Increased US Climate Risks - New EPA Website

[Occams Barber]

FWIW, google knows.
MWP & LIA vs. the “hockey stick”

Ta

Sounds like denialism by acronym.

@atpollard might like to return and explain his point in plain English.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

China and 100 hundred other countries will not cut back much on CO2 emissions. It is written.

What is 'it'?
Where and by whom is it written?
If it is written, why must it be true?


This is my favourite "written" quote :

“The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
-- Omar Khayyam

OB​

 

[AV1611VET]

“The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
-- Omar Khayyam

OB​

"I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company."
-- Victor Kiam​

 

[Occams Barber]

"I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company."
-- Victor Kiam​

"You win"
​

 

[klutedavid]

What is 'it'?

The proclamation of me.

Where and by whom is it written?

By me of course.

If it is written, why must it be true?

Because I wrote it. You are a slow learner.

 

[Occams Barber]

The proclamation of me.By me of course.Because I wrote it. You are a slow learner.

Since you appear to have proclaimed your own existence, who am I to argue?

OB

 

[Shemjaza]

I heard on the weather forecast that the southern (Australian) states are due for a super cold snap this weekend. It involves something called "snow" (??)

Climate change is definitely over

OB

It's been a bad week to have my gas cut off.

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard might like to return and explain his point in plain English

Too many unsubstantiated assumptions in the foundations of this discussion. If humans are not the driving cause, then crushing the world economy to eliminate our “carbon footprint” will change nothing. The “rising water levels” are not actually rising uniformly; some areas see rising sea levels while other places see falling sea levels ... which sounds suspiciously like something other than what they claim is really going on. These graphs are drawn VERY CAREFULLY with vertical scales that do not start at zero to exaggerate the changes, which is an indication of an agenda other than science.

In 1909, Oranges were grown in the northernmost portions of Florida (the state where I live) and I have postcards of the orchards. Today, the frost line has driven citrus production to the southern half of the state. Look at a map of Florida some time and see how far that is. Empirical experience calls into question the basic assumption that the world is getting hotter.

So there may be a global warming. That warming may be a natural cycle or manmade. Reducing CO2 may or may not change that cycle.

Let’s just assume (for this conversation) that every “green” word of rhetoric is true. How exactly will a transfer of wealth from first to third world nations to buy “unused carbon credits” solve that problem? How will we generate the base power if we eliminate fossil fuel and reject nuclear as an alternative? A 100% solar/wind power grid leaves the north freezing to death on calm winter nights and the south dying of heat stroke on cloudy summer days.

We have not even begun to discuss the environmental cost of obtaining the rare earth elements needed to make solar cells or advanced batteries.

All to solve a problem that could be the result of the Sun or tectonics or oceanic feedback cycles unrelated to fossil fuel use. Sure, all people could die and the earth could regulate itself without human interference, but I think a more moderate solution should be attempted first.


Once upon a time, people lived 60 miles off the shore of Florida. It was not human CO2 pollution that caused the climate to change and the oceans to rise and drive them inland. Perhaps we should take a lesson from our ancestors and just recognize when it is time to move inland.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Too many unsubstantiated assumptions in the foundations of this discussion. If humans are not the driving cause, then crushing the world economy to eliminate our “carbon footprint” will change nothing. The “rising water levels” are not actually rising uniformly; some areas see rising sea levels while other places see falling sea levels ... which sounds suspiciously like something other than what they claim is really going on. These graphs are drawn VERY CAREFULLY with vertical scales that do not start at zero to exaggerate the changes, which is an indication of an agenda other than science.

Much of the Canadian coast and Northern Europe are still rebounding from the loss of glaciers, 10,000 years ago. In many of those areas, the land is rising faster than sea-level.

Also, as existing ice and glaciers retreat, the local geoid (essentially, the gravitational potential of a region, produced by the rock and ice that exists there) reduces, meaning sea-level drops locally as water recedes, adding to sea-level rises elsewhere.

 

[atpollard]

Much of the Canadian coast and Northern Europe are still rebounding from the loss of glaciers, 10,000 years ago. In many of those areas, the land is rising faster than sea-level.

Also, as existing ice and glaciers retreat, the local geoid (essentially, the gravitational potential of a region, produced by the rock and ice that exists there) reduces, meaning sea-level drops locally as water recedes, adding to sea-level rises elsewhere.

Thank you for that.

I saw some data that suggested that the rate of rise in sea level is no greater now than it has been over the past few centuries. Since data tends to be local, it is hard to extrapolate global conclusions, but shouldn’t we be seeing an acceleration in the rate of rise if we are seeing a dramatic increase in average temperature ... the “hockey stick” of the last century?

 

[Occams Barber]

It's been a bad week to have my gas cut off.

I've embarked on my annual search for my socks and jeans - just in case it gets cold.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

If humans are not the driving cause, then crushing the world economy to eliminate our “carbon footprint” will change nothing.

There are 3 'unsubstantiated assumptions in this sentence:
1.AGW is not driven by human activity
2.Reducing our carbon footprint will 'crush' the world economy
3.Eliminating our carbon footprint will change nothing
Before accusing others of 'unsubstantiated assumptions' perhaps you should attend to your own.

The “rising water levels” are not actually rising uniformly; some areas see rising sea levels while other places see falling sea levels ... which sounds suspiciously like something other than what they claim is really going on.

