Coal, Electricity, Fracking, Carbon Dioxide and the EPA

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:30 PM GMT on June 12, 2014

Share this Blog
21
+

Coal, Electricity, Fracking, Carbon Dioxide and the EPA

Update on 20140623 EPA and carbon dioxide pollution (not specifically related to the clean power initiative discussed below).


When I first started to learn about climate-change policy, coal-burning power plants were always mentioned as logical, perhaps easy, targets for regulation and policy. The reasons are 1) coal is considered the most polluting of the classic fossil fuels: coal, oil, natural gas; 2) power plants are big, stationary emitters. Since they are big and stationary, meaning they don’t move around like cars, they are easy targets to reduce emissions and measure the impact of any regulations. After many years, the recent actions (June 2, 2014) on clean power by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the most substantive taken by the federal government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

To be clear, this is an important step. It has been a long time coming. The regulations, advanced by the executive branch of the government, are politically difficult. The direct impact of the new regulations on climate change will be, most likely, small to modest.

It has been a long and frustrating road to get to these regulations. If you follow the thread through the blogs I list at the end, you’ll find that it starts with the Clean Air Act and relies on a 2007 Supreme Court decision that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. The Clean Air Act emerged during the 1960s, when air pollution and smog were notorious in the U.S. 1970 is often cited as the year of the Clean Air Act, which is also the time that the EPA became an executive regulatory agency. Richard Nixon is sometimes credited with both the Clean Air Act and forming the EPA. John Dingell had a large role in writing the act. Dingell, retiring this year as the longest-serving member of the U.S. House, is on record that the Clean Air Act is not the right way to address the emissions that cause climate change.

The Clean Air Act is, however, what we have. If you look through my previous analyses, the 2007 Supreme Court decision that allowed the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide provided the only realistic way that we have had in the U.S. for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. There was one brief flirtation with climate policy in 2009 with the Waxman-Markey bill, but that was never realistically going to happen and was so complex and convoluted it was difficult to imagine Waxman-Markey as more than symbolic.

The EPA is often called a regulatory agency. In general, environmental policy is more desirable than environmental regulation. Policy usually allows business and governments more flexibility in how they meet the goals of the policy. Regulation is more prescriptive and relies on rules and fines for violations. The implementation of the clean-power carbon dioxide pollution standards allows the flexibility for states to choose how they will meet the goals.

It is interesting to think about the opportunities that allowed the use of the EPA to address carbon dioxide pollution at this time. After the EPA was judged to have the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the Bush administration did not move forward. In the first term of the Obama administration, the economic and political costs were too high. The political opposition was bipartisan, with both Democrats and Republicans in energy-producing, especially coal-producing, states opposing the EPA action. This bipartisan opposition remains, though it is either quieter or less consequential, now, in 2014.

Another opportunity that eased the use of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide pollution comes with increased natural gas production. Hydraulic fracturing has led to cheaper natural gas and increased supplies of oil. Already existing regulations on pollutants such as sulfur (think, acid rain) increase the expense of coal. Therefore, the costs to modernize coal burners and cheaper natural gas were already causing coal to be replaced by natural gas. Therefore, we were on our way to meeting the goals of the new regulation. That makes it simpler to put the seal on a policy that rewards this trend.

There are other opportunities at play. If you look at the numbers, then the goals of regulations are in line with the commitments the U.S. has made in the series of United Nations Conferences of the Parties starting in 2009. These commitments are considered by many to be weak, symbolic and, perhaps, possible. Nevertheless, the new regulations do place the U.S. in the position of increased credibility on the international level. Ben Adler at grist.com does a nice analysis of how Obama’s decision places us at odds with our traditional low energy-efficiency economy friends Australia and Canada. Australia and Canada have been very aggressively distancing themselves from reducing carbon emissions. After the EPA announcement, China quickly followed with they, too, would consider a cap on emissions. It has been my (perhaps crazy) opinion that on the order of the next 10 years, China would make carbon emissions a trade issue. Therefore, the U.S. does obtain advantage with this announcement. Thomas Friedman at the NY Times maintains that the U.S. remains in a leadership position, and if the U.S. does move on climate change, then the world will follow.

