the terrarium, the heat that their activities generate is going to be marginal, at best. What is going to drive temperatures, inside the terrarium, is going to be the cycles of the two gross heating elements, the under-soil heater and the lamp. Things which the inhabitants of the terrarium have no control over.
Now, the one thing which human beings fear the most is a lack of control. They seek to control everything, which may impact their lives, either directly or indirectly. So, along comes an group of opportunistic snake oil salesmen, selling gloom and doom, and much of humanity immediately demands that control be established. Since they can not control anything else, they seek to control humanity. First, dubious predictions are touted as immutable fact. Then the “causation” is sold as being human activity. But, only the activity of certain humans, More on that in a minute. In an effort to bolster the incredibly weak claim of human activity being solely responsible for an increase in global temperature these people even target insane hypothesis such as bovine flatulence being responsible. This despite the fact that ruminant species are at an all time low in history. As late as 5000 BC, this planet saw herds of ruminants numbering in the millions, roaming the plains. No global warming then. Then we have the fact that the planet is nearly 75% oceans. This area is largely untouched by human kind. Yet, it produces ~70% of the oxygen on the planet. This oxygen is derived from pants, just as on land. And, these plants also produce carbon dioxide. Can we assume then that ~70% of natural CO2 production occurs in the seas? How do we control that?
So, what to do? Well, first start throwing a lot of money at climate “researchers; many of whom were touting global cooling and a coming ice age, in the 1970s. Then force successful first world nations, such as the US, to impose restriction on emission, which drive up their cost of production, while establishing much lower restrictions on second and third world nations. Then make it profitable for businesses to move manufacturing operations to the 2nd and 3rd world countries. Finally, actually demand that that the 1st world countries pay money to both the other nations as well as the “programs” to facilitate the changes necessary to fight climate change, much of which is skimmed off. Of course, this will ultimately show little or no reduction in the “predicted” rate of temperature increase, as this would kill the golden goose.
And, this has worked for the last 25 years. It is a proven formula. And has been applied to the COVID hoax and other things. Nothing succeeds like success.
Mac45. Terrific, cogent post. But it won’t move the needle inside Mark311’s head. He’s a true believer. He reads John Cook. John Cook! I wonder if he’s aware of Michael Crichton’s essay on environmentalism as a religion.
Yes i read john cook who rebuts every position taken by climate deniers. His position is backed up by the entire climate science community.
Who care what michael crichton said 18 years ago? He isn’t even involved in the field he is an author. Telling fictional stories is his forte not climate science.
Mac45: First of all, we are basing the current predictions solely upon projected mean and average global temperatures. Fine. Except that, when we have years where these temperatures decline, they are either treated as anomalies and ignored, or simply ignored.
Huh? It’s called internal variability and is under intense study. Most internal variability is due to cycling of heat in and out of the oceans.
Mac45: Just another anomaly to be ignored?
Again, historical climate change is under intense study and is important to understanding Earth’s changing climate today.
Mac45: One side of the debate makes the assumption that human beings and human activity is solely to blame for any increase in average global temperatures.
It’s not an assumption. While humans are certainly not the only cause of climate variability, the fact is that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface outpacing any natural rate of change.
Mac45: It is both an working heat engine, through tectonic activity, as well as being subject to the introduction of heat energy from outside sources, most notably the Sun.
Tectonic energy is a negligible input to the climate system over human time spans. The Earth’s climate system only receives or emits energy radiatively.
Mac45: It is heated by heating coils under the soil as well as a heat lamp outside.
Earth’s internal heat represents only 0.03% of the total energy budget at the Earth’s surface.
Zach: “Huh? It’s called internal variability and is under intense study. Most internal variability is due to cycling of heat in and out of the oceans.”
Right. It is under intense “study”. Yet, we are making decisions based upon the assumption that it is negligible. The problem with this is we do not know for sure, because there is a small period of study available. Humm.
Zach: “Again, historical climate change is under intense study and is important to understanding Earth’s changing climate today.”
Again with the intense “study”. And, again, we are making significant policy decisions based upon incomplete data. There have been several historically documented periods of significant global cooling, in recorded history. We do not know why.
Zach: “It’s not an assumption. While humans are certainly not the only cause of climate variability, the fact is that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface outpacing any natural rate of change.”
