It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, CO at lower levels is more dangerous than CO2, people die more frequently from CO poisoning than CO2 poisoning.
Did I say otherwise? I don't think I did. Let me check...




Carbon monoxide (as well as carbon dioxide) are quite poisonous in high enough concentrations, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen.


Nope. I didn't say that CO2 is as toxic as CO.




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

His point may be as you suggest, but your post indicated carbon monoxide, which is an unstable asphyxiant. It is also not a concern in Global Warming, as it fairly rapidly becomes carbon dioxide in the presence of atmospheric free oxygen like ozone.

Is the thread concerning Global Warming or is it concerning carbon monoxide pollution?

You're using an old tired trick: you posted concerning the asphyxiant qualities of auto exhaust in a thread concerning CO2, in a now-admitted attempt to blur the issue. Auto exhaust is well-known to have asphyxiant qualities based on carbon monoxide. Of course I thought you had the two chemicals confused! Anyone who was actually trying to discuss the subject would have thought so.

In response to your 'point': carbon dioxide is a major component of the global life cycle; carbon monoxide is not.

There was a time when I assumed the so-called scientists at the IPCC knew what they were talking about. It was inaccuracies and trickery exactly like you just tried to pull that caused me to question their conclusions and research the theories myself. So congratulations! Maybe you will be the one to cause someone else to question the official story.

Anyone who tries to debate science using unscientific methods has already lost their argument.

TheRedneck.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...
You might remember the whole Dust Bowl thing. That was significantly our fault - a lack of knowledge in how to farm the land with terraced fields and contour farming. A lack of water from drought didn't help any, which meant ploughed and dry topsoil just blew away with our windy weather. Windbreaks helped with that, but trees take time to grow.
...


Wrong... the "Dust Bowl thing" wasn't caused by us...


Article

Climate Dynamics

January 2016, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 413-426

First online: 08 April 2015
Extraordinary heat during the 1930s US Dust Bowl and associated large-scale conditions

Markus G. Donat , Andrew D. King, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Lisa V. Alexander, Imke Durre, David J. Karoly


Abstract

Unusually hot summer conditions occurred during the 1930s over the central United States and undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the Dust Bowl drought. We investigate local and large-scale conditions in association with the extraordinary heat and drought events, making use of novel datasets of observed climate extremes and climate reanalysis covering the past century. We show that the unprecedented summer heat during the Dust Bowl years was likely exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks associated with springtime precipitation deficits. The reanalysis results indicate that these deficits were associated with the coincidence of anomalously warm North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific surface waters and a shift in atmospheric pressure patterns leading to reduced flow of moist air into the central US. Thus, the combination of springtime ocean temperatures and atmospheric flow anomalies, leading to reduced precipitation, also holds potential for enhanced predictability of summer heat events. The results suggest that hot drought, more severe than experienced during the most recent 2011 and 2012 heat waves, is to be expected when ocean temperature anomalies like those observed in the 1930s occur in a world that has seen significant mean warming.

link.springer.com...


edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

There is a basic assumption made in every scientific experiment: the control must be of the same condition as the subject, with the sole exception of the variables under test. That means, in the context of this thread, that comparisons of growth rates can only be studied under this assumption. If there are conditions that do not alow the control to grow, the experiment is moot.

Without nutrients in the soil, plants cannot grow, conceded. The needed nutrient levels vary from plant to plant however. That's why farmers rotate crops: to use the different nutrient levels at somewhat similar rates. Oklahoma for example (yeah, I've been there plenty of times) has relatively poor soil for most crops, but it is sufficient for that prairie grass to grow.

The difference between soil nutrients and the three variables I mentioned earlier is that all three are common to all green plant life. No nutrient is common to all green plant life. If you had mentioned water, well, that is a common requirement. But there is another difference: adding nutrients or water to the soil beyond the needed threshold for growth does not cause an associated increase in growth rates. Sunlight, heat, and carbon dioxide do.