What about the politics in the U.S.? By doing this now, it will be implemented before the president leaves office. That will make it more difficult to undo. The announcement focuses more on health impacts and increasing damage from floods and storms than on climate change. There is no doubt that some Democrats, for example Mary Landrieu running for re-election to the Senate, are attacking the regulation. On the other hand, some Republicans, for example Christine Todd Whitman, who are in a position to speak without the encumbrance of partisan politics are talking about the need for new Republican strategies on climate change. There is also the likelihood that President Obama is looking at credibility and the legacy that we have taken a real step on climate change. Plus, in reality the public perception of climate change is only a marginal political issue – it’s usually at the bottom of environmental concerns – the political cost might be low.

The clean power regulations to be managed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are an important, credible and possible step. To me, while I can calmly describe what seems like the process we use to develop environmental policy, the progress we make is piecemeal and frustrating. We have marched through this process of environmental damage, regulation and policy time and time again. In fact, that’s how the Clean Air Act came to be. It’s only through a broad interpretation of the Clean Air Act that we have found a litigious way forward. This is not a substitute for climate-change policy, which must, ultimately, be integrated into energy systems, land-use policy and behavior.

r

Over the past few years I have written a number of blogs about energy and role of the EPA. Here are some of the links that would provide more background information.

No Energy Policy and Even Less Climate Policy

We Like to Burn Things

Energy Security: All the Oil We Want

Election Eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election

Polluting Carbon Dioxide

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 549 - 499

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

549. treefarmer301
2:55 PM GMT on August 10, 2014
Should force the gas and pipeline companies to reduce their amount of leakage in the CH4 system to 4% or less. Otherwise Natural gas is only better than coal on emissions and being a backup for Sun, Wind, Wave, Nuclear when they are down. Yes I said nuclear. Waste should be stored on sight per Melissa Frances' report on CNBC. This is what they do
in France. In fact, if we had embraced Nuclear instead of Embraccing OIl and Gas (FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO WORK WITH), WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THE MAGNITUDE OF GLOBAL WARMING WE ARE EXPERIENCING!!!
Member Since: December 21, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
548. Patrap
4:56 PM GMT on June 24, 2014
Not as hard a time as your lame attempts at grasping the Scientific method and peer reviewed Facts of Climate Change.

Fresca?

Their my newest Sponsor.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128654
547. yoboi
2:00 AM GMT on June 24, 2014
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Yoboi, what is 75% of the Earth's surface covered with? That's right, water. And where do you think most of the heat that reaches Earth goes into? That's right, the ocean.

Now is the ocean a static entity? You're right again. The ocean has currents. Some have short term periodicity, others have long term periodicity. A big example of this is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

You can see the effect of the PDO on global temperatures in any temperature graph. There's a "wave" like pattern to the data that coincides with the positive and negative phases of the PDO. The PDO phases can last for periods of up to 30 years. When the PDO is positive, temperatures are generally warmer.

Now it's because of things like the PDO that you have to be careful when it comes to getting accurate trends in global temperatures. The PDO can (and has) masked warming signals, as well as amplified them. For example, the period from the late 80's to the late 90's had a positive PDO. Since then, the PDO is has been primarily negative.

Ah, you say, then there is no warming then! It's all the ocean! This is why you have to be careful with your analysis. If there were no warming signal, then you'd expect to say a flat wave with no increasing trend. The temperatures would go up, but then they'd go back down. But that isn't what's happening.

Instead, what the temperature record shows is "stairs". During positive PDO's, the temperatures goes up. During negative PDO's, the temperature goes up slower. That indicates a build up of heat, primarily in the oceans.