A relatively simple Google search would have shown you that difference in ocean/sea level increase is normal and is generally caused by a combination of factors like winds, temperatures, local water inflows, currents and land/sub ocean geography. (HINT: the sea isn't a flat bathtub)
What is the difference between local sea level and global sea level? (noaa.gov)

Empirical experience calls into question the basic assumption that the world is getting hotter.

Empirical measurements taken around the world by different national and international organisations all attest to a global temperature increase.
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

So there may be a global warming. That warming may be a natural cycle or manmade. Reducing CO2 may or may not change that cycle.

Let’s just assume (for this conversation) that every “green” word of rhetoric is true. How exactly will a transfer of wealth from first to third world nations to buy “unused carbon credits” solve that problem? How will we generate the base power if we eliminate fossil fuel and reject nuclear as an alternative? A 100% solar/wind power grid leaves the north freezing to death on calm winter nights and the south dying of heat stroke on cloudy summer days.

We have not even begun to discuss the environmental cost of obtaining the rare earth elements needed to make solar cells or advanced batteries.

All to solve a problem that could be the result of the Sun or tectonics or oceanic feedback cycles unrelated to fossil fuel use. Sure, all people could die and the earth could regulate itself without human interference, but I think a more moderate solution should be attempted first.

Apart from the final sentence your argument here is not about the problem of AGW but your belief that it is not possible to solve the problem. Perhaps you should start a thread on the practical impossibilities of renewable energy.

The factors you mention as alternative causes of AGW have been taken into consideration by scientists. The consensus view remains that atmospheric CO2 is the major cause of warming.
Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Perhaps we should take a lesson from our ancestors and just recognize when it is time to move inland.

Perhaps you're right.

OB

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard might like to return and explain his point in plain English

Atpollard did, and like the rest of this topic, it waste a waste of time and electrons. Atpollard should have ignored the bait and left the trolls undisturbed.

 

[Occams Barber]

Atpollard did, and like the rest of this topic, it waste a waste of time and electrons. Atpollard should have ignored the bait and left the trolls undisturbed.

After 3790 posts this is the first time I've been referred to as a troll.

I invited you to explain your earlier cryptic acronym.

When you provided a reply totally lacking in substantiation I pointed out, with links, where I believed your assumptions were debatable or demonstrably incorrect. If you consider this to be baiting, you should probably avoid the Discussion & Debate Forum.

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

After 3790 posts this is the first time I've been referred to as a troll.

Obviously, you just aren't trying hard enough. Set the recognition bar lower. Remember who you are dealing with (generically).

 

[Belk]

Whilst railing against climate change, people:

1. drive a gas-powered car
2. have a cement patio
3. have glass windows
4. have a barbecue grill
5. have a fireplace
6. drink pop
7. use a CO2 extinguisher

Do Christians still sin while railing against sinning?

 

[jacorian]

Revamped EPA website shows increased climate change risks (phys.org) (edited)


After a gap of more than four years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is relaunching a website highlighting evidence of climate change in the United States, including rising temperatures, increased ocean acidity, sea level rise, river flooding, droughts, heat waves and wildfires.

EPA unveiled the revamped website on Climate Change Indicators on Wednesday, calling it a "comprehensive resource" that presents clear and compelling evidence of changes to the climate. The website was effectively suspended under President Donald Trump, who did not allow information on the site to be updated and who repeatedly disputed or downplayed the effects of climate change.

The new indicators show that:

• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record, after 2016
• Arctic sea ice was the second smallest on record last year.
• Heat waves are occurring more often across the United States, from an average of two heat waves per year during the 1960s to six per year during the 2010s.
• Sea levels rose along much of the U.S. coastline between 1960 and 2020, particularly the mid-Atlantic and parts of the Gulf Coast, where some reporting stations registered increases of more than 8 inches
• Coastal flooding also is becoming more frequent, especially along the East and Gulf Coasts
• The average length of the growing season in the lower 48 states increased by more than two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century.

The revamped site also features interactive data exploration tools with graphs, maps and figures, along with an overview of the climate change indicators and climate change's effects on human health and the environment.

More...

Sources:
Revamped EPA website shows increased climate change risks (phys.org)
Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

OB

You must understand that in any administration there is always an agenda. Most of these things are occurring b/c of major natural disturbances. There is no discernible trend in hurricanes other than the dollar total over a denser population. Floods are normal & the major natural hazard of the world. The 1930s still remains the hottest of the modern era decade. The EPA would like to have the folks believe that they have the answer to all this stuff. There is no single knob--repeat no single knob & that is coming from an earth scientist. See the left despises companies like the oil ones because they make money. The left hates the idea of capitalims & they are working hard to get govt to be the single most important arbiter in society. This would be a mistake. Let the market work. I can tell you this as I track the emissions data from their site. In the 54 years of the Clean Air Act the USA has done an exceptional job at bringing down all emissions. I have the charts. And there is incredible technology coming on board. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is odorless & invisible. In some cases it's a product & in other cases a reactant. The reason why it's target is because it is associated with fossil fuel companies. Now take something like SO2 which is way down. This is where the US has made the most progress. SO2 is the chief culprit in acid rain, not CO2. Co2 forms a weak acid. SO2 forms a harsh one. Now in 2024 we have had 45 volcanos in active status. Volcanos put out a range of products & it depends on their magma chamber. In some cases it could be CO2 as the chief emittant or SO2 the chief emittant. They behave differently. CO2 as you know is a greenhouse gas. SO2 on the other hand is a reflectant.