Effect does not automatically causality. Again, we are dealing with cyclical changes which span millennia. And, we are trying to predict their future course based upon a couple of centuries of data. To make matters worse, assumptions are being made that these changes are the direct result of human action. This is scientific hubris.
I’m going to combine thee last two quotes here.
Zach: “Tectonic energy is a negligible input to the climate system over human time spans. The Earth’s climate system only receives or emits energy radiatively” and “Earth’s internal heat represents only 0.03% of the total energy budget at the Earth’s surface.”
What you left out of this is two very important things. The first is that the internal heat only produces 0.03% of the energy budget at the surface of the Earth. You left out the words “it is estimated by existing models”. Very important words, those. The facts are that no such long term records or studies exist, into the variations in planetary temperature induced by internal variability. All of this is being driven by “models” and the scientific community determines the accuracy of the models, not on observed result, but on whether the models agree with each other or not.
Now we have reasonably good evidence that solar radiation has a profound effect upon global temperatures. We also know, based upon actual observation that such changes can take years to manifest, based largely upon the size and complexity of the world ecosystem. So, a decrease in solar activity might not be observed on Earth for several years. The same is true of an increase in solar activity.
The problem is that humanity wants to think it is in control of the universe, not vice-versa. And, it wants to impose the human lifespan onto systems which are several orders of magnitude greater than that. We are attempting to impose changes onto humanity, which may or may not be beneficial in decades, centuries or millennia. This is simply hubris.
To make it worse, the scientific community, which is heavily invested in the man-made global warming theory, actually uses counter intuitive reasoning to try to explain observed result which differ from the data that their models are based upon. For 40 years, we have heard that COs will raise temperatures on the planet. The more CO2 the greater the temperature increase. However, recently these same scientists have been telling us that historical drops in global temperatures are due to excess CO2, in the atmosphere. So, which is it? Increased CO2 raises temperatures or it decreases them?
“All of this is being driven by “models” and the scientific community determines the accuracy of the models, not on observed result, but on whether the models agree with each other or not.”
That’s not true at all we have over a century of historic temperature data to align the models with. Additionally the models can be tested against each new record and they perform very well.
Global cooling events not understood
Partially true but not entirely relevant. Historic data spanning many millennia is likely to have limited data relative to now. Weirdly enough we have tonnes of data on the last hundred years plus
Co2 causes temp drop … I have never read anything that indicates this to be true do you have a source?
Solar radiation … Sorry climate science has known about this and included it in the models for ages. In fact in terms of solar activity it’s in a cooler phase at present
By the way, this was your original claim:
Mac45: they are either treated as anomalies and ignored, or simply ignored.
It was false. There are entire research programs around the study of internal variability, and there’s an entire field concerning historical climate change.
Whether a model is accurate or not is only known, for certain, when the end of the model run is achieved. In other words, if a model projects a 5 degree increase in mean global temperatures, in 30 years, we actual have to wait for that 30 period of time to expire. Otherwise, something may occur which will render the model inaccurate.
The problem with historical meteorology is that it does not exist prior to the early 20th century. The reason is simply because, prior to that time, the temperatures of vast areas of the globe were simply not recorded, or even measured. What we can make a fairly accurate guess at is gross climatic conditions. We just can’t really tell why they existed.
Solar radiation levels have long been seen as the major factor in global temperature trends. I’ll address this next point below, but it takes time to heat or cool an thermodynamic system as large as the planet Earth. So, a change in solar activity today, may not be discernible for a number of years.
Mac45: Whether a model is accurate or not is only known, for certain, when the end of the model run is achieved.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/1984_for_alan.jpg
Mac45: Solar radiation levels have long been seen as the major factor in global temperature trends.
They still are. However, changes in solar radiation levels do not explain the current warming trend.
@Mac45
In addition to Zachriels link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/01/update-day-2021/
The models from the 70’s and 80’s onwards have been shown to be very accurate we know this because they accurately predict future temperature trends for the last 40 years. Clearly in the intervening time more models have been produced which are more accurate and include more understanding and data than previous models. In other words the older models were very good and the newer models are even better.
Mac45: Right. {Internal variability} is under intense “study”.
A common error of “alt-science” is the belief that because we don’t know everything we don’t know anything. We do know quite a lot about how heat cycles through the oceans and atmosphere. The most important facet of that understanding is that energy is conserved.