Matt Rogers does the same terrible analysis that Watts and his crew does. He focuses in on one aspect and leaps to completely unsubstantiated conclusions.



ARGO sure is having a hard time finding the missing heat.........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
546. JohnLonergan
6:29 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 543. Naga5000:



Add Japan, the WMO, and every single scientific organization world wide to your conspiracy. What a joke this conspiracy nonsense is. Tell the ice, the birds, the growing zones, the animals, the bugs that is hasn't warmed. They would beg to differ. But as a classic denier, you make easily debunked arguments based on lies and half truths.






A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3348
545. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:25 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
544. cyclonebuster
4:23 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Another climate change solution here :

Combined Cycle Diesel/Gasoline Generation Units

Link


.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
543. Naga5000
3:55 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 538. Cochise111:

The average global temperature has cooled or remained the same for seventeen years even with NOAA's manipulation and tampering. Well, the corruption isn't confined to the US Government. Australia has been manipulating the "official" record as well. Climate "science" is nothing of the sort. It's all lies, fraud, and trickery.

Link


Add Japan, the WMO, and every single scientific organization world wide to your conspiracy. What a joke this conspiracy nonsense is. Tell the ice, the birds, the growing zones, the animals, the bugs that is hasn't warmed. They would beg to differ. But as a classic denier, you make easily debunked arguments based on lies and half truths.



Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
542. CuriousAboutClimate
3:33 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
warmest may on record per NOAA, GISS, JMA, and the third warmest per UAH (though there is a several-month lag in UAH's response to ENSO, plus it's a measure of tropospheric temps rather than surface temps). things are warming up.
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 211
541. FLwolverine
3:18 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 539. Xulonn:

Thanks Pat,

but the mods apparently didn't agree with you and removed my "position."

Probably too many long sentences.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
540. Xulonn
3:15 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 538. Trolling and non-science b.s. deleted


What?? A quote from the blog of a conspiracy-theorist, retired Australian school principal "with a keen interest in a range of topics" and no science or statistics credentials?

You consider this simple-minded denialist layperson's blog entry to be a counter to the world-wide consensus of the earth sciences community with many thousands of Ph.D. scientists and researchers doing peer-reviewed work?

That was truly a pathetic attempt at denying scientific facts. For some real, science-based information on Australia, forget the blatherings of a retired school principal and try a science-based website like the Climate Depot. (LINK to a June, 2014 article on AGW/CC's effects on Australia. From that Article:

“If you want to look for effects of climate change, Australia is the poster child in many respects,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Australia has certainly been much in the news for extreme weather events in recent years, especially for relentless heat waves during the past two summers. And 2013 was the hottest year on record for the country, handily beating 2005, the previous record holder, by 0.3°F. So far, 2014 ranks as the fifth warmest on record.

More notably, with each month this year, the running 12-month temperature average has set a new record for warmest ever. Official records are only in through April, but “it is virtually certain that the 12 months ending May 2014 will also set a new high record,” the BOM said in a Special Climate Statement following an unusually warm spell in May, which mainly affected southeastern Australia and Tasmania.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
539. Xulonn
2:37 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 502. Patrap:I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Xulonn and his position here.
Thanks Pat,

but the mods apparently didn't agree with you and removed my "position."
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
538. Cochise111
2:17 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
The average global temperature has cooled or remained the same for seventeen years even with NOAA's manipulation and tampering. Well, the corruption isn't confined to the US Government. Australia has been manipulating the "official" record as well. Climate "science" is nothing of the sort. It's all lies, fraud, and trickery.

Link
Member Since: February 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 347
537. Xyrus2000
2:12 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 522. Barefootontherocks:

Xyrus,
No, you see when someone post something and then are shown to be incorrect,...

Truth is, I was not incorrect.

In fact someone, I think it wss you, posted a map that proved my point. LOL Yes, it happened. Sometimes bloggers, perhaps wrapped in their zeal, don't try to understand what someone else is saying - they just assume, maybe because of a preconceived idea of that other blogger, that the other blogger couldn't possibly have something valid to say.

