Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

 

There simply has to be something between panic driven naive measures and total la la land denial. 

I agree, but when our government, or at least the present government, has deemed climate change as an existential  threat and are making policy that affects us all based on a yet unproven theory pushback is required.

[arein0 980]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I agree, but when our government, or at least the present government, has deemed climate change as an existential  threat and are making policy that affects us all based on a yet unproven theory pushback is required.

There is a difference between pushback and denial.

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

There is a difference between pushback and denial.

One who is so entrenched in this theory will label the ones that pushback as deniers, that is where it goes off the rail.  That is where we are today.

[homersapien 11,486]

11 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

These 2 have been waging this same fight for over 20 years (trump hired them during his term). I won’t dismiss or debunk them - but obviously they’re in the less than 4% of all scientists category. However, if youre a denialist - those 2 are definitely your guys. Ps Happer is almost 85 yrs old … (I know how much age means to you)

They have been paid by "big oil" the whole time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

(Ironic considering one of the go-to accusations for deniers against climate scientists is they are doing it for money.)

[homersapien 11,486]

Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory just captured ominous signals about the planet’s health

Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever.

By Scott Dance

May 10, 2024

 

Hawaii’s Mauna Loa’s Observatory just captured an ominous sign about the pace of global warming.

Atmospheric levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide aren’t just on their way to yet another record high this year — they’re rising faster than ever, according to the latest in a 66-year-long series of observations.

Carbon dioxide levels were 4.7 parts per million higher in March than they were a year earlier, the largest annual leap ever measured at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration laboratory atop a volcano on Hawaii’s Big Island. And from January through April, CO2 concentrations increased faster than they have in the first four months of any other year. Data from Mauna Loa is used to create the Keeling Curve, a chart that daily plots global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, tracked by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego.

For decades, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa in the month of May have broken previous records. But the recent acceleration in atmospheric CO2, surpassing a record-setting increase observed in 2016, is perhaps a more ominous signal of failing efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the damage they cause to Earth’s climate.

“Not only is CO2 still rising in the atmosphere — it’s increasing faster and faster,” said Arlyn Andrews, a climate scientist at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

A historically strong El Niño climate pattern that developed last year is a big reason for the spike. But the weather pattern only punctuated an existing trend in which global carbon emissions are rising even as U.S. emissions have declined and the growth in global emissions has slowed.

The spike is “not surprising,” said Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 Program at Scripps Institution, “because we’re also burning more fossil fuel than ever.”

Why carbon dioxide levels keep rising

Carbon dioxide levels naturally ebb and flow throughout each year. At Mauna Loa, they peak in April and May and then decline until August and September. This follows the growth cycle of northern hemisphere plants: growing — and sequestering away carbon — during the summer months and releasing it during fall and winter as they die and decompose.

Once CO2 makes it into the atmosphere, it stays there for hundreds of years, acting as a blanket trapping heat. That blanket has been steadily thickening ever since humans turned materials that were once dense stores of carbon — oil and coal, primarily — into fuel to burn.

That means the Keeling Curve reaches new heights each May, forming a new peak in a sawtooth-like pattern.

 

 

The Keeling Curve, a diagram of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, shows a spike each May as northern hemisphere plants grow -- yet the trend overall is upward. (Dance, Scott and Scripps Institute of Oceanography/Scripps Institute of Oceanography)

The chart originated when Charles David Keeling, Ralph Keeling’s father, started recording atmospheric concentrations of CO2 atop the Mauna Loa volcano in the late 1950s. It was the first effort to measure the planet-warming gas on a continuing basis and helped alert scientists to the reality of the intensified greenhouse effect,

Each annual maximum has raised new alarm about the curve’s unceasing upward trend — nearing 427 parts per million in the most recent readings, which is more than 50 percent above preindustrial levels and the highest in at least 4.3 million years, according to NOAA. Atmospheric CO2 levels first surpassed 400 parts per million in 2014. Scientists said in 2016 that levels were unlikely to drop below that threshold again during the lifetime of even the youngest generations.

Since that year, carbon dioxide emissions tied to fossil fuel consumption have increased 5 percent globally, according to Scripps.

Why annual increases vary

The increase in carbon dioxide from year to year is not precisely consistent. One factor that tends to cause levels to rise especially quickly: the El Niño climate pattern.

El Niño is linked to warmer-than-average surface waters along the equator in the eastern and central Pacific. That warmth affects weather patterns around the world, triggering extreme heat, floods and droughts.

The droughts in particular contribute to higher-than-normal spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, Keeling said.

