EPA head lies, or is deluded, about the science of global warming

[PokerGuy]

The atmosphere, dummy.

The atmosphere ....? What about it?

 

[mxnerd]

Typical republican.

But CO2 is not the only one contributed to climate change. Methane probably play a very important role.

https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/


CO2 EQUIVALENTS
Charts and tables in this Emissions section of our website convert all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into CO2 equivalents so they can be compared.

Each greenhouse gas (GHG) has a different global warming potential (GWP) and persists for a different length of time in the atmosphere.

The three main greenhouse gases (along with water vapour) and their 100-year global warming potential (GWP) compared to carbon dioxide are: (1)

• 1 x – carbon dioxide (CO2)
• 25 x – methane (CH4) – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2
• 298 x – nitrous oxide (N2O) – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of N2O into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 298 kg of CO2

 

[K1052]

The definition of climate is the prevailing weather conditions. Are weather conditions just temperature now, or are there perhaps other aspects to "climate"? And what exactly is a "control knob for climate"? Does CO2 drive all aspects of "climate"?

Any speculation about he terminology used in the question with respect to context is immediately put down by the answer Pruitt gave. He stated that CO2 is not a "primary contributor" to global warming. A claim that is in direct opposition to the ever growing preponderance of evidence.

 

[feralkid]

The atmosphere ....? What about it?

Serious?

Why do you think we have weather?


.

 

[fskimospy]

Indeed, it has. I provided the actual definition (from dictionary.com) in my post....which clearly showed the question to be nonsensical. Climate = "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period". CO2 as the "primary control knob" for everything included in "climate" is nonsense.

Are you getting dizzy from all this spinning? The question was perfectly clear and Pruitt knew exactly what was being asked because he isn't stupid.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[fskimospy]

Any speculation about he terminology used in the question with respect to context is immediately put down by the answer Pruitt gave. He stated that CO2 is not a "primary contributor" to global warming. A claim that is in direct opposition to the ever growing preponderance of evidence.

The chance that Pokerguy will admit to being wrong about this is approximately zero.

 

[Meghan54]

Really? "What does that even mean?" Really? Your little sister forget to teach you about metaphors during your home schooling? You have no imagination or mental capacity to figure out what was being said?

That explains a lot, unless you were being willfully ignorant and obtuse, which is probably more the case.

Stupid question -- “Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?”. What does that even mean, primary control knob on climate? The term "climate" includes a whole lot of things, which ones specifically are they asking about, or are we to assume that CO2 is the "control knob" for everything? Or, does "climate" now only refer to temperature?

 

[Moonbeam]

It's sad that the science has become so politicized. Makes it easier for deniers to feel justified.

Isn't that the cause? Would you want science keeping you from making more millions? You know, you only go around once and you want to grab for all the gusto you can get, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Indeed, it has. I provided the actual definition (from dictionary.com) in my post....which clearly showed the question to be nonsensical. Climate = "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period". CO2 as the "primary control knob" for everything included in "climate" is nonsense.

I so agree. The big knob is actually molecules. Without those you couldn't look into a girl's eyes and tell whether or get lost in a whiteout and feel snow adrift.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Indeed, it has. I provided the actual definition (from dictionary.com) in my post....which clearly showed the question to be nonsensical. Climate = "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period". CO2 as the "primary control knob" for everything included in "climate" is nonsense.

So, what you are trying to say is that he was too dumb to understand the question based on the context? Something that everyone else in this thread was able to do with ease?

 

[dphantom]

Don't sit hear and try to play the "we just don't know" card when the facts, evidence, and analysis of mainstream climate change are overwhelming. Feel free to research it yourself. If you truly are the skeptic you like to portray yourself as you'll come to the only
conclusion possible.

I have and continue to read as much as possible. My personal limitation is following the partial differential equations used in GCMs. That level of math is a bit beyond my capabilities.

As far as skeptics, all scientists should be a skeptic. Acceptance of existing theories or hypothesis does not mean continued testing, validation or refutation of current dogma. If we had done so, the advances we enjoy today might have never occurred if we had scientists who only blindly accepted current dogma/consensus and never went any further.

Hence the call for continued research. I am sure you would agree we need to continue the research to build better models and get better capabilities to understand how climate is affected by any number of parameters we in most cases only dimly understand. Would you not agree to such an effort?

 

[senseamp]

I am fortunate enough to be able to bike to work. If I weren't, I'd get an electric car. Scott Pruitt can suck it. American automakers lobbying for looser emission controls can suck it too.

 

[Paratus]

It's another way of saying "the biggest effect on climate change". Think of it as like the equivalent of a Main Volume knob on some sort of audio device. Sure, those other knobs can affect inputs or various ranges of sound, but that main volume knob makes the biggest change when affected.

Stupid question -- “Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?”. What does that even mean, primary control knob on climate? The term "climate" includes a whole lot of things, which ones specifically are they asking about, or are we to assume that CO2 is the "control knob" for everything? Or, does "climate" now only refer to temperature?