I chose not to read the rest of the comment you directed at me.


You're recollection and mine are quite different on that. But whatever.

There's no preconceived notions on my end. Through their posts and comments yoboi, tramp, etc. have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they have nothing "valid" to contribute. Nothing but reposts of tired debunked garbage, links to opinion articles and blog posts that contain writing and analyses that would earn failing grades in high school, posts about conspiracies, and in one case I seem to recall one them posted a genuine link to an article in The Onion.

Not once have they constructed a reasonable argument. Not once have they linked to real research papers that back up their claims. Not once have they ever put forth any type of model, experiment, or equation that demonstrates failures in the current science. And when explanations are given to show why they're wrong, they change the subject, make flamebait comments, or ignore it completely. That's trolling.

And again, you don't have to read my comments. Put me on ignore. I don't really care.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1495
536. Xyrus2000
1:50 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 517. yoboi:

The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

Link


Yoboi, what is 75% of the Earth's surface covered with? That's right, water. And where do you think most of the heat that reaches Earth goes into? That's right, the ocean.

Now is the ocean a static entity? You're right again. The ocean has currents. Some have short term periodicity, others have long term periodicity. A big example of this is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

You can see the effect of the PDO on global temperatures in any temperature graph. There's a "wave" like pattern to the data that coincides with the positive and negative phases of the PDO. The PDO phases can last for periods of up to 30 years. When the PDO is positive, temperatures are generally warmer.

Now it's because of things like the PDO that you have to be careful when it comes to getting accurate trends in global temperatures. The PDO can (and has) masked warming signals, as well as amplified them. For example, the period from the late 80's to the late 90's had a positive PDO. Since then, the PDO is has been primarily negative.

Ah, you say, then there is no warming then! It's all the ocean! This is why you have to be careful with your analysis. If there were no warming signal, then you'd expect to say a flat wave with no increasing trend. The temperatures would go up, but then they'd go back down. But that isn't what's happening.

Instead, what the temperature record shows is "stairs". During positive PDO's, the temperatures goes up. During negative PDO's, the temperature goes up slower. That indicates a build up of heat, primarily in the oceans.

Matt Rogers does the same terrible analysis that Watts and his crew does. He focuses in on one aspect and leaps to completely unsubstantiated conclusions.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1495
535. Xyrus2000
1:17 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 515. yoboi:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


Link


A link to the telegraph opinion piece that links to blog done by Steven Goddard?

Ok yoboi, stop and think for minute here. Look at what he measured. Just look. The number of days above 100 degrees. That's what he measured. Now assuming the actual data he's using is correct, which is a tremendous stretch having read his past posts, what does this graph actually tell you? It tells you there were more 100 degree days.

But that's it. That's all it tells you. Anything else is extrapolation. Does more 100 degree days imply a warmer average temperature? No, it doesn't. For example, let's say you have 10 data points for simplicity. Which scenario has the warmest average temperature?

A B
80 85
80 85
80 85
100 85
100 90
80 90
80 90
80 90
100 90
80 95
AVG 86 88.5

Scenario B clearly has the warmer average temperature, but never broke 100 degrees. That's why using a metric like "the number of 100 degree days" for determining whether or not the globe is warming is just plain stupid.

This is what I mean when I say people like Watts and Goddard don't (and seemingly can't) do correct analysis of the data. Instead, they choose a data set or an aspect of a data set, make a graph, and then magically leap to some conclusion that can't possibly be made based on their analysis.