Mac45: Yet, we are making decisions based upon the assumption that it is negligible.
It’s hardly negligible, but as energy is conserved, it doesn’t impact the overall energy balance.
Mac45: Again with the intense “study”. And, again, we are making significant policy decisions based upon incomplete data.
Data is always incomplete. But like much of “alt-science”, you cite science when you think it supports your position then reject it when it doesn’t.
Mac45: Effect does not automatically causality.
No, but the physics of heat are well-understood. The Earth’s climate system can only gain or lose energy radiatively, so the overall function of the system is not completely obscure.
Mac45: Again, we are dealing with cyclical changes which span millennia.
Energy is conserved. We know that greenhouse gases trap heat. We know how much greenhouse gases trap heat. We know the Earth’s surface is warming.
Mac45: The first is that the internal heat only produces 0.03% of the energy budget at the surface of the Earth. You left out the words “it is estimated by existing models”.
The energy budget is directly observed.
Mac45: Now we have reasonably good evidence that solar radiation has a profound effect upon global temperatures.
Of course it does. Historical climate change has in many cases been initiated by changes in insolation, with feedbacks from greenhouse gases and albedo.
Mac45: So, a decrease in solar activity might not be observed on Earth for several years.
We directly observe the sun.
Mac45: However, recently these same scientists have been telling us that historical drops in global temperatures are due to excess CO2, in the atmosphere.
Can you be specific? The physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century.
Zach: “A common error of “alt-science” is the belief that because we don’t know everything we don’t know anything. We do know quite a lot about how heat cycles through the oceans and atmosphere. The most important facet of that understanding is that energy is conserved.”
Two mistakes here. If we do not know everything, about a subject, means we do not know what we do not know. We do know quite a bit about how heat cycles through the oceans, at the surface. We know very little about the depths. And, it is not possible for there be true conservation of energy in the ocean, or even within the Earth ecosphere, is because it is not an isolated system. Energy is being pumped into the system from outside and is also being drawn off by the environment outside the ecosphere.
The next few points, that you make are based upon the erroneous assumption that the planetary ecosphere is a closed system. We know that this is false, because radiation from the Sun will change the temperature and weather patterns of the planet. And, of course, the planet radiates energy into the vacuum of space.
Zack: “No, but the physics of heat are well-understood. The Earth’s climate system can only gain or lose energy radiatively, so the overall function of the system is not completely obscure.”
Are they well understood? Do we really know how long it takes a specific increase in solar output to raise average global temperatures 1 degree? And, is it consistent? How long a period of observation has been employed to gain sufficient data to accurately establish this?
Zack: Energy is conserved. We know that greenhouse gases trap heat. We know how much greenhouse gases trap heat. We know the Earth’s surface is warming.”
One more time. Energy, in the planetary ecosphere, is not truly conserved, because it is not a closed system. Energy is being continually injected into the system, from a variable source, as well as radiated out of the sytem, again at a variable rate. Yes, we know that certain gasses can trap heat. But, the level of these gases is variable and that variability is caused by a variety of factors and sources. Earth’s surface is indeed warming. However, at this time we do not know exactly why nor how long it will last, We have historical evidence that the larger global climate has gone through very long cycles.
Zach: “The energy budget is directly observed.”
Wrong. In the first place, the amount of internal heat reaching Earth’s surface is an estimation, not a direct observation. And, it is variable. The amount of energy which is injected into the ecosphere and generated from other sources is also variable. So, modern science does what is common today. It extrapolates a result from a small amount of observed data. It makes a model, based upon limited data and assumptions.
Zack: “We directly observe the sun.”
My bad. My post should have said the the results, on Earth, of a decrease in solar output might not be seen for years, to any significant degree.
The point is that we are making significant policy decisions, which impact people negatively, based upon a flawed set of assumptions.
Mac45: Two mistakes here. If we do not know everything, about a subject, means we do not know what we do not know.
We know energy is conserved.
Mac45: We do know quite a bit about how heat cycles through the oceans, at the surface. We know very little about the depths.
Maybe somebody should measure ocean heat content.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Mac45: And, it is not possible for there be true conservation of energy in the ocean, or even within the Earth ecosphere, is because it is not an isolated system.
