By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - EPA Withdrawing from Clean Power Plan

 

Should EPA withdraw from the CPP?

Yes, because I have no gr... 19 21.35%
 
No. 70 78.65%
 
Total:89
KLAMarine said:

Are the two statements incompatible?

That depends on the implication ... 

KLAMarine said:

Of course not but if all we have is a century's worth of data, what's wrong with using that to predict the trend in the coming century?

Our weather forecasts aren't even accurate when going beyond a month when we've had decades of past data to boot so how can one century's worth of data ever be enough to tell if there's a trend when Earth's climate is highly variable and erratic ? (you'd at least need 1000 years worth of data to even get a hint and geologists learned that the hard way when they discovered ice ages still persisted with CO2 concentrations that were 10x higher than it is today) 

Even if anthropogenic global warming is happening there's a limit to our fossil fuel reserves while our biosphere grows bigger and starts reabsorbing all those emissions again and starts forming sediments ... 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
KLAMarine said:

Are the two statements incompatible?

That depends on the implication ... 

KLAMarine said:

Of course not but if all we have is a century's worth of data, what's wrong with using that to predict the trend in the coming century?

Our weather forecasts aren't even accurate when going beyond a month when we've had decades of past data to boot so how can one century's worth of data ever be enough to tell if there's a trend when Earth's climate is highly variable and erratic ? (you'd at least need 1000 years worth of data to even get a hint and geologists learned that the hard way when they discovered ice ages still persisted with CO2 concentrations that were 10x higher than it is today) 

Even if anthropogenic global warming is happening there's a limit to our fossil fuel reserves while our biosphere grows bigger and starts reabsorbing all those emissions again and starts forming sediments ... 

Weather =/ cliamte.  Learn the difference.

We're killing our bioshphere and it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reabsorb what we put out.  We are way beyond equilibrium.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

KLAMarine said:

"it is pretty unclear the extent to which warming increased their intensity"

But global warming does in fact amplify their intensity, yes?

"if you focus on local events to support global trends"

Luckily, I don't believe I did. I believe I pointed to a global trend to explain local events.

Sure, but if only increased it by .000001% per year, why would we care? Magnitude matters just as much as whether or not its happening, especially when we are making cost-benefit-risk assessments. 

Luckily, I don't believe I did. I believe I pointed to a global trend to explain local events.

This is still a global claim though, because storms are not going to be more extreme everywhere in the world. So using global trends to explain any particular intense storm without empirical evidence of causation does harm, because when one sees a region with calmer weather they are going to say, "What are you talking about? The weather is calmer here." Since you can't verify causation, you can't make the claim you made. 



Errorist76 said:
sc94597 said:

It is too early to make such claims like that. This is for the same reason that saying, "how can the world be warming, there was a really bad snowstorm each of the last three years? is poor logic. Associating local events with global trends is hard.  Just wanted to highlight that, because saying "look at hurricane [Harvey, Maria, Irma]" is not the best argument, as it is pretty unclear the extent to which warming increased their intensity and with climate change there will be regions of the world that get less precipitation -- if you focus on local events to support global trends, the people live in other local realities become hyperskeptics. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/31/what-do-we-know-about-relationship-between-climate/

"A draft report on climate science conducted by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment said models showed the number of very intense storms have been rising as a result of a warmer world. But the trend has yet to rise above normal variation.

The report also said that scientists are better able to attribute weather events to climate change than they used to be, but linking individual events to climate change is more complicated. The scientists we spoke to about Hurricane Harvey expressed a similar challenge."

I’ve only lived on this planet for 40 years and I can tell you one thing....this climate is going to shit. We had the weirdest weather I can ever remember this year and everything seems to get more out of balance every year. I’m glad I’m living in a country with big solid stone houses but I swear to god I’m well aware 90% of this planet’s population doesn’t have this luxury. Not even most Americans. People need to stop being so ignorant.