If they really want to make their cases (and if you do to), they need to stop with this useless garbage and perform a real scientific analysis. Blog posts like that one only make them look like a bunch of idiots who can't be taken seriously.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1495
534. Pipejazz
1:02 PM GMT on June 23, 2014
A healthcare example of the unfortunate consequences of the denial of science and the false equivalency of the "giving equal weight to both sides" arguments. I found this link in my medical newsletter this morning. Link

Op-Ed: Measles Resurgence Is Congress’s Fault.
Former Henry Waxman (D-CA) staff member Sarah Despres writes in a Politico Magazine (6/23, Despres) op-ed that, in the wake of the measles resurgence, “Public health has taken a giant, 20-year step back, and we have Congress to thank.” Having worked on immunization policy when the CDC announced that measles had been eliminated, she contends that the hearings overseeing various immunization program aspects “had become a forum for spouting unproven, and eventually disproven, allegations, linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism.” Following Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s calls for continued studies to prove this link, “the experts from CDC and NIH explained that the epidemiology and biology of autism and vaccines did not support what Wakefield and others were professing.” She blames Congress for “giving equal weight to both sides of the argument” and allowing such “unscientific” arguments to persist.
Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 178
533. ScottLincoln
11:52 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 520. Naga5000:

Yawn. I love how the same opinion pieces get circulated around the denier blogosphere to never be seen again as they never really have an effect on the actual field and science.

Our denier friends will sure post it 15 different times like it somehow got less stupid in the 4 hours since someone else posted it.

Then, a few years later, the same tired, debunked nonsense will be peddled by another non-scientists in an opinion piece, but with slightly altered text. Sigh.
I shouldn't be old enough to notice patterns like this.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3203
532. FLwolverine
11:49 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 526. Barefootontherocks:

Hi Neo,
Having a nice summer so far?

Didn't read your comment to me. Because of my preconceived idea of you, I'm pretty sure I have seen it before.
;)
Breathtaking statement (think about it ....) but it suggests an appropriate response to these disruptions:

"Not bothering to read your comment. Because of your preconceived ideas of the people who post on this blog, I'm pretty sure we've seen it before and found it lacking in substance and relevance."
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
531. JohnLonergan
11:27 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 518. Naga5000:



More nut job opinion not supported by evidence. What happened to your support for the NOAA and NASA, Yoboi? Why do you believe this guy over their published, peer reviews data? You sure have picked a dream team of idiots to follow:

"Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos."




A versatile, multidimensional liar.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3348
530. Astrometeor
3:45 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 527. yoboi:



I understand it better than you think......Interesting how some here hone in with particular weather events....and let's also discuss how some here cherry pick regions....The arctic is NOT the entire globe.....


True! Care to discuss the debilitating drought California is in currently, or maybe the excruciatingly long drought in the Fertile Crescent?

Care to talk to Tacloban City, Philippines, who just last year got hit by a behemoth of a tropical cyclone, at a low latitude?

Care to talk about the 350+ months of warmer than average temps for the globe?

Care to talk about the dying coral reefs around the world as the oceans acidify and warm?

There are so many more instances across the world...
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10331
529. Naga5000
3:27 AM GMT on June 23, 2014

"According to new data released this week, May 2014 is officially the warmest May in recorded history.

Both NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency have tentatively ranked May at the top of historical measurements..."

"NASA uses a baseline set from 1951-1980 to determine how much a month%u2019s temperature deviates from normal. The agency%u2019s preliminary numbers show the combined global land and ocean temperature during May deviated from that baseline by about three-quarters of a degree Celsius, the most of any May since accurate records began in 1880. The 0.76 degree Celsius anomaly is tied for the sixth-largest anomaly for any month since 1880. All 10 of the biggest monthly temperature anomalies on record have occurred since 1995, according to NASA:"

Link

I'm pretty sure you guys don't understand what "warmest global" means...try again science deniers.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
528. Naga5000
3:23 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 527. yoboi:



I understand it better than you think......Interesting how some here hone in with particular weather events....and let's also discuss how some here cherry pick regions....The arctic is NOT the entire globe.....


Yawn. It must be tedious to argue a point with no evidence, data, or facts to support it. I don't envy you.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
527. yoboi
3:21 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting Naga5000:


You don't understand statistics, nor basic concepts of climate science. That's a fact.