Tropical forests serve as reliable stores of carbon because they don’t go through the same seasonal decay as plant life at higher latitudes. But El Niño-linked droughts in tropical areas including Indonesia and northern South America mean less carbon storage within plants, Keeling said. Land-based ecosystems around the world tend to give off more carbon dioxide during El Niño because of the changes in precipitation and temperature the weather pattern brings, Andrews added.

That can allow CO2 concentrations to rise especially quickly on the tail end of El Niño events — such as the current one, which NOAA scientists said Thursday is likely to end this month.

The increase observed at Mauna Loa over the past year is some five times larger than the average annual increases seen in the 1960s, and about twice as large as in the 2010s, according to NOAA data.

A record surge in early 2016 was also at the end of a historically strong El Niño.

Why carbon matters

It will take some four decades to stop the annual growth in CO2 concentrations, even if all emissions began declining now, Andrews said. Because Earth’s carbon cycle is so far out of its natural equilibrium, plants, soils and oceans would give off stores of extra CO2 in response to any reduction in humans’ emissions, she said.

And for CO2 concentrations to fall back below 400 parts per million, it would take more than two centuries even if emissions dropped close to zero by the end of this century, she added.

In the natural carbon cycle, the element passes through air, soil and water, and plants and animals, eventually making its way into deep ocean sediments and fossils deep underground. Carbon’s movement

throughout Earth systems helps regulate our planet’s temperatures — unlike on Venus, for instance, where CO2 accounts for most of the atmosphere, making that planet’s surface hellishly hot.

But human emissions of CO2 throw that system out of balance. It’s like adding more and more trash to a dump, Andrews said. Even if each load of trash gets smaller, “it’s still piling up.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/05/10/carbon-dioxide-record-mauna-loa/

Edited May 10 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,684]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know how much Trump means to you.  Why not address the material rather than the source?

 

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Because he can't refute anything Dr. Happer has to say, and he knows it.

What was given to address? All that was posted was their conjecture about how climate science supposedly operates (*laughably including peer review, as if that's somehow a bad thing). The statement says climate models have been wrong, and the tweet references a chart he supposedly gave to the EPA, but that chart is not included and no reference to the specific models or studies he cited are shown. 

You've also listed no studies that either of these people have done on the subject. All you've basically said is "hey, these guys have degrees and they disagree with you, so you're wrong."  Do they have any reports they've authored to back up the assertions in their statement? 

 

*Oh.....https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

[Leftfield 2,684]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

One who is so entrenched in this theory will label the ones that pushback as deniers, that is where it goes off the rail. 

One who doesn't even read the studies they post can hardly claim to be just pushing back.

[auburnatl1 5,198]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They have been paid by "big oil" the whole time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

(Ironic considering one of the go-to accusations for deniers against climate scientists is they are doing it for money.)

I’ve alway felt liberals serve a critical purpose in any society - to challenge the status quo. From climate, to transgender, to gun control, to the regulation of business. Same for conservatives to resist change - it was good enough for my parents.

Imo the challenge (again) is with the slow extinction of moderates to manage the extremes to move forward, our political system has a historic dilemma.  A marriage with 2 opposites and no marriage counselor. There is no climate problem vs we’ll all be under water by Halloween.

Climate is the ultimate challenge.  Liberals wanting us to ride bikes to work built by DEI/green compliant factories, and maga wanting heterosexual white-only mechanics to rip out our catalytic converters so we can haul butt in leaded gas v-10s to the office.

Nobody is wiling to lose to win.

[homersapien 11,486]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

......the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

(Client =Big oil)

These guys have been cashing in on their academic credentials for decades to make a living off the (well funded) denier community.  It's been discussed many times on this forum in the past. 

[homersapien 11,486]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’ve alway felt liberals serve a critical purpose in any society - to challenge the status quo. From climate, to transgender, to gun control, to the regulation of business. Same for conservatives to resist change - it was good enough for my parents.

Imo the challenge (again) is with the slow extinction of moderates to manage the extremes to move forward, our political system has a historic dilemma.  A marriage with 2 opposites and no marriage counselor. There is no climate problem vs we’ll all be under water by Halloween.

Climate is the ultimate challenge.  Liberals wanting us to ride bikes to work built by DEI/green compliant factories, and maga wanting heterosexual white-only mechanics to rip out our catalytic converters so we can haul butt in leaded gas v-10s to the office.

Nobody is wiling to lose to win.

I get your point, but IMO the extremists are far more limited in number than your model,  on both sides.