I'm going to pretend you are legitimately asking a question here and build on what Aikouka posted.

Earths climate is a heat engine. All aspects of climate are driven directly or indirectly by heat. Climate change is being driven by a heat energy imbalance. More energy is reaching Earth

The term, "Primary Control Knob on Climate" refers to which factor is driving the measured heat energy imbalance

The sun is the primary driver of global temperatures. It has two "control knobs" neither of which we control. Distance to the sun will increase or decrease the amount of heat Earth receives. This changes on the order of 10s of 1000s of years. (See Milankovitch Cycles)

The other is the sun cycles its output slightly. We measure this directly with satellites. Solar output correlates strongly with sun spots. Astronomers have been counting suns spots for centuries giving us a long direct baseline. Prior to human observations indirect evidence is used.

Neither of these "knobs" is capable of producing the measured heat energy imbalance in the timeframe we've been measuring.

When visible sunlight reaches the Earth some is reflected and some is absorbed and reradiated as infrared light.

The amount of light reflected is governed by the Earths albedo. Albedo is another "knob", one we have some limited control over.

Lighter portions of Earth like snow, ice, and clouds reflect more light. Darker portions absorb more light. Humans removing forests, building cities and other changes change albedo. Melting ice caps also change albedo which makes it a feedback for a warming world.

Analysis of albedo changes show it is causing some of the change but not enough by itself to cause the measured imbalance.

The last set of knobs are atmospheric gasses. Without an atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation the Earth would be an ice ball. We don't receive enough sunlight to average a temperature above freezing.

The primary gases that make up the atmosphere, N2 and O2, are transparent to visible sunlight and reradiated infrared and are not knobs.

Some trace gases in the atmosphere however are opaque to infrared light but transparent to visible light. These are the greenhouse gases and they all can act as knobs.

• CO2
• Methane
• Nitrogen Oxides
• Water Vapor
• Other trace gases

Each GHG has some capacity to absorb and reradiated infrared light. Each spends a certain amount of time in the atmosphere. They also occur in different concentrations, some have anthropogenic sources, some natural and many have both.

Methane and Nitrogen Oxides are both much stronger GHGs than CO2 but CO2 has concentrations 200X higher than methane and 10,000X higher than the Nitrogen Oxides. CO2 is also increasing faster than the others.

Water vapor is a potent GHG but it's overall concentration is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere. It acts as another feedback. One that partially mitigates itself due to reflective nature of cloud cover.

We know how much CO2 and other GHGs are in the atmosphere. We know how the concentrations change each year. We even know how much of each we are putting into the air on a yearly basis vs how much natural processes add or subtract, (commodities markets and isotope analysis).

With all this information we know how much each knob has been turned and in what direction. By far it's CO2 and the evidence is overwhelmingly our hand that did the turning.

 

[Paratus]

I have and continue to read as much as possible. My personal limitation is following the partial differential equations used in GCMs. That level of math is a bit beyond my capabilities.

As far as skeptics, all scientists should be a skeptic. Acceptance of existing theories or hypothesis does not mean continued testing, validation or refutation of current dogma. If we had done so, the advances we enjoy today might have never occurred if we had scientists who only blindly accepted current dogma/consensus and never went any further.

Hence the call for continued research. I am sure you would agree we need to continue the research to build better models and get better capabilities to understand how climate is affected by any number of parameters we in most cases only dimly understand. Would you not agree to such an effort?

There is no reason anyone who wants to feel comfortable that mainstream climate theory is "correct", (Earth is warming, CO2 is the primary cause), would need to double check GCM calculations. A high school/college level understanding of thermodynamics and what an energy budget is is sufficient.

This is akin to disbelieving internal combustion engines function until you've personally calculated the Carnot efficiency of your Camry.

As for scientists being skeptics, sure, but the first definition I provided not the second. Science as it's been practiced the last several centuries is primarily built upon what came before and rarely on a single scientist overturning what came before.

Newton was right. Einstein was even more right. No skeptic will find a new theory that shows F <> MA for the conditions Newton found. No skeptic will find E<>MC^2 under the conditions Einstein described. A skeptic may find a theory that provides a better description of each however.

The Earth is round, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth is an oblate spheroid - are all correct each one more so than the last. No skeptic will find the Earth is a square.

I too want more research to continue refining the models. But your use of the word "dimly" betrays your views. We know what areas are well understood and which are less well understood. We also have bounded the areas that are less well understood. No skeptic is going to find something in those areas that will significantly change current climate theory, the Earth is warming, CO2 released by humans is the primary cause.

 

[Meghan54]

But..but..but...but.....Hillary's emails!!!!

There is no reason anyone who wants to feel comfortable that mainstream climate theory is "correct", (Earth is warming, CO2 is the primary cause), would need to double check GCM calculations. A high school/college level understanding of thermodynamics and what an energy budget is is sufficient.