I understand it better than you think......Interesting how some here hone in with particular weather events....and let's also discuss how some here cherry pick regions....The arctic is NOT the entire globe.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
526. Barefootontherocks
3:20 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Hi Neo,
Having a nice summer so far?

Didn't read your comment to me. Because of my preconceived idea of you, I'm pretty sure I have seen it before.
;)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 154 Comments: 18742
525. Naga5000
3:18 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 523. Astrometeor:



Mr. Monbiot from The Guardian did an excellent summary of Booker. Is Booker for real or is he just doing it for humor?

The mistakes he made in his last column almost compare to his all-time cock-up of cock-ups, in which he pointed out, in February 2008, that "Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all." The "warmists", he said, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now the ice cover had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter.


Exactly, and just look who bought it hook, line, and sinker, but will never fess up...
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
524. Naga5000
3:17 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 521. yoboi:




I don't agree with post 407......I understand the difference between climate and weather.....


You don't understand statistics, nor basic concepts of climate science. That's a fact.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
523. Astrometeor
3:17 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 518. Naga5000:



More nut job opinion not supported by evidence. What happened to your support for the NOAA and NASA, Yoboi? Why do you believe this guy over their published, peer reviews data? You sure have picked a dream team of idiots to follow:

"Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos."




Mr. Monbiot from The Guardian did an excellent summary of Booker. Is Booker for real or is he just doing it for humor?

The mistakes he made in his last column almost compare to his all-time cock-up of cock-ups, in which he pointed out, in February 2008, that "Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all." The "warmists", he said, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now the ice cover had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10331
522. Barefootontherocks
3:16 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Xyrus,
No, you see when someone post something and then are shown to be incorrect,...

Truth is, I was not incorrect.

In fact someone, I think it wss you, posted a map that proved my point. LOL Yes, it happened. Sometimes bloggers, perhaps wrapped in their zeal, don't try to understand what someone else is saying - they just assume, maybe because of a preconceived idea of that other blogger, that the other blogger couldn't possibly have something valid to say.

I chose not to read the rest of the comment you directed at me.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 154 Comments: 18742
521. yoboi
3:12 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting Naga5000:


Already debunked, you should read the blog sometime, there is some pretty useful information here.



Essentially, if you believe this nonsense, you only show your severe lack of understanding on basic concepts.



I don't agree with post 407......I understand the difference between climate and weather.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
520. Naga5000
3:08 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Yawn. I love how the same opinion pieces get circulated around the denier blogosphere to never be seen again as they never really have an effect on the actual field and science.

Our denier friends will sure post it 15 different times like it somehow got less stupid in the 4 hours since someone else posted it.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
519. Naga5000
3:06 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 517. yoboi:

The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

Link


Already debunked, you should read the blog sometime, there is some pretty useful information here.

Quoting 407. Xyrus2000:



Do you see the problem? You're using OPINION as a basis. That isn't science.

Now, on top of that, the person writing this piece isn't a climate scientist. This is painfully clear, especially at the end where he is bringing up "Objections":

All of this is cherry-picking one way or another

No, it isn't. If you're trying to determine trend line against historical norms, you need to choose a climatologically significant period to compare against that is also representative of the "norm". That doesn't mean you plot a trend line for the last ten years against the data of the last ten years. That's just plain stupid.

Therefore, no matter what you believe the sensitivity is, the impact should be strongest in these recent years vs. any others.

No, and it's stupid to even think so. Over ten years the CO2 levels don't rise that much, and there is a 30 year lag between CO2 introduction and it's full impact due to seasonal cycles, ocean absorption, etc. Then there's all sorts of weather patterns that add a crap ton of noise.

This is true per the datasets that I am using (NASA and NOAA), so no dispute there. However, in order for climate change projections to verify, we need to continue breaking records more often than not.

