America’s Carbon-Dioxide Emissions Set Records under Trump!

[phrodeau]

Your question doesn't make sense. The science comes from NOAA which reports no climatic warming in the USA since at least 2005.

OK, I’ll try asking more clearly.

What scientific evidence do you have that ”the environmental fixes we have had in place for the past couple of decades are working?“

 

[My I]

"OH MY GOD!!!!! TRUMP IS DOING GOOD AGAIN!!!! Quick, we have to divert attention away from this with more claims of racism, sexism, misogynism, Dictatorship.... Hell just make up ANY lie that will discredit him and make America think he is the devil incarnate."

That's the Liberal way.

 

[phrodeau]

The day they determine that global warming has stopped would be worth celebrating. Me, I’ll wait until the temps go back down where they should be.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Climate change doesn't depend on Michael Mann, who is a narcissistic asshole. The lawsuit was only about libel. There is plenty of climate chance evidence, which is open to the public.

Just not THAT evidence.

 

[DawnODay]

OK, I’ll try asking more clearly.

What scientific evidence do you have that ”the environmental fixes we have had in place for the past couple of decades are working?“

If we accept the premise that temperatures rose through the Twentieth Century (as dubious as that claim is given the ambiguity of the record), then the fact that we have had at least 15 years when they did not rise is evidence that some change reduced the upward trend. What has changed in the period leading up to that time? Well, we have imposed strict emission standards on power plants such that by the time their combustion products leave all the filters and scrubbers in their exhaust stacks, they are little more than water vapor; we have imposed extremely high fleet gas mileage requirements on automobile manufacturers; etc.

If you understand the philosophical underpinnings of scientific methodology, then you know there is never positive "proof" in science. Experiments test negation. Science does, however, recognize positive evidence to support claims. If you accept the premise of Twentieth Century global warming, then the USCRN data suggests we have brought it under control. You should be celebrating this data.

The day they determine that global warming has stopped would be worth celebrating. Me, I’ll wait until the temps go back down where they should be.

Where should the temps be, Phrodeau? What is the perfect Temperature for this planet?

You beat me to it, JayCuck. One of the inconvenient truths for climate alarmists is that global temperatures have been higher than now during several extended periods in the past 10,000 years, often coinciding with times of significant social and technological progress.

So you ask a good question.

You missed another question, however, that I now pose to phrodeau, who wrote of the "day they determine that global warming has stopped" (emphasis added).

Who are "they"?

 

[gunthernehmen]

One of the inconvenient truths for climate alarmists is that global temperatures have been higher than now during several extended periods in the past 10,000 years, often coinciding with times of significant social and technological progress.

Which caused which?

Did our technology cause a trend in the climate or did warmer weather cause us to compensate with our technology? Might be silly if you think about the 20th century but if one of those warm periods coincided with say the ancient Romans or Greeks. THEY sure as hell didn't cause any global warming.

And so we're faced with age old question: Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

 

[Shelly2inme]

How about the rest of the world?

So I take it that it is Donald's fault that Al Gore uses 10 times more electricity than the average American. And it is Donald's fault that China and India and Mexico etc... are producing so much 'green house gas.'

I wonder how many billions of people will starve to death when solar powered tractors do the farm work.

I was also wondering how many of you global warming folks have ever done any experiments with various gases to actually see how much short wave solar radiation is converted to long waves and thus trapped in the atmosphere? I wonder how many are just swallowing Al Gores politically motivated lie.

 

[DawnODay]

If it was true, it would certainly be worth celebrating. The whole scientific world would be tumbling over each other to publish it, if there was hard evidence. But I guess you're acting stupid on purpose. Do you really hate the world and its inhabitants that much? Using "Real Clear Energy" of McIntyre as a trustworthy source?

I used it as a source for the numbers. You can ignore the political hype in the article, just look at the NOAA USCRN data. You can read a graph, right?

Instead of addressing the data, you attack the publication that happened to report it, and insinuate something bad about my character to boot. That's called the Argumentum Ad Hominem Fallacy.

It seems like you are contradicting yourself and the rest of your climate-change-deniers--how can you have brought something under control that isn't even existing?

Ooh, thank you. I love identifying rhetorical fallacies.

You associate me with "climate-change-deniers" in order to refute a claim I never made.* That's called the Strawman Fallacy. You're 0 for 2!

* I don't deny climate change. I simply point out that the best science indicates it's not that severe, so we need not employ draconian measures to combat it. Indeed, the NOAA USCRN data suggests the significant environmental regulation in the USA during the past several decades is sufficient. We just need countries like China and India to follow our lead.

The CO2 concentrations and other greenhouse gasses are still rising, and there is absolutely no evidence climate change has stopped. I think there are very few Europeans left who would challenge climate change at this moment, as, over the last decades, and the last two years in particular, the changes are hard to miss

So, you're saying that not even ten, but just two years of data are sufficient to establish a trend. Cool. Fourteen years of NOAA USCRN data suggest that climatic temperature increases have abated. Thanks again for the support!

