Green new deal equals magical thinking

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.arctictoday.com/narrative-polar-bears-become-problem-arctic-environmental-groups/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

I know the inclusion of a wattsupwiththat link will make your head explode but try to get past that and go on to the links that back up the assertions 

Polar bears.

Since we've restricted hunting in 1976 their population has risen from 12000 to about 24000.  However, of the 11 populations under observation 4 are declining, 2 are increasing and 5 are stable.  8 other populations have no data.  Their growth is a function of restrictions on hunting.  Where their population is observed to be shrinking it is in direct correlation to the habitat (Ice) loss of their quarry.  Future polar bear numbers will directly correlate with sea ice and the remaining population will be those who adapt to living on land year round.

https://www.fws.gov/r7/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/FWS_PB_Annual_Report_2016.pdf

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening.

From your link: "

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

"

Watts Up Link.

You're right. Anything from that site is a waste of my time.  If you have some independent points to make then go ahead.

[brenthutch 384]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well over a degree, to be specific.  (2016 was 1.7F warmer, 2018 was 1.4F warmer)  But you know that.

I think this may be why no one here takes you very seriously - you do things like that regularly.  People think "if he's lying about that super simple thing, maybe everything else he says is untrue as well."

I was using Celsius, you know, the metric system....the measurement system scientists use.

Edited December 4, 2019 by brenthutch

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wrong, "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection.^[3] President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970^[4] and it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order."  Congress just ratified what was already in effect. (see the SNL version of "I'm Just a Bill" for more further education) 

Hi Brent,

I have never claimed to be perfect.

However, this is not how I remember it.  [ ]

What is your source for that tidbit of info?

My memory of it is that Nixon really did not care about the environment all that much.  He was more of a 'big business' type of president.

I am willing to be corrected.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,914]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I know the inclusion of a wattsupwiththat link will make your head explode

Wattsup with the silly talk about exploding heads? Why do so many outraged right wingers feel the need to use mocking language. And more to the point, why do they need to repeat the same tired insults of the day until they wear them out and move on? It's so tribal.

[brenthutch 384]

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/there-is-no-man-made-climate-emergency/

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,343]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Wattsup with the silly talk about exploding heads? Why do so many outraged right wingers feel the need to use mocking language. And more to the point, why do they need to repeat the same tired insults of the day until they wear them out and move on? It's so tribal.

'Cuz it's what their hero does?

 

For me, sites like Wattsupwiththat, or InfoWars or Brietbart are good indicators of the critical thinking abilities of the person linking them.

 

Either they are too gullible to realize how inaccurate those sites are...

Or they think that I am.

 

[brenthutch 384]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Brent,

I have never claimed to be perfect.

However, this is not how I remember it.  [ ]

What is your source for that tidbit of info?

My memory of it is that Nixon really did not care about the environment all that much.  He was more of a 'big business' type of president.

I am willing to be corrected.

Jerry Baumchen

Wikipedia was my first source but here it is from the EPA website 

https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa

[brenthutch 384]

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

'Cuz it's what their hero does?

 

For me, sites like Wattsupwiththat, or InfoWars or Brietbart are good indicators of the critical thinking abilities of the person linking them.

 

Either they are too gullible to realize how inaccurate those sites are...

Or they think that I am.

 

That is what I'm talking about.

it is also why I said you need to go to the supporting documentation.  

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is what I'm talking about.

it is also why I said you need to go to the supporting documentation.  

Because your wattsup website provides deliberately misleading information.  It's as simple as that.  I'd rather not start with deliberately misleading information.

Let's do an example run:

"1. Warming rate predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO₂ emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here."

 

 

The IPCC link from wattsup doesn't work but that's OK, here it is: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Watts posted only one of the three scenarios from the IPCC (See page 63, first page), the one that models the largest change but also shows a margin of error outside of the actual increase they state.  That means they're saying that scenario is wildly inaccurate as in the change could even be a negative value. There are three others, one which says +0.2C and the other two +0.1C, these show no margin of error.  Watts chose the worst data to support his point.