The great majority - including businessmen and politicians - recognize the challenge and appreciate we are far behind schedule to effect meaningful change to avoid significant effects.

The only question now is just how bad the ecology will get before the trend even levels off.  

The Anthropocene is real.  Our species seems determined to go out with a "bang".  (At least the religious among us will get their apocalypse, just more drawn out than they imagined.

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/corporate-climate-watchdog-document-deems-carbon-offsets-largely-ineffective-2024-05-09/

 

[arein0 980]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

One who is so entrenched in this theory will label the ones that pushback as deniers, that is where it goes off the rail.  That is where we are today.

Not true. It is very obvious who the deniers are just based on the arguments they are trying to make

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

12 hours ago, arein0 said:

Not true. It is very obvious who the deniers are just based on the arguments they are trying to make

If the climate change arguement is to be believed, would not the evidence be so irrefutable that even the ones that believe actually change their lifestyle as a show of their own commitment?  Going to Rehoboth Beach every weekend is not a show of concern.

Do you think that man has ever controlled the climate?  Are we capable?  Does spending $ trillions of dollars and not knowing if what is purposed will even work, worth while?

If we are to believe the data, leaders have to lead us in everything they do especially if it is an existential threat.  They are not, why?  And it is not because of the deniers.

[auburnatl1 5,198]

 Personally, on this topic I struggle with both sides.

The right has  their chronic Jan 6 syndrome on this topic - deny, minimize, and deflect. Which just isn’t useful and chews up a ridiculous amount of time. Candidly - this is a waters wet kind of problem. It’s painful to read or listen to.

The left, per usual, wants epic government regulations, solutions, and spending on the problem - it’s their go to solution for solving any problem. However,

We just need to accelerate the trend. Generally if you educate, encourage,  and trust the American people and challenge US industry and technology - good things will happen. Ie

Musk (hate him or love him) and Tesla quietly changed/lead/challenged … everything. And if denialists would just stop friggin whining  and contribute  - big brother stuff becomes almost irrelevant.

Bottom line - instead of massive government  - further educate and challenge. Press people and technology companies to do  more. Make it national and personal - not political.  

Getting to the moon spanned both parties. It was global competition - we won.

 

[homersapien 11,486]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

 

 

Bottom line - instead of massive government  - further educate and challenge. Press people and technology companies to do  more. Make it national and personal - not political.  

Getting to the moon spanned both parties. It was global competition - we won.

 

"Massive" government is as necessary in addressing this problem as it was in WWII or winning the cold war. 

The politics boils down to debating methods, which is both natural and inevitable in a democracy.

[auburnatl1 5,198]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Massive" government is as necessary in addressing this problem as it was in WWII or winning the cold war. 

The politics boils down to debating methods, which is both natural and inevitable in a democracy.

The gov wasn’t massive - it lead and coordinated. The military and industry won ww2. This is an area where you and I will ideologically disagree - imo the gov is a monopoly, the least efficient, slowest business model ever created by man. Establish goals, sell the electorate and industry, incentivize, and unleash. 

Gov needs to be less draconian and spend its energy leading. Biden has the bully pulpit - use it. Educate. Every day if necessary. 

 

Edited May 11 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,486]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The gov wasn’t massive - it lead and coordinated. The military and industry won ww2. This is an area where you and I will ideologically disagree - imo the gov is a monopoly, the least efficient, slowest business model ever created by man. Establish goals, sell the electorate and industry, incentivize, and unleash. 

Gov needs to be less draconian and spend its energy leading. Biden has the bully pulpit - use it. Educate. Every day if necessary. 

 

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. 

Of course our economy was the actual power behind our victory in WWII and the cold war.

I repeated your term - "massive" - not in the sense the government undertakes the job of directly solving the problem on its on   - which is impossible in any rate. 

I meant the government is needed to provide the leadership defining goals and strategy to marshal the commercial sector.   A classic example is providing incentives, subsidies or taxes to encourage key technologies and products that are required to change our carbon producing status quo.

IMO, this is a "massive" role for government.  It's essential.

 

Edited May 11 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,684]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the climate change arguement is to be believed, would not the evidence be so irrefutable that even the ones that believe actually change their lifestyle as a show of their own commitment?  Going to Rehoboth Beach every weekend is not a show of concern.

I don't disagree. Those that advocate for action should be at the forefront of tailoring their own lifestyles for it. Some do, some don't. I will join you in criticizing those that don't.

Their actions of course don't prevent you from changing anything, but let's not be disingenuous here...you don't and never will believe there's a problem. This argument is just a distraction. 