Huh? Of course energy is conserved. It’s a fundamental of heat science. It doesn’t just appear. It has to come from somewhere. The interior of the Earth only provides about 0.3% of the Earth’s energy budget at the surface. The balance is dominated by solar radiation.
Mac45: We know that this is false, because radiation from the Sun will change the temperature and weather patterns of the planet. And, of course, the planet radiates energy into the vacuum of space.
Huh? That’s rather the whole point of the greenhouse effect. The Earth absorbs and radiates energy.
Mac45: Energy, in the planetary ecosphere, is not truly conserved, because it is not a closed system.
Huh? Of course energy is conserved. It’s a fundamental of heat science.
Mac45: In the first place, the amount of internal heat reaching Earth’s surface is an estimation, not a direct observation.
It’s based on observation. Like all observational science, it’s an estimate with a margin of error. There have been a multitude of studies as it is important in a wide variety of geological fields. See, for instance, Davies & Davies, Earth’s surface heat flux, Solid Earth 2010: “We present a revised estimate of Earth’s surface heat flux that is based upon a heat flow data-set with 38347 measurements, which is 55% more than used in previous estimates.”
It’s almost as if you don’t think scientists, well, science.
@Mac45
I won’t dwell on The other points, Zachriels covers those very well. I will however dwell on your final statement
“The point is that we are making significant policy decisions, which impact people negatively, based upon a flawed set of assumptions.”
It’s a case of risk management. We have two fundamental options the first ignore the science and model predictions and the second to do something about it. The first option has a number of risks which are being borne out right now.
1) loss of ecosystems, biodiversity
2) decrease in crop resilience, increase in crop loss and generation food issues partly due to issue 1.
3) increase in sea levels causing flooding, loss of coastal regions both habited and uninhabited
4) increase desertification
5) increased precipitation leading to increased flooding
6) increased severity of heat waves leading to more deaths
7) more … Not an exhaustive list.
So let’s look at the risk of doing something
1) job losses in fossil fuel industries off set by job creation in green tech.
Oh dear I’m really sorry if an oil worker on a huge wage packet has to downgrade for the sake of the human race. Get my violin out please.
“Oh dear I’m really sorry if an oil worker on a huge wage packet has to downgrade for the sake of the human race.”
And this is the problem with the hysteria by calling climate change a crisis or even an “existential threat.” It justifies you and others to sacrifice PEOPLE to your unjustified or disingenuous fear. It allows you to become a dictator over how other people live their lives to avoid a phantom menace always just a couple decades away that never arrives. If it is a crisis of an “existential threat,’ that is, a threat to the survival of mankind, then that justifies removing people’s freedom, destroying their jobs, even killing them, because my God, people’s very existence and economic well being are the actual threat in your mind, and “”Oh dear I’m really sorry if an oil worker on a huge wage packet has to downgrade for the sake of the human race.”
Not only is this particularly cold and cruel and demonstrative of a gross arrogance and callousness on your part, and willingness to hurt and destroy fellow human beings to salve your fear, just how many human beings are you willing to sacrifice on this alter? If this is a climate crisis or an existential threat to “the human race,” I suggest you consider sacrificing yourself for the cause, and not offer up strangers. As I such I expect you to, at a minimum, flip the circuit breaker on your home and get off the electric grid that is destroying the human race, and then toss your car keys in the garbage, and to do so today.
But you will not do it. You will expect everyone else to take the sacrifice so you can remain in comfort while you sit there in arrogant moralistic judgement over everyone else.
You are a mean and nasty sort Mark, and you wonder why people despise you.
Brave Sir Robbin: It justifies you and others to sacrifice PEOPLE to your unjustified or disingenuous fear.
Some dislocation is inevitable as the economy modernizes. However, the dislocation will be far worse if the problem of global warming is ignored. In any case, a rational industrial policy would account for those who are economically impacted by the transition and provide necessary short-term benefits, and long-term training for the new economy.
You can ignore coal workers, or tell them sweet little lies about how coal is coming back, or you can confront the future and give people the tools they need to prosper going forward.
@ Brave Sir Robbin
You make a lot of emotional noise, yet you have no response to the scientific arguments. No offence but you literally have presented no argument at all countering the case for global climate change caused by humans. None.