In the rebutall "Reality Check"  The first link is to a denier website called "The Hockey Schtick" which references all data to the author of the second link.  The second link is to an opinion article called "Temperature Record Chicanery" by a climate change denier named Ronald Bailey who has a B.A. in Philosophy and Economics.  They both point to the same thing, which is all material created by Ronald Bailey which is pages and pages of gobbly gook from someone who is not in the field of climate science.

THE ACTUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISE PER DECADE HAS BEEN 0.2C PER DECADE.  This is both within the error of margins in the IPCC example provided by WattsUP, is higher than two scenarios and is equal to the one.  Source:  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf Page 81, 82  Further references can be found on page 83 and onwards.

Do you see why WattsUP is bullshit?

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 384]

The three scenarios were

1. Business as usual, a continued increase in CO2 levels

2. CO2 emissions growth slows and levels off

3. CO2 emissions rapidly decline 

The current levels of CO2 output put us solidly in scenario 1, yet the observed level of warming is between scenarios 2 and 3.  Model falsified.

[DJL 232]

33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The three scenarios were

1. Business as usual, a continued increase in CO2 levels

2. CO2 emissions growth slows and levels off

3. CO2 emissions rapidly decline 

The current levels of CO2 output put us solidly in scenario 1, yet the observed level of warming is between scenarios 2 and 3.  Model falsified.

0.3C per decade with an accuracy range of 0.2 to 0.5 and the actual increase was 0.2.  You'll do better to say that in 1990 they simply were saying that they couldn't make an accurate prediction rather than that they got it wrong.  Also, does that difference of 0.1 (rounded) mean anything in terms of what we need to do?

[brenthutch 384]

No, in either case we need to do nothing.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

No, in either case we need to do nothing.

Fortunately you're not relevant to the decision making process.

[brenthutch 384]

Since my policy prescription is the one being followed it is a moot point.

BTW I'm still waiting to find out how it is Trump's  fault that China and Russia decided to build a massive fossil fuel pipeline during the Obama administration.  

Edited December 5, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Since my policy prescription is the one being followed it is a moot point.

BTW I'm still waiting to find out how it is Trump's  fault that China and Russia decided to build a massive fossil fuel pipeline during the Obama administration.  

Nobody said that.  They've functionally exited the Paris Accord and are forging new energy relationships with Putin.  They are also finalizing agreements on the quantity of gas and other energy agreements with Russia.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013483/russia-and-china-sign-deals-worth-us20bn-xi-jinping-and

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-11422022/russia-and-china-sign-series-of-energy-agreements

And this last one is generally about the already built pipeline and established relationship and about how they're growing closer.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/a-huge-siberian-gas-pipeline-binds-russia-and-china-as-gas-flows-for-the-first-time/2019/12/02/35250ff8-14f7-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by DJL

[Rick 67]

19 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Why do so many outraged right wingers feel the need to use mocking language. And more to the point, why do they need to repeat the same tired insults of the day until they wear them out and move on? It's so tribal.

I also hate the mocking language and adding or changing letters in names to make a childish insult. But it is certainly not limited to right wingers.

[richravizza 25]

On 12/4/2019 at 8:47 AM, DJL said:

If we want to play that game them I'll show the progression of sea rise at my girlfriend's property on the Chesapeake. 

What a delicious solution to your gals erosion problem, what's your plan for the areas subsidence problems?

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,302]

30 minutes ago, richravizza said:

What a delicious solution to your gals erosion problem, what's your plan for the areas subsidence problems?

 

 

Goddamnit Rich, no sooner do I decide to ignore you and suddenly you pop up with just the sort of back hand slap, smart ass comment I so adore. Thank you for raising the level of play on SC. We need more of it.

[billvon 2,400]

On 12/4/2019 at 1:32 PM, brenthutch said:

The three scenarios were

1. Business as usual, a continued increase in CO2 levels

2. CO2 emissions growth slows and levels off

3. CO2 emissions rapidly decline 

The current levels of CO2 output put us solidly in scenario 1, yet the observed level of warming is between scenarios 2 and 3.  Model falsified.

Let's take a look at the 1990 FAR mapped against actual temperatures:

At this point I don't think anyone takes you seriously (and rightly so.)