This is akin to disbelieving internal combustion engines function until you've personally calculated the Carnot efficiency of your Camry.

As for scientists being skeptics, sure, but the first definition I provided not the second. Science as it's been practiced the last several centuries is primarily built upon what came before and rarely on a single scientist overturning what came before.

Newton was right. Einstein was even more right. No skeptic will find a new theory that shows F <> MA for the conditions Newton found. No skeptic will find E<>MC^2 under the conditions Einstein described. A skeptic may find a theory that provides a better description of each however.

The Earth is round, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth is an oblate spheroid - are all correct each one more so than the last. No skeptic will find the Earth is a square.

I too want more research to continue refining the models. But your use of the word "dimly" betrays your views. We know what areas are well understood and which are less well understood. We also have bounded the areas that are less well understood. No skeptic is going to find something in those areas that will significantly change current climate theory, the Earth is warming, CO2 released by humans is the primary cause.

 

[Zorba]

Because we are not sure it is. Hence the need for continued research. CO2 is certainly a factor but there is significant uncertainty in its effects.

Meanwhile, they are pushing to cut money for research...

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Another win!
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/...0228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-382

"
What is the Climate Change Debate?

Debate about climate change brings together many different, albeit frequently overlapping, arguments. These range from disputes about the scientific basis of climate change, such as the reality and severity of the physical nature of climate change (Hoffman, 2011a), to arguments more explicitly about climate change policies or politics. Debates may also be so-called surrogate debates, where what is the apparent topic of debate (such as physical science) serves to hide contestation over other issues, such as the way humans should use resources or interact with the physical environment (Rayner, 2012)."

 

[Commodus]

The claim that we don't know if CO2 is a main factor in climate change reminds me of something else I've brought up lately, that whole "teach the controversy" bit where creationists act as if there's a serious debate about the validity of evolutionary theory.

In both cases: no, there isn't really much of a debate in the scientific community. There's one sound, scientficially-tested model, and the alternatives are largely junk based on wishful thinking. Scientists have long known how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and can point to examples on both Earth and beyond (Venus, most notably) where excess atmospheric CO2 has caused temperature shifts.

Besides, even if you're not sure that human-made CO2 is contributing to climate change, there are immediate negative effects from using energy sources that output a lot of CO2: smog, eating away at finite resources, noise pollution from cars and so on. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure Pruitt is just purposefully casting doubt to please his oil/coal industry masters.

 

[fskimospy]

Meanwhile, they are pushing to cut money for research...

It's almost like their objections to climate change mitigation efforts aren't genuine or something!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Typical republican.

But CO2 is not the only one contributed to climate change. Methane probably play a very important role.

https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/


CO2 EQUIVALENTS
Charts and tables in this Emissions section of our website convert all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into CO2 equivalents so they can be compared.

Each greenhouse gas (GHG) has a different global warming potential (GWP) and persists for a different length of time in the atmosphere.

The three main greenhouse gases (along with water vapour) and their 100-year global warming potential (GWP) compared to carbon dioxide are: (1)

• 1 x – carbon dioxide (CO2)
• 25 x – methane (CH4) – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2
• 298 x – nitrous oxide (N2O) – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of N2O into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 298 kg of CO2

Posting facts will get you nowhere with a denier, unless you print the facts on their forehead with an indelible marker and pound it in with a big sledge hammer. Many whacks(whack, whack, thumpa thump, whackity wack, thump thump, "WHEWW!!") it will take too.

 

[HomerJS]

Anyone see the Kyrie Irving thinks the world is flat story? Same thing. Defenders say his opinion is legitimate and who are you to question it. This is Republicans and their relationship to science.

 

[kage69]

Anyone see the Kyrie Irving thinks the world is flat story? Same thing. Defenders say his opinion is legitimate and who are you to question it. This is Republicans and their relationship to science.

Yep.

See 'young earth creationists' for an even better glimpse into this kind of intellectual bankruptcy. People who think they get to pick what science is due to their personal or religious feelings is something that always gives me a good laugh.

 

[Atreus21]

Leftists man.

That climate change is real, man-made, and in need of urgent action is undeniable truth.

That there are real and fundamental differences between men and women is up for debate, and even to say such things is to flirt with bigotry.

The world gets ever weirder.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh, of course, because she would have saved us all from certain climate change induced doom! What are we to do now, without the Goron and illary to lead us to salvation??

Swirl your way down that big porcelain bowl.

 

[fskimospy]

Leftists man.

That climate change is real, man-made, and in need of urgent action is undeniable truth.

That is what the science says unequivocally, yes. Do you not agree?

That there are real and fundamental differences between men and women is up for debate, and even to say such things is to flirt with bigotry.

The world gets ever weirder.

I'm not aware of a single person that thinks there are no differences between men and women. Can you point me to where this has been argued?

It sure looks like you've set up a straw man here to me. The world looks a lot less weird when you start looking at it as it actually exists.