On that basis your cries of people attacking jobs or somehow being cruel makes no sense. On the contrary I’m thinking of my kids, I don’t want them in a world where it’s flash flooding or suffering from heat waves, or where they sea coastal towns I was lucky enough to visit now uninhabited because it’s under water. Or perhaps see such a loss in biodiversity and increase in droughts that food becomes an issue.
You also make claims about me, whether or not I’ve made sacrifices. It’s good to see that you have your crystal ball out knowing intimate knowledge of others. I attempt to so the best I can in my circumstances to be green. Could I do more sure, but my main Principle is that governments I vote for take action because it’s at scale that these things need to be done on a societal level. If that means paying more taxes and have that money invest in green tech yeah sure. If that means regulations on polluting industries yes please , if that means I can’t eat a stake every day then that’s life. If that means as a consumer I’m going to make choices between products made in a country which doesn’t give a fuck about anyone else then yes I’m willing to pay more where I have the choice. That choice is important sure it’s not always possible but where there is those with a conscious are using there wallets to support those who do act with carbon emission reductions in mind. That means that people can make industries to support that kind of conscious.
I remember the hockey stick very well. Do you know what happened when they adjusted the graph after accounting for the statistical errors, very little. More importantly those models have accurately predicted the temperatures year on year and the trend that’s resultant from that. No one has ignored years where there isn’t an increase in temperatures … They are models predicting the future. If you overlay the models with the observed temperatures they are very accurate.
You talk about various factors affecting the climate. These are all known and understood, the models all take into account the various natural cycles. Of course over the years aspects have had there understanding improved upon. The result better models and more accurate models all of which have been shown to be correct. The climate is very well understood. To my knowledge there are no credible scientists opposing climate change.
I don’t know where you got your cattle figures but now there are around 1 billion cattle globally so significantly more than your historic example.
Incredible weak on human activity? Are you kidding me, you do realise there is absolutely enormous amounts of data supporting global warming. We have the physics models showing how green house gases work, accurate models on oceanic carbon capture and how it relates to salinity, we know about cloud formation and how that works, we know the temperature of many areas of the planet including atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, we know how the sun and solar activity affect temperatures, we know historic temperatures from ice cores. We also know that the oceanic salinity and acidification has gone up dratically, that there is currently a mass extinction of insect species with many animals and fish also under threat. All this is because of human activity. There hasn’t been a meteor or super volcano or some other natural event it can be directly linked to human activity.
The global cooling you are talking about is also a well understood mechanism it was from CFCs which were banned. Then funnily enough that process was reversed because oh wait no more CFCs. That effect has also been included in the models FYI.
Oh so we get to your real concern finally. It’s some conspiracy to take jobs away. The reason manufacturing has gone elsewhere is because it’s cheaper. Labour costs are lower and china is scaled up to manufacturer like no where else. Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with it.
What I find really annoying is that your entire argument hinges around things that have been debunked for years maybe even decades.
Actually, the Hockey Stick graph was not only proven to be false and manufactured. While the temperature increase has continued, in the short term, it has lagged behind the Hockey Stick model and can not be depended upon to be accurate over time.
And, yes, there have been several studies where lower temperatures were either ignored, or classified as being unimportant. They were not explained, simply discounted.
Oh, no one claims that climate change does not exist. The climate is variable and has been since the beginning of time. What is not universally accepted, is that human activity is a significant climate determinant, let alone the main one. You are correct that as time passes, more data will be collected and more accurate models will be developed. The problem is that we are taking significant actions, which directly impact people, many negatively, based upon deficient data.
There are currently about 95 million head of cattle, in the US, in 2020. In the early 1800s, there were approximately 40-50 million bison in the US. The government estimates that over 30 million head were killed between 1868 and 1881. Now, add in the cattle and other herbivorous animals living in the US, during that time, and you most likely have more methane factories then than now.
First of all, we can not accurately measure temperature based upon geological evidence. We can make reasonable guesses, but not accurate measurements. We can also make reasonable measurements as to the amount of certain gasses in the atmosphere, based upon core sample. What we can’t accurately determine is why they are there.
Second, the ecosystem constantly changes. It changed 66 million years ago. This eliminated the dinosaurs and made it possible for mammals, and eventually humans, to evolve. Now all of the observations you enumerate can be attested to. What can not be accurately extrapolated is that human activity is the primary driving force behind global warming.