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you think that man has ever controlled the climate?  Are we capable?  Does spending $ trillions of dollars and not knowing if what is purposed will even work, worth while?

Controlling and influencing are two different things. We can obviously influence, but we haven't developed the ability to control. I believe we will at some point, but doubtfully in the next 50-100 years. 

The task right now is to remove our influence to a degree that the environment can adapt. 

 

 

[Leftfield 2,684]

45 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Musk (hate him or love him) and Tesla quietly changed/lead/challenged … everything. 

You're right on this. Musk and Tesla actually made electric cars "cool" for a lot of people.

That guy is such an enigma....part of me wonders if his sudden lurch toward conspiracy and some of the other things he's doing that appeal more to the MAGA base is a coordinated attempt to do exactly what you said - get the denialists on board. Granted, that's my own conspiracy theory....

[auburnatl1 5,198]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. 

Of course our economy was the actual power behind our victory in WWII and the cold war.

I repeated your term - "massive" - not in the sense the government undertakes the job of directly solving the problem on its on   - which is impossible in any rate. 

I meant the government is needed to provide the leadership defining goals and strategy to marshal the commercial sector.   A classic example is providing incentives, subsidies or taxes to encourage key technologies and products that are required to change our carbon producing status quo.

IMO, this is a "massive" role for government.  It's essential.

 

I’ll leave it at this - in a polarized environment  -  carrots work much better than sticks. Incentives and rewards to industry and people over regulations, penalties, and big budget gov programs. Dont look deep state’ish.

Ultimately there’s 2 parts to being right in a democracy; 1) being right 2) convincing other people youre right. Otherwise it’s pointless mental maturation. When you’ve got a significant portion of people and politicians denying there’s even a problem - and don’t trust gov - you can either just call them stupid and paralyze, or maybe it’s time to try another approach.

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

52 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

We can obviously influence,

How have we influenced the climate?  Anything solid you can point to?

[Leftfield 2,684]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How have we influenced the climate?  Anything solid you can point to?

You mean other than the eleventy billion things some of us have already posted? Or all the evidence online that you could dig up yourself if you actually were interested in reading anything or thinking outside of your own opinion?

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You mean other than the eleventy billion things some of us have already posted? Or all the evidence online that you could dig up yourself if you actually were interested in reading anything or thinking outside of your own opinion?

You said we obviously influence the climate.  I am asking for the proof that we have influenced the climate, not that some scientists say we can influence the climate.  You can’t can you.

Listen to Senator Kennedy ask the Deputy Sec of the Department of Energy how much it will cost to become net zero and how much it will reduce the increase in temps.  He can’t answer either question, so how are you confident we can influence the climate?

 

 

[Leftfield 2,684]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

You said we obviously influence the climate.  I am asking for the proof that we have influenced the climate, not that some scientists say we can influence the climate.  You can’t can you.

Again, look to any of the numerous links that have been provided. They show the climate has warmed, they show the mechanisms by which increased CO2 traps more heat. 

You rail against the inflation that Biden has caused, yet offer no proof. Why is the information we've provided not enough?

I am confident we can influence the climate. How much it will cost and how fast, I don't know. It's foolish of anyone to try to nail down numbers, because the scale is enormous and there are huge numbers of variables at play, both with the climate and economics.

We're not talking about deliberately trying to control anything. We're just talking about removing what we can of our influence. Were you in Boy Scouts? The phrase "leave no trace" mean anything to you?

 

[I_M4_AU 8,028]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You rail against the inflation that Biden has caused, yet offer no proof. Why is the information we've provided not enough?

What?

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I am confident we can influence the climate. How much it will cost and how fast, I don't know. It's foolish of anyone to try to nail down numbers, because the scale is enormous and there are huge numbers of variables at play, both with the climate and economics.

This is what Senator Kennedy wants to know?  I am glad you are confident, me, not so much.  If the U.S. is 13% of the carbon emissions and we reduce to net zero we have spent $50 for 13% of the problem, our deficit is $34 trillion now, where does that put us by 2050?  

22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

We're not talking about deliberately trying to control anything. We're just talking about removing what we can of our influence. Were you in Boy Scouts? The phrase "leave no trace" mean anything to you?

Yes, and my carbon footprint has reduced significantly since I retired.  I do not apologize for burning so much fossil fuels when I was gainfully employed though.  It is virtually impossible to *leave no trace*.

27 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Again, look to any of the numerous links that have been provided. They show the climate has warmed, they show the mechanisms by which increased CO2 traps more heat. 

This is an assumption not all agree with.