[richravizza 25]

On 12/2/2019 at 5:53 AM, DJL said:

And they lobby VERY HARD for gov't subsidies.  They're the biggest crock of shit in the entire debate.  There's nothing about a monoculture agricultural process that ends up emitting exactly as much greenhouse gases as gasoline that's helping the environment.

I Agree,

 Also pesticides and fertilizer in water runoff, adversely effects everything downstream, and the process is far from carbon neutral, actual costs maddening. The policy was envisioned/implemented in a time of sky high oil prices.Americas dependence on foreign suppliers was essential, and a noose. Subsidized as a green alternative fuel. Everyone could get behind it,Cheap green clean and domestic what's not to love?

I was Sold, yep hook line and sinker.
Little did we know, how times have changed.

I hope one day we can Vote on this issue.

On 12/4/2019 at 6:07 AM, DJL said:

 Some channels are more guilty than others, in my opinion CNN and NPR are the worst.  Even then it's not an issue of the information being wrong but that they lay it on so thick.  

Thank you for being honest.It goes a long way knowing you recognize the sleight of hand so prevalent today, leading to ridiculous alarmism.

I mentioned Oyster repopulation previously in this debate, how Staten Island of all places, is on the mend.It's good to see your part of it.

On 12/4/2019 at 7:30 AM, gowlerk said:

The "predicted calamity" is actually a series of effects, some unknown, some more sure that will happen over the next decades. In the meantime glaciers are melting, seas are rising, and oceans are warming. These predicted and observable measurable effects are and will continue. No matter how shrill you get in denying the facts.

 I've been following this subject since the 80's, I remember the sense of urgency in James Hansens Congressional testimony, and payed to believe Al Gores dire predictions which you mentioned.In a culture of angst, like today,The Population Bomb was a popular read.None of those dire predictions came close, to the layman, anyway.

Edited December 6, 2019 by richravizza
,

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

None of those dire predictions came close, to the layman, anyway.

Nope, because the layman looks at the last page to see what's the "end result." The problem is the huge number of variables on the way to the outlined end result -- it's kind of like breaking a single link in the chain leading towards a fatality. Change a couple of things, and you're still well on the way to that lurid outcome, but don't have children floating away -- instead it's only people who couldn't afford to move whose houses have become uninhabitable, and now the high cost of housing has made them homeless. There are a couple of those imaginary problems that are part of the chain towards that: 

• climate change reducing coastal housing stock
• overpopulation and crowding helping housing prices to be artificially inflated
• the polarization of incomes making it more profitable to own a house just to rent it for six weeks a year on Airbnb to rich people than to let it be used by people who need shelter

There are more; this is a dz.com forum-level analysis... 

But just because some projected bad outcome doesn't happen doesn't make the original chain good. Even if Johnny doesn't bounce, downsizing too fast might lead to injury, or it might lead to Johnny feeling like he can give advice, and giving devastating advice to someone. Even if neither of those happen, does that make downsizing fast a great idea? More care, not less, is needed for forces that impact lots of people.

Wendy P.

[headoverheels 291]

On 12/4/2019 at 7:24 AM, brenthutch said:

 Even a brutally cold start to the winter season can't snap some folks out of this delusion.

I cannot remember previously harvesting any tomatoes after late September.  I was still getting a good many in November this year, and there are still quite a number on the vines now, although they have pretty much stopped ripening as of this week.  (weather, not climate, though, here in Northern California).

[turtlespeed 212]

On 12/4/2019 at 1:49 PM, brenthutch said:

That is what I'm talking about.

it is also why I said you need to go to the supporting documentation.  

Johnson started the Clean Water act - or at least signed it in 66.

That alone is one of the most important steps.

The EPA (AFAIK) was created, in part, to manage the CWA - After we found out just how fucked up it all was. 

[brenthutch 384]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/15/cop25-un-climate-talks-over-for-another-year-was-anything-achieved

 

COP25 (UN climate talks) a complete bust.  CO2 emissions are up 4% since the Paris Agreement.

[turtlespeed 212]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/15/cop25-un-climate-talks-over-for-another-year-was-anything-achieved

 

COP25 (UN climate talks) a complete bust.  CO2 emissions are up 4% since the Paris Agreement.

It's Trumps fault!