I'm sorry to hear you are disappointed in your state. But this topic is not about the effects of CO2 on Oklahoma; it is about the effects globally. Globally, as long as conditions are favorable for growth, any increase in CO2 levels will result in increased plant growth rates. An increase in temperature will result in an increase in plant growth rates, as well as a longer growing season. That applies anywhere plants grow: Alabama, Hawaii, Europe, Africa, Asia, and even Oklahoma... if you fertilize, which you apparently do already.

Might I suggest that you will receive a more intellectual experience if you simply pose your points, rather than trying to twist the topic of debate to a secret subject only you are aware of?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
So, bad agricultural practices had nothing to do with the dustbowl disaster? That article just seems to talk about why it got so hot. I don't think any one blames that on the agricultural practices.

But plow-based farming in this re­gion cultivated an unexpected yield: the loss of fertile topsoil that literally blew away in the winds, leaving the land vulnerable to drought and inhospitable for growing crops. In a brutal twist of fate, the rains stopped. By 1932, 14 dust storms, known as black blizzards were reported, and in just one year, the number increased to nearly 40.
science.howstuffworks.com...


Interesting part you bolded though:

The results suggest that hot drought, more severe than experienced during the most recent 2011 and 2012 heat waves, is to be expected when ocean temperature anomalies like those observed in the 1930s occur in a world that has seen significant mean warming.

Seems the authors think that there is significant mean warming occurring. That means average temperatures are rising, doesn't it, significantly?


edit on 5/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I don't need to know, animals pee naturally in the forest, there is no need to use any sort of chemical or organic man made fertilizer. It's all the cause of a bad agricultural management and a disrespect to nature.
Everything a plant need to grow is found withing the natural recycle system of for example forests.
I grow my own food for some time now as did my parents, grandparents and their fathers.
Not once have I EVER used any sort of man-made fabricated fertilizer or biocide.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The ONLY thing we should be doing RIGHT NOW about climate change, is simple :

Plant. More. Trees.

Best natural carbon sequestration device there ever could be.

Simply stopping the carbon is never going to work, since carbon is also produced naturally.

We need more of the things that actually USE carbon.



originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.


Do not use the word "science " then say there is no room for debate, that is the epitome of idiocy.

There is always room for debate in science.



THANK YOU!!

I'm so tired of the idiocy that thinks science is not open for debate. NOTHING is above debate in science.

NOTHING.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
No doubt mankind is having no influence on Mother Earth and her massive systems. Rather than suggest we actually do something to ameliorate climate change, I fully support that we go the way of the dodo instead. That's what is best for this little blue planet and its species. Meanwhile, watch this film...

>>> racingextinction.com



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The sun and earth probably think we are dumb as hell.

We breed greed, rich rob the poor; make all these mental concepts and regulations, enforce them as the law, and forever suck the living until they die.

Must be nice living the rich life!

Oh well.. it's only temporary, so is global warming so is global cooling.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The sun and earth probably think we are dumb as hell.

We breed greed, rich rob the poor; make all these mental concepts and regulations, enforce them as the law, and forever suck the living until they die.

Must be nice living the rich life!

Oh well.. it's only temporary, so is global warming so is global cooling.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

You are 100% wrong! You are preaching a lie and likely know that. There is NO PROOF of man-made climate change. It is nothing but a theory, not a fact as you claim.

Climate change itself is a fact...not man-made climate change.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
Seems the authors think that there is significant mean warming occurring. That means average temperatures are rising, doesn't it, significantly?



And some of us have already shown you, and others here how the warming has been caused by "natural causes" and not by CO2, nor by anthropogenic CO2.

BTW, do notice that your article states among other things "In a brutal twist of fate, the rains stopped.". What caused the rains to stop was the anomalies that occurred in the Atlantic and Pacific ocean... BTW, remember also that 1936 was warmer than 1998 at least in the U.S.


July 2012 Hottest Ever in the U.S.? Hmmm….I Doubt It
August 8th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Using NCDC’s own data (USHCN, Version 2), and computing area averages for the last 100 years of Julys over the 48 contiguous states, here’s what I get for the daily High temps, Low temps, and daily Averages (click for large version):



As far as daily HIGH temperatures go, 1936 was the clear winner. But because daily LOW temperatures have risen so much, the daily AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936.