Forty years is not long enough for an individual person to accertain global trends in climate based on their experience. Sorry, this is just as bad as the people who say, "Global warming doesn't exist because my region is getting colder over forty years." Sure, your local region might've got colder, but the GLOBE got warmer. It is important to depend on facts when we talk about climate change, not personal experience. 



SpokenTruth said:

Weather =/ cliamte.  Learn the difference.

LAWL, you just made a strawman and missed my point ... 

How is that even possible ? 

SpokenTruth said:

We're killing our bioshphere and it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reabsorb what we put out.  We are way beyond equilibrium.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161222095844.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/plants-have-unexpected-response-climate-change

Fact is there's more biodiversity in warmer climates and plant life seems to prefer both the higher temperatures and higher concentration levels of CO2 ... 

@Bold That is something a climate alarmist would say. There's almost no chance of Earth running into a runaway greenhouse gas effect and even the IPCC admits to this ... (not to mention as organic life continues to absorb the CO2 in the atmosphere and as organic material continues to accumulate on top of each other in anaerobic environments, sediments will start to form and the CO2 gets trapped in these calcite rich limestones) 

Your entire post is the prime example of fearmongering ... 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Errorist76 said:

I’ve only lived on this planet for 40 years and I can tell you one thing....this climate is going to shit. We had the weirdest weather I can ever remember this year and everything seems to get more out of balance every year. I’m glad I’m living in a country with big solid stone houses but I swear to god I’m well aware 90% of this planet’s population doesn’t have this luxury. Not even most Americans. People need to stop being so ignorant.

Forty years is not long enough for an individual person to accertain global trends in climate based on their experience. Sorry, this is just as bad as the people who say, "Global warming doesn't exist because my region is getting colder over forty years." Sure, your local region might've got colder, but the GLOBE got warmer. It is important to depend on facts when we talk about climate change, not personal experience. 

Oh I can....I had grandfathers and grand grandfathers who told me about it decades ago already. Luckily I’ve not been raised by ignorants. You fools...you deniers are ruining our children’s future and you’re even proud of it. Missing empathy and selective perception are a really tough burden for ALL of us. Antisocial as can be. It’s incredible. You just need to open up your eyes to see what is happening. Stop putting your head in the dirt.



fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:

Weather =/ cliamte.  Learn the difference.

LAWL, you just made a strawman and missed my point ... 

How is that even possible ? 

SpokenTruth said:

We're killing our bioshphere and it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reabsorb what we put out.  We are way beyond equilibrium.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161222095844.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/plants-have-unexpected-response-climate-change

Fact is there's more biodiversity in warmer climates and plant life seems to prefer both the higher temperatures and higher concentration levels of CO2 ... 

@Bold That is something a climate alarmist would say. There's almost no chance of Earth running into a runaway greenhouse gas effect and even the IPCC admits to this ... (not to mention as organic life continues to absorb the CO2 in the atmosphere and as organic material continues to accumulate on top of each other in anaerobic environments, sediments will start to form and the CO2 gets trapped in these calcite rich limestones) 

Your entire post is the prime example of fearmongering ... 

Sorry to say this, but I feel ashamed to be forced to share this planet with egoistic specimen like you, to be honest. Using the word climate alarmist as something bad is exactly the rhetoric I’d expect but what do you gain from putting that head in the dirt?! I don’t understand...too lazy to change something, too stubborn to accept reality?! Sometimes I really wish they’d put LSD in people’s fresh water. Please watch the documentaries Samsara, Baraka, Kooyanisqatsi. Maybe this can burst your bubble, although I doubt it. You’re probably too scared you might be forced to change your mind anyway. You seem to boast with your knowledge but you know nothing, you’re a fool...willingly dragging us all down with you.



Ganoncrotch said:
I clicked yes because a poll like that is a terrible way to run a poll if you think that's a good way to gauge public views on a matter... sad times for the illusion of democracy or a vote.