Last four years have been the warmest on record – and CO2 continues to rise

Climate change: Last four years are 'world's hottest'

Did global warming stop in 1998?

As you are certainly aware, these "hottest years on record" claims have been significantly criticized, not just in light of the gold-standard NOAA USCRN data, but due to a variety of statistical manipulations made to reach those "hottest ever" results, which even after that remain within the margins of error. Also, of course, they use the qualifier "on record" to fudge around the fact that various tree ring and glacial data sets from around the world indicate that global temperatures have been significantly higher than now during several extended periods in the past 10,000 years, often coinciding with times of significant social and technological progress.

Which brings us back to this:

The day they determine that global warming has stopped would be worth celebrating. Me, I’ll wait until the temps go back down where they should be.

Where should the temps be, Phrodeau? What is the perfect Temperature for this planet?

I notice phrodeau hasn't responded to this, nor to the question I posed.

Would you like to take a shot at it, RubenR?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

I notice phrodeau hasn't responded to this, nor to the question I posed.

Would you like to take a shot at it, RubenR?

If your question is, "who are they?" the answer is the people who look at thermometers for a living.

To answer the question of "where should the temperatures be?" the answer is about 1.5 degrees cooler than they are now.

Will you be answering my question soon? How do you know that your alleged pause in continental US temperatures is due to the actions of the US, and not, say, the millions of acres of trees planted worldwide in response to rising CO2 levels? Where is the scientific evidence that you have done "enough?"

 

[DawnODay]

If your question is, "who are they?" the answer is the people who look at thermometers for a living.

That's a meaningless answer. If by it you mean professional meteorologists and climatologists, then the question becomes: "Which ones." There are plenty who already dispute the claim that we face any imminent crisis.

To answer the question of "where should the temperatures be?" the answer is about 1.5 degrees cooler than they are now.

What is the basis for that number? I'm not asking that rhetorically. I'm genuinely curious, given that several times in human history it's been considerably higher, often coinciding with times of significant social and technological progress.

Will you be answering my question soon? How do you know that your alleged pause in continental US temperatures is due to the actions of the US, and not, say, the millions of acres of trees planted worldwide in response to rising CO2 levels? Where is the scientific evidence that you have done "enough?"

I have already answered your question above. That you don't recognize that and repeat it indicates that you have limited understanding of scientific methodology. Again, the at least 14 year pause in temperature increase is evidence of all these things.

No one can "know" that the "pause in continental US temperatures [rise] is due to the actions of the US, and not, say, the millions of acres of trees planted worldwide in response to rising CO2 levels." That would require a controlled experiment to produce evidence one way or the other (do you have a set of spare Earth-like planets we can use to do such an experiment?). All the same, even with such an experiment you could never "know" that one of them did it (though you could potentially have strong evidence that one did not), just like no one can "know" or "prove" that there is man-made global warming. We simply have evidence suggesting it. (Do us both a favor and pick up a book on the philosophy of science and scientific methodology.)

As for your question to me: "Where is the scientific evidence that you have done 'enough?'" I have never claimed we have done "enough." I'm glad to see I now have you, like RubenR, resorting to the Strawman Fallacy. It proves I'm winning.

Speaking of RubenR, most of his last post was the same drivel he posted earlier, so I won't clutter this page with another lengthy but repetitive response. He keeps posting graphics he says refutes my data. It is not "my" data, however, that he thinks he is disputing. It is from NOAA. Once more:

Starting in 2002, NOAA placed a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites throughout the USA called the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). Until then, such stations were mostly placed near urban centers, and thus subject to false readings caused by the heat absorption of pavement, roofing, etc. NOAA believes these new USCRN stations will give the most accurate picture of climate trends available in the USA, that's why they placed the sensors. This pretty much negates all arguments based on data from its earlier USHCN system, on which RubenR bases his arguments.

 

[phrodeau]

Do you need for me to answer all those questions too, or can you look them up yourself now?

 

[dan_c00000]

I didn't read shit so I'm getting destroyed horrible. Better switch back to my bot/dump alt!

You do realize that NOAA is doing this because the data is so alarming they want more data, right?

I mean, it's right fucking there in your own link: They have succeeded in establishing basic trends of several aspects of climate on regional and global scales.

Look racist dawn if you aren't going to read your own shit you don't get to play the game.

 

[DawnODay]

Do you need for me to answer all those questions too, or can you look them up yourself now?

In other words, you can't answer because the the questions I pose expose the lack of scientific consensus on these issues, and that the very concept of a proper global temperature is both false and arbitrary.

You do realize that NOAA is doing this because the data is so alarming they want more data, right?

Yes, that's why they built USCRN. Then, as has happened before, better data shows things aren't as bad as the alarmists claim.

Remember this? I've posted it before.

A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%....