Now, of course, we have that nagging issue of just how much urban heat island (UHI) effect remains in the data. The NCDC “homogenization” procedures are not really meant to handle long-term UHI warming, which has probably occurred at most of the 1218 stations used in the above plot.
...

www.drroyspencer.com...

Mankind has been using agriculture for thousands of years, the dust bowl didn't happen because of agriculture, but because rains stopped due to the anomalies that occurred in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The fact that rains stopped caused the top soil to become drier than normal and with the anomalous warming occurring in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans winds picked up in the U.S. precipitating the dustbowl.


edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and correct comment.

edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, you havent shown such a thing. It is like you expect people to believe you wild claims just because.

Deny ignorance and ElectricUniverse is clearly ignorant in terms of understanding climate science. Anyone who believes Roy Spencer lacks and understanding of climate science.

Roy Spencer gets paid to push his BS from the Heartland Institute. A group who is sponsored by big oil to spread disinformation in regards to the damage they are doing.
edit on 16-5-2016 by jrod because: iu



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The ONLY thing we should be doing RIGHT NOW about climate change, is simple :

Plant. More. Trees.

Best natural carbon sequestration device there ever could be.

Simply stopping the carbon is never going to work, since carbon is also produced naturally.

We need more of the things that actually USE carbon.



originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.


Do not use the word "science " then say there is no room for debate, that is the epitome of idiocy.

There is always room for debate in science.



THANK YOU!!

I'm so tired of the idiocy that thinks science is not open for debate. NOTHING is above debate in science.

NOTHING.


Sure...as long as it is supported by evidence of some kind. There is no debating ideas which are pulled out of someone's ear, like creationism or flat earthism.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Mankind has been using agriculture for thousands of years, the dust bowl didn't happen because of agriculture, but because rains stopped due to the anomalies that occurred in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The fact that rains stopped caused the top soil to become drier than normal and with the anomalous warming occurring in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans winds picked up in the U.S. precipitating the dustbowl.


You don't need to go that far back. Look what happened to Syrian climate and agriculture for a handful of years before the current troubles kicked off.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

You don't need to go that far back. Look what happened to Syrian climate and agriculture for a handful of years before the current troubles kicked off.


The problem is we are living in a planet with a climate that does not stay static. The climate and the geology of the planet changes, and climate changes constantly and has done so throughout the geological history of the Earth. Whether mankind is on Earth or not, the climate will continue changing. Mankind has to learn to adapt.

I am not saying that we can spill real toxic materials, CO2 is not toxic, but if mankind thinks we can tame, and continue taming nature, reality will keep slapping us in the face.

If mankind keeps building in areas that have a propensity for large earthquakes, guess what? Some day a very large earthquake will hit that area causing massive damage and loss of life.

If mankind continues building cities close to coasts and areas that are being eroded by the oceans, and have a propensity for flooding, guess what? Some day a large flood will occur causing massive damage and loss of life.

I find it quite ironic that the same people who claim that "changes made by mankind caused the climate to go wild" are the same people who want scientists to "change the climate"...

The worst part is part of what the world elites and their puppet scientists want to do is the sequestration of atmospheric CO2. What this would mean for mankind and for animal life is we will have less food and less water.



The Direct Effect of an Increase in CO2

Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified. Sylvan Wittwer in Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide tabulates the results. He observes

The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, are positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.
...

www.sjsu.edu...


Trees use water more efficiently when atmospheric carbon dioxide is high

Date:
May 11, 2015
Source:
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Summary:
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have already caused large-scale physiological responses of European forests. In particular, the efficiency of water-use of trees, which is coupled to the uptake of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis of leaves and needles has changed significantly. According to the study of a large, interdisciplinary team of researchers, European broadleaf and coniferous trees have increased their water-use efficiency since the beginning of the 20th century by 14% and 22%, respectively.

www.sciencedaily.com...