The ecosphere is a tremendously complex thing. We have several sources of heat for the Earth. Solar radiation is one. internal radiation is another. These thing inject thermal energy into the ecosphere. Greenhouse gasses can trap this heat and maintain higher temperatures close to the surface. Many things impact the production of greenhouse gasses. The most significant is the amount of plankton in the seas. These creatures produce CO2, just like land plants do. Now, human activity also produces greenhouse gasses.
What has happened is that assumptions have been made and sold to the populace. The first is that human activity is the main source of global warming. Though not proven, it is still touted that way. The second is that, unless man-made pollution is stopped, temperatures will continue to rise and humanity will be wiped out. Now, humanity can not control the sun, internal warming of the planet or the production of greenhouse gasses by the other animals and plants. So, in order tto save us all, human production of greenhouse gasses must be stopped. Sounds resonable.
But, the reality is that human production of greenhouse gasses only has to occur in the richest nations on the planet, most of which are minor polluters today. The major polluters, 2nd and 3rd world countries are exempt from the restrictions on greenhouse gas production. And this where the scam comes in. Because oof the difference in restrictions, manufacturing in 1st world countries moves to the less restrictive 2nd and 3rd world countries. With them goes the money that they generate, And, to add insult to injury, 1st world countries are expected to pay to clean up the pollution of the 2nd and 4rd world countries. But, even with this influx of money, thee cleanup never seems to occur. See how this works? If politicians really believed in th existence of man-made climate change, then the major polluting nations, such as China and India would have been shut down long ago. That didn’t happen, did it? It is just a means to redistribute weath from the successful nations to thee less successful ones.
Mac45: And, yes, there have been several studies where lower temperatures were either ignored, or classified as being unimportant.
Can you provide a citation so we can tell what you are talking about?
Mac45: What is not universally accepted, is that human activity is a significant climate determinant, let alone the main one.
Actually, it is almost universally accepted in the relevant scientific fields.
Mac45: Solar radiation is one. internal radiation is another.
Internal radiation is only 0.03% of the energy budget of the Earth’s surface. The far and away predominant source of energy is solar radiation.
Mac45: The most significant is the amount of plankton in the seas. These creatures produce CO2, just like land plants do.
Plants are net absorbers of CO2. Plankton is composed of both animals and plants, but act as a net carbon sink. Phytoplankton capture carbon, die, then fall to the ocean floor.
Mac45: unless man-made pollution is stopped, temperatures will continue to rise and humanity will be wiped out.
Humans are highly adaptable and will adapt. However, the world will change in ways that are not necessarily conducive to human prosperity.
“You talk about various factors affecting the climate. These are all known and understood, the models all take into account the various natural cycles.”
Models are ALWAYS simplifications with built-in assumptions. The earth is a highly dynamic and interactive system, and the current models in no way come close to adequately or accurately controlling all the system inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms.
The UN climate models are provably wrong by comparing their predictions with the actual outcomes many years later. There is less than 1% probability that the divergence between the models’ predictions and current observations is chance. This is not the sort of forum to go into a long statistical proof of the above, but is provable.
Such simplified models can be used to help better understand what we do not adequately understand and need to further investigate. Using such models for prediction is folly. Using them to make critical and life altering policy decisions is either (A) insane, (B) scientific malpractice, or (C) deliberate manipulation.
There is no “climate crisis” much less an existential threat from climate change. That’s the hoax.
Brave Sir Robbin: Models are ALWAYS simplifications with built-in assumptions.
That is correct. Of course, all scientific theories are models.
Brave Sir Robbin: The UN climate models are provably wrong by comparing their predictions with the actual outcomes many years later.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG
Please do tell me which factors aren’t included within the models.
You seem to make suggestions about what the scientific studies and models do or do not show without actually demonstrating any knowledge of what’s in them.
The climate models have nothing to do with the UN. The models have been accurate to the current temperature measurement for decades on what basis do you say then that they are ‘probably’ wrong in the future. What aspect of the models hasn’t been included or will suddenly change. In other words you suggest that there is another variable that doesn’t present itself in the historic data set which is quite long now. What variable or mechanism is that?
How simple do you think the models are, the last climate change report had 1300 scientists working on it. Many of those have been working on climate science for decades on many different aspects of it. There are specialist in cloud formation , in solar activity, in ocean currents, in statistics, in modelling in all sorts of specific subjects. You are denying that collective knowledge on the basis of what exactly?