In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.​

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See, Investor's Business Daily (Apr. 25, 2018), citing N. Lewis & J. Curry, The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate. 31. 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1.

 

[dan_c00000]

What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

And they would be wrong because other scientists, like all of them, don't actually believe that and the models don't actually show that.

Sorry racist dawn but your original argument got destroyed and you can't save this. You got owned very, very hard.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

In other words, you can't answer because the the questions I pose expose the lack of scientific consensus on these issues, and that the very concept of a proper global temperature is both false and arbitrary.

No, in other words, you're a worthless troll who doesn't deserve the responses I made.

 

[dan_c00000]

No, in other words, you're a worthless troll who doesn't deserve the responses I made.

It's just so easy to own "her". I seriously don't why "she" even bothered posting this bullshit. The amount of goalpost moving has been absolutely fantastic from "her" original post.

There's years worth of data on this, years. And yet racist-as-fuck dawn plucks one cherry picked, bought-for piece of "data" and claims global warming isn't happening.

It's definitely not trolling because "she" knows "she"'s going to get absolutely obliterated and laughed off the internet.

 

[DawnODay]

No, in other words, you're a worthless troll who doesn't deserve the responses I made.

Thanks for your sudden tantrum. It proves my win.

 

[DawnODay]

It's just so easy to own "her". I seriously don't why "she" even bothered posting this bullshit. The amount of goalpost moving has been absolutely fantastic from "her" original post.

How many black people do you think racist dawn has met in "her" life? One? Two? I'm going to bet zero.

I love these, dan_c00000. Anytime I get you beaten to the point where you start suggesting I'm a man, because you misogynistically cannot accept that a woman is smarter than you, I know I've won.

 

[phrodeau]

Thanks for your sudden tantrum. It proves my win.

That post proves you’re a troll. Come on, Dawn, can’t you do science any more?

What do you think has been happening off the west coast lately?

 

[phrodeau]

And yet....the Obama's still bought property right on the water. Their behavior stands in stark contrast to the hysteria you and others are constantly pushing.

Please explain why you think that their property is under threat from sea level rise.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...state-from-boston-celtics-owner/#18b243b45300

 

[gunthernehmen]

Please explain why you think that their property is under threat from sea level rise.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...state-from-boston-celtics-owner/#18b243b45300

Your High Priest, Al Gore says sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet.

According to a sea level rise map on NOAA, a 3 foot rise would swamp their house.

 

[phrodeau]

Your High Priest, Al Gore says sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet.

According to a sea level rise map on NOAA, a 3 foot rise would swamp their house.

I don’t give credence to priests. I’m surprised that you do.

Worst case scenarios have sea levels rising two feet by 2100. I doubt the Obama’s will live that long. But if you’re concerned about eventually losing this soon-to-be-historic home, you can certainly start a campaign to save it.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I don’t give credence to priests. I’m surprised that you do.

Worst case scenarios have sea levels rising two feet by 2100. I doubt the Obama’s will live that long. But if you’re concerned about eventually losing this soon-to-be-historic home, you can certainly start a campaign to save it.

You (and your climate change buddies) certainly give a good impression of cult members for someone that "doesn't give credence to priests".

 

[DawnODay]

Saw this article..and thought it was well-researched. It seems the entire debate is over a degree of warming...which seems fairly minor.

Thank you for confirming your stupidity. When you think one degree is minor, your opinion on this article is meaningless.

You might have had a point, RubenR, if the article was using degrees centigrade. It was, however, using degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth has been more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer several times over the past few thousand years, each time corresponding with a period of relative social and technological progress. So the "one degree" JayCuck mentions is a fairly small issue.

The problem, of course, is that if CO2 emissions continue to rise, we may eventually see warming of several degrees centigrade. What that would do to the overall climate is uncertain, but might prove quite disruptive (we'll all be long dead of old age before then, but we owe it to our descendants not to unreasonably mess thing up for them). The original point of this thread, though, is that the USA has already quietly done its share in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while the rest of the world talks a good game, but does little if any actual reduction.

 

[gunthernehmen]

America still has among the highest emissions, in total and per capita, so there's much more to win when Americans start taking it seriously.

First, that's either a lie or you are misinformed. China leads the world in emissions. The US produces less than half the total CO2 emissions of China.

The US is a highly industrial / commercial country and uses a LOT of energy. However we do so more efficiently that ANY of the other top six consumers on the planet: Those being China, USA, India, Russia, Japan and Germany.

China produces 11kT/yr of CO2 and consumes 6.3tWh/yr of energy.
USA produces 5kT and consumes 3.9tWh

China, India and Russia are the dirtiest consumers. Highly industrialized, like the US but their usage is far and away dirtier.

Of course, our population is minuscule compared to them which lets you play games with those facts and suddenly the US is the boogeyman.

You can achieve your goals by cleaning up those three dirtiest consumers. If your high priest Al Gore is correct the whole climate change problem goes away. Those three countries alone produce 40% of the CO2 emissions of the entire world.