Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

[Unique_Carpenter]

Seriously though, the atmospheric mixture of various gasses allows life. As a side issue, increased co2 in upper atmosphere causes increases of moisture there, which causes fluctuations in the ozone protective shield.

Don't get me going on how client's handle very large enclosed commercial greenhouses. Correct mixtures are critical for seedlings. Ok I'm going....
There's multiple monitors everywhere, and licensed folks can get any type of gas in tanks to adjust the internal atmosphere to whatever desired.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...let's go backwards and deny scientific facts..

the sooner he is removed, the better chance the planet has to recover from the last 150 years of CO2...

You mean like denying, or is it abandoning, Global Warming (a once known scientific fact) and subsequently Global Cooling (a once promising scientific fact?), after the former didn't pan out, later settling on Climate Change (an actual scientific feature - not a bug), because that didn't pay out either?

I find the Climate Change moniker to be intensely ironic.

Let's ask a couple, thankfully for you, simple questions:
- Does the Climate change?
- Should the Climate change?
- What if the Climate doesn't change?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The obama era “endangerment finding” is the legal framework ...

It was a bureaucratic declaration, aka opinion, ordered into existence - from on high, by a department of unelected government workers. Sometimes they are lumped in with the "Deep State" moniker, but the main point is that they are neither elected or appointed and they persist over the years.

[pxmcc]

bye bye sea ice, hello blue water..

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/clim...rds-rcna265501

heat records being broken all over the world. uh oh..

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You mean like denying, or is it abandoning, Global Warming (a once known scientific fact) and subsequently Global Cooling (a once promising scientific fact?), after the former didn't pan out, later settling on Climate Change (an actual scientific feature - not a bug), because that didn't pay out either?

Nope. That's not true.

They didn't "settle" on the term "Climate Change." Nor did they "abandon" the idea of "warming."

Climate Change was adopted by consensus by those in related fields because it was more accurate.

While the "globe" IS "warming" overall, the effects are not the same in all areas. The "changes" in temperature, precipitation, etc. vary widely.

These changes are documented carefully as true trends, not just normal variations in weather.

Continue to deny all you want. It only makes you look worse than I ever could.

.

[royamcr]

Gotta be blind to not see the climate change. In KS this year we had 1 mildly significant snow storm. One. 30ish years ago we had several snow events each winter, layer upon layers of snow. It was mid nineties in late March, we have very little spring anymore. Goes from winter to hot out. 30+ years ago snow could be possible up to the end of April. It has snowed in early may before. And it doesn't stop there, End of October usually marked the start of cold weather. Now it is November sometimes December before if kind of feels like winter. January/February is all that remains of cold weather really and some cold days in March.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Gotta be blind to not see the climate change. In KS this year we had 1 mildly significant snow storm. One. 30ish years ago we had several snow events each winter, layer upon layers of snow. It was mid nineties in late March, we have very little spring anymore. Goes from winter to hot out. 30+ years ago snow could be possible up to the end of April. It has snowed in early may before. And it doesn't stop there, End of October usually marked the start of cold weather. Now it is November sometimes December before if kind of feels like winter. January/February is all that remains of cold weather really and some cold days in March.

I'm assuming you don't have a problem with fewer blizzards, so I asked ChatGPT for the average temperature in August in the 1950's and the 2020's for Kansas City. It came back with

1959 77.5
1958 75.8
1957 76.5
1956 79.5
1955 79.5
1954 80.5
1953 78.8
1952 76.9
1951 78.0
1950 79.2

2025 77.5
2024 79.5
2023 80.5
2022 78.5
2021 77.5
2020 79.5

That works out to an average of 78.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1950 to 1959 and 78.9 from 2020 to 2025.

The hottest August on record was 87 degrees in 1936.

These were calculated using the NOAA method, of taking the average of the daily high and the daily low.

I’m too lazy to check more months. But if you’re right about Kansas winters, then it sounds like like KC may have benefited from climate change

[royamcr]

I'm for sure not complaining about not having a long winter. Just saying in the last 30-40 years something major has changed climate wise. More snow/ice is going south to OK and TX also where before 10 years or so ago I never heard of that before.

[pxmcc]

that's .5 degrees F increase in about 60ish years, which is probably representative. drag that trend out over geologic time scales-on the scale of millions of years-and it's clear that uh, Houston, we have a problem..

the planet hasn't fully played out all its positive feedback loops yet, such as that blue water absobs more of the sun's energy than white ice, but once it does, we're royally fooked and cooked..

the lag explains why 3 million years ago, the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today-from volcanoes back then, actually-the temperature was way higher..

it also connects to something called specific heat, which measures how much heat a substance can absorb without changing its temperature very much. water has a ridiculously high specific heat. 90% or so of global warming's extra energy has been absorbed by bodies of water, mostly the world's oceans. that's the main cause of widespread coral death in places like the Great Barrier Reef, along with ocean acidification. corals get really grumpy and expel their food-producing symbiotic algae, and then starve to death, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm assuming you don't have a problem with fewer blizzards, so I asked ChatGPT for the average temperature in August in the 1950's and the 2020's for Kansas City. It came back with

1959 77.5
1958 75.8
1957 76.5
1956 79.5
1955 79.5
1954 80.5
1953 78.8
1952 76.9
1951 78.0
1950 79.2

2025 77.5
2024 79.5
2023 80.5
2022 78.5
2021 77.5
2020 79.5

That works out to an average of 78.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1950 to 1959 and 78.9 from 2020 to 2025.