Do you like Tim
[ ] Yes
[ ] No I'm a dribbling idiot who likes a moron

See how the above isn't a way to ask a question of a user? you are stacking the odds on a user clicking the option which doesn't attack either them or the reason behind clicking the option they feel is right, if you want to load reasons for an option being right into something then do it in the OP and educate people why your thoughts on the matter are valid.

Because there only is one option. If you believe it's good to put the country behind, ruin the planet, and avoid better methods of obtaining energy -then, I'm sorry, the person is stupid. As stupid as the less than human animals that deny climate change. 



Errorist76 said:
sc94597 said:

Forty years is not long enough for an individual person to accertain global trends in climate based on their experience. Sorry, this is just as bad as the people who say, "Global warming doesn't exist because my region is getting colder over forty years." Sure, your local region might've got colder, but the GLOBE got warmer. It is important to depend on facts when we talk about climate change, not personal experience. 

Oh I can....I had grandfathers and grand grandfathers who told me about it decades ago already. Luckily I’ve not been raised by ignorants. You fools...you deniers are ruining our children’s future and you’re even proud of it. Missing empathy and selective perception are a really tough burden for ALL of us. Antisocial as can be. It’s incredible. You just need to open up your eyes to see what is happening. Stop putting your head in the dirt.

I am not a climate-change denier. But you are definitely anti-science if you promote "experience" over data. You obviously don't understand anything about climate change and just accept it out of mimicry. Being able to identify climate change locally, is impossible. You have to take data points from all over the world over a long period of time. 

For example, how would anyone in Alabama identify global warming based on their experience in Alabama where temperatures are cooler than a century before? 

 



fatslob-:O said:
KLAMarine said:

Are the two statements incompatible?

That depends on the implication ... 

KLAMarine said:

Of course not but if all we have is a century's worth of data, what's wrong with using that to predict the trend in the coming century?

Our weather forecasts aren't even accurate when going beyond a month when we've had decades of past data to boot so how can one century's worth of data ever be enough to tell if there's a trend when Earth's climate is highly variable and erratic?

This may come as a surprise but predicting short term weather changes is more difficult than predicting longer term changes.

For example, I can't tell you with 100% accuracy that tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today but I am willing to bet big money that in the Northern hemisphere, summer 2018 will be warmer than winter 2017.

fatslob-:O said:

(you'd at least need 1000 years worth of data to even get a hint and geologists learned that the hard way when they discovered ice ages still persisted with CO2 concentrations that were 10x higher than it is today) 

Ah yes, that familiar claim: that CO2 concentrations were 10x higher back then and yet we had ice ages. This is completely, positively, undeniably TRUE!...

...

BUT our sun was also much weaker then too! Understand that our CO2 levels alone does not determine average world temperatures, it's far more complicated than that and the sun certainly plays a role. Time does too and melting immense masses of snow takes time the same way bringing water to a boil takes time so it's not incompatible that there was a period when we had both a snowy Earth and high CO2 concentrations at the same time.

sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said:

"it is pretty unclear the extent to which warming increased their intensity"

But global warming does in fact amplify their intensity, yes?

"if you focus on local events to support global trends"

Luckily, I don't believe I did. I believe I pointed to a global trend to explain local events.

Sure, but if only increased it by .000001% per year, why would we care? Magnitude matters just as much as whether or not its happening, especially when we are making cost-benefit-risk assessments. 

Where did you get the ".000001%" number from?

sc94597 said:

Luckily, I don't believe I did. I believe I pointed to a global trend to explain local events.

This is still a global claim though, because storms are not going to be more extreme everywhere in the world. So using global trends to explain any particular intense storm without empirical evidence of causation does harm, because when one sees a region with calmer weather they are going to say, "What are you talking about? The weather is calmer here." Since you can't verify causation, you can't make the claim you made. 

To that statement I would counter that I never stated a warmer climate would cause extreme weather or bring to an end calm weather, all I claimed is warmer oceans would amplify extreme weather if said extreme weather were to manifest.