No, and again it's stupid to think so. You don't need record breaking heat to raise global average temperatures. A gradual rise across the globe accomplishes the same feat.

An example. If the highest temperature in your region is 110F but your average daytime high is 85F, what do you need to show it's getting warmer?
a) A new record of 111F or (weather)
b) An average daytime high of 86F (climate)

WEATHER determines whether or not you're going to be breaking temperature records. Climate affects the likelihood of new records, but does not dictate them. Temperatures are perfectly capable of increasing without records falling like dominoes.

My thirteen data points from the 2000s are deemed by critics as not enough data to make any case at all...Every person- every scientist- may have a different definition here

And this is just one place were he demonstrates his ignorance on the subject. This is basic climate science right here. Thirty years has been an established minimum for quite some time now. I would expect a meteorologist to at least be aware of this.

But climate change modeling fails to show this, which suggests it’s not capturing important oceanic processes and could well be overdoing climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.

Unsubstantiated speculation born from an incorrect analysis results in a garbage conclusion. Again, this guy demonstrates ignorance on the subject. Climate models do show responses to oceanic processes. They wouldn't work AT ALL if they didn't. What they don't handle well (because we have relatively few observations with which to construct a good model of) is deep ocean behavior. Several recent papers have addressed this, and have shown that the ocean is storing more heat than originally thought in the deeper ocean. That implies that over the long run the models will have under predicted the temperature rise.

Assuming this study is correct, it would not undue the pause in the warming outside the Arctic where most people live.

Overlooking the fact his initial analysis was a farce, this statement right here shows he doesn't have a clue about global climate. Arctic warming affects, at the very least, the entire northern hemisphere of the planet where most people live. How he can be a meteorologist and NOT know this is pretty surprising.

All of this may indeed be true, but note that the current pause is longer than prior ones indicated on the chart, so again, the question becomes (and they don’t answer this) how long is too long?

First, he's wrong. His original analysis is incorrect so using that as a benchmark to judge other "pauses" is just going to give wrong answers. For shallower trend lines he should have looked back to the middle of last century, but then that would shot his argument in the foot. As for "how long is too long", the answer is simple: when the trend becomes climatologically significant.

You can even see their red line outlining the latest pause on the right side of the chart, but not extending to include the last three years which looks even longer than its predecessors.

Because just eyeballing a graph as opposed to actually analyzing the data always leads to solid conclusions.

I hope this guy puts forth more thought and effort into his weather forecasting than climate analysis.


Essentially, if you believe this nonsense, you only show your severe lack of understanding on basic concepts.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
518. Naga5000
3:02 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 515. yoboi:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


Link


More nut job opinion not supported by evidence. What happened to your support for the NOAA and NASA, Yoboi? Why do you believe this guy over their published, peer reviews data? You sure have picked a dream team of idiots to follow:

"Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos."

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
517. yoboi
2:56 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
516. Astrometeor
2:29 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
Quoting 515. yoboi:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


Link


Did you just steal that from post #882 in Doc Masters' blog?
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10331
515. yoboi
2:25 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
514. Astrometeor
2:22 AM GMT on June 23, 2014
So, I became curious (scary, I know right?), and I went to Google Images and typed in "climate change cartoons". Even there, I'd say about 99% of the cartoons are on the side of those 97%+ scientists.

Strange, huh?

*Smirk*
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10331
512. AlwaysThinkin
9:00 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Edit: Forget it. Wrestling a pig only makes you muddy and the pig likes it.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
508. JohnLonergan
6:57 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3348
507. weatheringpoints
5:31 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Member Since: February 26, 2008 Posts: 13 Comments: 2028
506. FLwolverine
5:20 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Quoting 503. Xyrus2000:
..........And you don't have to read anything I write. I don't expect anyone to.
But if she has everyone who laughed at her "thoughts" on ignore, then she has a very limited number of posts to read and posters to deal with - although that doesn't seem to stop her from generalizing to all of us.