When plants use water more efficiently they leave more water for animals and humans.

More atmospheric CO2 = good for plant life, animal life and good for mankind since plants will produce more harvests and bigger harvests and use less water.

Less atmospheric CO2 = less harvests, less water for humans and animals to use.



edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Sargeras

The observations are crystal clear, we are causing CO2 to rise sharply. There is NO DEBATING THIS REALITY!


Yes there is... During a warming cycle CO2 levels also increase naturally... Of course, the AGW camp proclaim that land volcanoes only emit a small amount of CO2, but the fact is there is an estimated 3 million volcanoes in our ocean floors.


Yes and scientists track oceanic volcanic activity as well..

But more to the point...CO2 from fossil fuels has it's own signature fingerprint. The isotope is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as man-made carbon emissions have risen. Just as oxygen (O2) is decreasing in the atmosphere at the same rate CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels are burned.

The science identifying the increase in CO2 as originating with Fossil Fuels is straight-up.

edit on 16-5-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

You don't need to go that far back. Look what happened to Syrian climate and agriculture for a handful of years before the current troubles kicked off.


The problem is we are living in a planet with a climate that does not stay static.


There is ZERO..NADA...NO TRIGGERS to explain this away as a natural climate cycle. You suggested an unknown 3 million hidden volcanoes under the ocean's surface that have suddenly erupted undetected...that is nonsense...and desperate nonsense...Since again...we can sample the CO2 levels and identify CO2 as originating from fossil fuels due to the depleted carbon-13 isotope.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

First of all, only some areas of emissions of CO2 are being monitored/observed as to what amount of CO2 is being released and what type of carbon isotope those emissions have... Most areas around the world are not being monitored.

Second, even though plant life dislike Carbon 13, ocean exchanges does not prefer either one. This means the oceans can exchange both carbon isotopes including carbon 13.

I do find it ironic, and comical on your part to claim there is no evidence for my argument when I have presented several peer-reviewed research that demonstrate the contrary to what you are claiming.
edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

His point may be as you suggest, but your post indicated carbon monoxide, which is an unstable asphyxiant. It is also not a concern in Global Warming, as it fairly rapidly becomes carbon dioxide in the presence of atmospheric free oxygen like ozone.

Is the thread concerning Global Warming or is it concerning carbon monoxide pollution?

You're using an old tired trick: you posted concerning the asphyxiant qualities of auto exhaust in a thread concerning CO2, in a now-admitted attempt to blur the issue. Auto exhaust is well-known to have asphyxiant qualities based on carbon monoxide. Of course I thought you had the two chemicals confused! Anyone who was actually trying to discuss the subject would have thought so.

In response to your 'point': carbon dioxide is a major component of the global life cycle; carbon monoxide is not.

There was a time when I assumed the so-called scientists at the IPCC knew what they were talking about. It was inaccuracies and trickery exactly like you just tried to pull that caused me to question their conclusions and research the theories myself. So congratulations! Maybe you will be the one to cause someone else to question the official story.

Anyone who tries to debate science using unscientific methods has already lost their argument.

TheRedneck.

I can't help it if people can't follow a conversation. Carbon monoxide rapidly oxidizes into carbon dioxide, which is a central concern to climate science.

It is a thread ostensibly about an EPA rule. If you want discussion limited to that, I suspect it would be pretty boring,

There's no trick. You're seeing what you want to see. He indicated that carbon dioxide is great for carbon-based life.

Here, lemme help again:
X is composed of C.
Y is also composed of C.
Therefore, X is good for Y.

It's quite obvious the answer to my rhetorical question was "nope," and a basic understanding of the situation would have pointed you to seeing why that argument is garbage. I can't help you if you can't follow that.

It's sad that I have to explain this when I provided the entire context for that question. It's almost worse that discussion arose about the quantity of carbon dioxide needed in order to reach the answer to the rhetorical question. People see what they want, and think accordingly. You're clearly in that category if you think that was some "trickery."
edit on 18Mon, 16 May 2016 18:17:19 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join