C02 is not the control knob of earth’s climate. Humans have no control over climate. C02 in the atmosphere changes gradually up or down and Humans can’t control that either. C02 has been as high as 1,000 part per million in ancient times. It’s presently about 400 parts per million of the atmosphere. It was about 250 in 1750. If we could get C02 up to 1,000 parts per million as it once was we’d have a very green planet.
We can’t do that. We have no way to do it. It will do it or not do it on its own.
If God really does exist he’s laughing himself silly at us right now.
TeeJaw: C02 in the atmosphere changes gradually up or down and Humans can’t control that either.
CO2 is rising and we can show that the change is due to human activities. It’s not as if it’s a secret how much fossil fuels are being burned.
The main thing that controls earth’s climate is the sun. Ocean currents, earthquakes (real big ones), volcanoes, and tectonic plate movement (other than the ones that cause earthquakes) and clouds are factors that control earth’s climate and varying temperatures around the earth.
I’m with you, but leftist Global Warming Religious will disagree
Science isn’t a religion
Except the science definitively shows that adding human activity on top of those variables has pushed the emissions up way beyond the normal compared to the last 800000 years
So more big hundreds of million dollar checks to the world.
No point in saving money anymore, spend like it’s going out of style, because it is.
Without Senate ratification, this action has no legal effect. Congress can pass laws that mirror it, but let Biden go tell Joe Manchin to vote to ban coal. To some degree, Biden can issue executive orders and the EPA can issue regulations, but the Administrative Procedure Act imposes limitations on those. Therefore, there are some things that the Administration can do, but the accord itself is meaningless in the US, and if any US official attempts to enforce it against a private company or a state, the courts will say no and the official might be subject to damages personally for attempting to enforce a so-called law that black letter law makes unconstitutional absent ratification.
Now that makes me happy. I was getting bogged down by the climate debate.
Correct the likely hood is that action will be taken at state level not federal level in terms of robust policy. That said there will at least be an attempt to get through the senate policy changes
Nobody is claiming it does.
And that’s all this announcement means. Withdrawing from the accord was Trump announcing that he was not going to do the things 0bama had agreed he would do. 0bama was no longer president, and his agreements did not bind Trump. Rejoining the accord is Biden announcing that he chooses to do those things, to the extent that he has the legal authority to do them. Anything that requires more authority than he has, he can’t do unless he can get congress to give him more authority.
Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Even if it were a treaty, and therefore the law of the land, as far as I know nothing in it purports to bind individuals; it’s all about what the participating governments promise to do.
@Zachriel
I’ve very much enjoyed reading your replies, I would thumbs up your comments but it won’t let me for some.
I get way to worked up replying it’s hard staying neutral and not writing angry. Something for me to work on.
@Fuzzy slippers
Have you actually looked at an economic analysis of Bidens policies? It seems to me you make sweeping unjustified statements that don’t really bear any resemblance to the policy outlook
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiGreOR1fnuAhWGQEEAHbpYB6sQFjADegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw3aZuXw-OSn5aegUQiG6i5U
With regard to car manufacturing Tesla already produces cars in the US. So the question is will other brands adopt manufacturing in the US or elsewhere. What makes the US attractive in that regard. Well ensuring it’s a tech leader would help and investment in the manufacturing of a future proofed product.
You don’t have a strong grasp of the consequences of climate change. Some job losses in specific industries Vs the consequences of climate change. That’s a no brainer.
No in afraid the article doesn’t support your point. This is because it references another article which explains the following
“The results indicate that the majority of onshore Afro-Arabian sites experienced warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. The one exception was the southern Levant, which endured a cold phase during the same interval. From offshore records, the team also documented cooling in locations that currently experience cold-water upwellings but generally warmer conditions away from these upwelling zones during the same period.
In some records, the researchers noted the presence of obvious cold spikes during intervals corresponding to decreased solar activity or declining ocean cycles. This, they argue, suggests that solar forcing and changing ocean circulation are the most likely causes of medieval era climate change.”
Im clearly not in a position to check the temperature map out forward on the site. But given the sites record of inaccuracy and overtly political perspective I consider that site unauthorative. Given that the article it cites doesn’t actually draw the same conclusion as the site itself and explains why I don’t find it convincing.