Really, these disruptions are a waste of time and space. At least we can learn something in the process of refuting a denier's nonsense.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
505. Naga5000
4:58 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Quoting 497. indianrivguy:


EDIT;
Pat was right, over the top.. true, but out of line on a blog NOT mine.........apologies


I have personally sent Dr. Rood a message with my opinion and suggestions. I am waiting for a response.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3464
503. Xyrus2000
3:45 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Quoting 494. Barefootontherocks:

lol. For different reasons nonetheless.

Xyrus,
Your analogy equals what I would call "hype" or making claims beyond fact. Not sure it makes the point (I think) you were trying to make.


No, it's not hype. It was demonstrating EXACTLY what Tramp et al. do.

It seems you are calling legitimate bloggers trolls, just because they post contrary to what you do. Even if what they post might be scientifically wrong, they have a right to post it, and you have a right to respond, with your own points.


No, you see when someone post something and then are shown to be incorrect, then they will take it in stride and perhaps go learn more on the subject. And when they know more, they will post again.

A troll doesn't learn, nor are they interested in learning. Trolls compare scientists to socialist dictators. Trolls yell "conspiracy". Trolls turn a scientific discussion into a politics. They don't look at the math, or physics, or chemistry. They look at an incorrect graph and jump to conclusions. They take quotes out of context and twist them into something they're not.

That is not "legitimate" in any sense of the word.

Without personal attack, according to the wu rules.


WU rules also state posts should be on topic and not be full of crap.

I think you should be treated? A few years ago, at Doc Masters, you participated in a group-rip on me when I pointed out where the tundra in Alaska is located. I don't read much of what you write but I did take you off ignore a while back.


A group rip? Please.

And you don't have to read anything I write. I don't expect anyone to.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1495
502. Patrap
3:42 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Xulonn and his position here.





Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128654
500. Neapolitan
3:25 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
Quoting 494. Barefootontherocks:

It seems you are calling legitimate bloggers trolls, just because they post contrary to what you do.


Err, no. That's just a typical denialist whine, and it has no place in a forum such as this.

A) Legitimate -- Legitimacy in the scientific realm is gained by openly adhering to the time-tested and only-way-to-do-it scientific method. Attempting to do things any other way--any other way--belies a profound lack of legitimacy.

B) Troll -- Borrowing from the dictionary: "A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or...posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."

C) Contrary -- One may hold contrary opinions (examples: "Most people like chocolate, but I do not", "I actually admire the smell of burning plastic"--but there are no such things as contrary facts (examples: "The planet hasn't warmed in XX years", "CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature"). The latter are what Xulonn and others on this board detest, and will ardently defend against.

Sadly, this forum has a small handful of climate klabusterbeeren, attention-seeking, discord-sowing, inflammatorily-posting types possessing absolutely no scientific legitimacy, and clearly deeply confused by the difference between opinion and fact, preferring the latter most every time. So while no one here has ever applied the word 'troll' to anyone showing intellectual honesty, true curiosity, and a willingness to learn, and while no one has ever accused someone holding contrary opinions of being one, trolls indeed abound, and Xulonn has ever right to call them out.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
499. Patrap
3:14 PM GMT on June 22, 2014
# 497



Thats rude and over the top irg.

Many folks dont even view comments as they are mostly interested in the Blog entry contents.

I can say easily Dr. Rood is a Busy Man and most likely on Cation this time of year.

Comments only show if one desires to view them, and to click on any blog handle, those with a blog entry, will just go to their Entry subject. If you want to see comments, you have to enable them, or choose a members entry from the directory.

To insult a author in his own thread, well, is bad form any day. Maybe try the wu mail feature instead of a openly viewed cussed comment.

Which IS a personal attack and a violation not only of the rules of the road, but the agreed terms of service.

I will apologize to Dr. Rood here, now for that, for you.





Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128654

Viewing: 549 - 499

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.