The hottest August on record was 87 degrees in 1936.

These were calculated using the NOAA method, of taking the average of the daily high and the daily low.

I’m too lazy to check more months. But if you’re right about Kansas winters, then it sounds like like KC may have benefited from climate change

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

I think in the fine print of all things reasonable, you should answer the 3 questions in the post that you are responding to. There were pretty straight forward and simple Yes/No questions.

Regardless the shift started sometime around 2005 and picked up steam, since Al Gore's end of the universe, as we know it, didn't actually happen a couple times over.

Originally Posted by rooster

Nope. That's not true.

They didn't "settle" on the term "Climate Change." Nor did they "abandon" the idea of "warming."...

[pxmcc]

due to climate change caused by excess greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources, the western U.S. is running out of water. this isn't at all pretty..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/...100403321.html

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I think in the fine print of all things reasonable, you should answer the 3 questions in the post that you are responding to. There were pretty straight forward and simple Yes/No questions.

Regardless the shift started sometime around 2005 and picked up steam, since Al Gore's end of the universe, as we know it, didn't actually happen a couple times over.

I'm not sure if you are addressing me or px...but I only responded to what was worth responding to. Hence, the "redacted" quote. The rest was just you looking to head god-knows-where with an obvious distortion of the meaning of "change" as it is being used by those who spend their days with their heads above the sand and out of...other places. px seems to have ignored it too. Maybe it's a trend? One can hope.

.

[pxmcc]

^^not sure what i did lol, but i prefer climate change over global warming b/c effects can get complicated. the Gulf Stream is in danger of shutting down and if it does, Europe's weather will become the same as Siberia-cold af-since they're both approximately at the same latitude.

but to also be clear, average global temperatures are increasing. so global warming is not too far from the truth, if someone prefers that term over climate change.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

due to climate change caused by excess greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources, the western U.S. is running out of water. this isn't at all pretty..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/...100403321.html

Hi pxmcc, I don't believe carbon emissions are the likely primary cause of the issues in the article.

There's a lot of natural variation in rainfall. Over the last 2000 years, the worst droughts in North America occurred between 900 and 1300. These so called Medieval Megadroughts lasted many years and were far worse than anything in modern times.

Population growth in the West and overallocation of water to farmers are the other two big culprits.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

the planet hasn't fully played out all its positive feedback loops yet, such as that blue water absobs more of the sun's energy than white ice, but once it does, we're royally fooked and cooked..

the lag explains why 3 million years ago, the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today-from volcanoes back then, actually-the temperature was way higher..

it also connects to something called specific heat, which measures how much heat a substance can absorb without changing its temperature very much. water has a ridiculously high specific heat. 90% or so of global warming's extra energy has been absorbed by bodies of water, mostly the world's oceans. that's the main cause of widespread coral death in places like the Great Barrier Reef, along with ocean acidification. corals get really grumpy and expel their food-producing symbiotic algae, and then starve to death, unfortunately.

I don't buy the first paragraph. These feedbacks are already happening, and they're not in runaway mode.

Global average temperatures currently are cooler than they've been during most of the last 250 million years, back to the Paleozoic.

I largely agree about oceans absorbing heat, and coral. Please note acidification is a separate issue, and the USA's switch to natural gas from coal has helped in a small way.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^not sure what i did lol, but i prefer climate change over global warming b/c effects can get complicated. the Gulf Stream is in danger of shutting down and if it does, Europe's weather will become the same as Siberia-cold af-since they're both approximately at the same latitude.

but to also be clear, average global temperatures are increasing. so global warming is not too far from the truth, if someone prefers that term over climate change.

Given your science background, I'm going to take the liberty of getting into the weeds a little.

This is not aimed at you, but in general advocates prefer "climate change" over "global warming" because then they can pin higher AND lower temperatures than normal on carbon emissions. And as you say, IF the Gulf Stream greatly weakens or disappears, weather in Europe and the eastern USA likely will become cooler.

I question the timing and the likelihood of this. I have just a little academic and work experience modeling fluid flow and mass transfer in nature. I actually wrote an elementary program that did that, by solving differential equations with given boundary values. And worked with a much more complicated model.

Well, climate models kind of do the same thing. In addition to fluid flow and mass transfer, add heat transfer and a lot of physics that I know little to nothing about. My (admittedly limited) experience from working with much simpler models is that they're inaccurate and you can make them do what you want to. You come up with a history match of past data, base your assumptions for the future on that, and often end up with totally worthless results.

I'm not trying to say that you can't trust the models at all, and carbon emissions aren't related to global warming. I am saying I'd have very little confidence in projections about the gulf stream.