Garamendi Calls for Congress to Address Climate Change

Share:
John Garamendi speaks at the Davis Train Station last week
John Garamendi speaks at the Davis Train Station last week

Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), the former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, went to the House Floor to call for action on climate change: “Earth Day 2015 is rapidly approaching. I’d like to draw the attention of the House and American citizens to the reality of climate change.

“Global warming is real. Take a look at California. We are in the midst of the fourth year of a very severe drought. You can debate whether this drought is or is not the result of climate change, but you cannot debate the fact that CO2 in our atmosphere is approaching 400 parts per million – highest it’s ever been in over 800,000 years. You cannot debate the fact that it’s a heck of a lot warmer in California in the last decade than it’s ever been in recorded time. You cannot debate the fact the snow level in California is rapidly rising up the Sierra Nevada and the Siskiyou Mountains leaving us with an ever smaller snow reservoir.

“This is a real problem. We need to address it with very strong, powerful legislation here in Congress, most of which has not been done. We have a challenge out ahead of us. I hope and pray that we’ll meet that challenge.”

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

58 thoughts on “Garamendi Calls for Congress to Address Climate Change”

  1. Davis Progressive

    so now we know that a lot of republicans recognize that global warming is real, but they view it as a low priority at least for their constituents with a heavy price to be paid for acknowledging it.  i guess a question that needs to be answered: why is global warming such a low priority given how huge a toll it is likely to take on this nation and this planet?

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      You will have to ask the Average Citizen why it rates so low. Maybe because they have more Common Sense than politicians.

      Maybe because they prioritize jobs and family over unproven alarmist theories.

      Maybe because they’ve seen that the Global Warming political activists have lied to us 2 times with manipulated data.

      Or maybe because they’ve seen the polar bear populations explode (not shrink), and 50,000 islanders have not had to relocate due to sea levels rising by 20′ (see Al Gore).

      Maybe it’s also because the educated folks know that we have solid environmental laws and rules, and any progress we make is dwarfed by the CO2 increased produced by China and India.

       

      1. Davis Progressive

        actually the polling says that most people believe that global warming is happening and that it’s human caused, so that throws out most of your explanation.  my theory is lack of immediate impact, and  perhaps daunting solutions.

        1. Frankly

          You just skipped..

          Maybe it’s also because the educated folks know that we have solid environmental laws and rules, and any progress we make is dwarfed by the CO2 increased produced by China and India.

          And…

          Maybe because they prioritize jobs and family over unproven alarmist theories.

          And also the fact that all scientists agree that there is nothing man can do in the short and medium term to halt or even slow it based on the same models used to blame man for it.

          Lastly, the clear alarmist exploitation of dubious science for political gain.  Years from now, assuming the earth really does continue to warm to the point there are significant human impacts, if we look back on our missed opportunities to work on adaption, the blame will fall squarely on Al Gore and the political hacks and ignoramuses of the left that got all giddy in their corruptible use of science to enrich themselves with money and power and did so despite causing a political wedge instead of fomenting cooperation.

          I think the message here is clear… it is that many people would accept a hotter environment than to allow leftists to win in their ideological pursuit to destroy capitalism and industrialism so that leftists can feel better about themselves in comparison to capitalists and industrialists.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Spot on. Besides, Clinton and Gore  never signed Kyoto, yet the boogeyman fracking has helped us to reduce CO2 levels by 20 percent.

          I’d rather have it be 1 degree warmer than 1 degree colder.

  2. TrueBlueDevil

    Does Mr. Garamendi realize that we are 17-, 18-, or 19-years into a Global Warming “hiatus”? (Just Google the phrase.)

    Does he realize that a second major study shows that the numbers / data / temperatures have been manipulated?

    Does he realize that thanks to Clean Natural Gas, we have dropped our CO2 output by 20 percent, reaching the Kyoto goals (that Clinton & Gore never signed)?

    We had a bad drought in the early 70s before the Warmists emerged. We actually had a ton of rain this fall, 200% of normal, just in the wrong place (on the western half of the state).

    Mr. Garamendi cannot debate the fact that liberal Democrats haven’t built any new major water storage in 3 or 4 decades, while the state population exploded. This population explosion was also fueled by the Open Borders and immigration policies foisted on us by liberal Democrats.

    Much of the public no longer believes in this Warmist theory.

    Mr. Garamendi would do the public he serves a lot more good if he worked to cut red tape and speed the behemoth of government to get new water storage built ASAP so that when we get rain, we have more places to store it for citizens, farmers, and fish.

    1. Davis Progressive

      you can google the phrase and get a bunch of right wing sites from non-scientists.  last night on yesterday’s thread one of the posters very elegantly explained why the hiatus appears to be occurring which is as i have explained to you multiple times due to the oceans ability to absorb the increased heat.

    2. Don Shor

      Mr. Garamendi would do the public he serves a lot more good if he worked to cut red tape and speed the behemoth of government to get new water storage built ASAP

      I’m pretty sure that’s a state issue, and reservoir expansion is on track.

  3. Tia Will

    TBD

    I noticed that you chose to make this all about a debate that Mr. Garamendi was not discussing. You did not mention the need to address any of the specific points that he did make. We are seeing changes in water availability, consumption patterns and demand in California based on temperature change and snowfall patterns as well as population change. To deny any of these as a factor is to be pulling the ideologic wool over one’s own eyes. The sooner we move beyond the politically based rhetoric and finger pointing, the sooner we will actually begin addressing the issues and hopefully mitigating the deleterious consequences.

    1. Barack Palin

      Tia Will, do you know how many droughts CA has experienced since they started keeping track?  This drought is nothing new, we’ve had them before and will have future ones.  It’s all part of the cycles.

      1. Davis Progressive

        “This drought is nothing new, we’ve had them before and will have future ones.  It’s all part of the cycles.”

        this drought is in fact something new.  it is the worst drought in recorded history of california and probably the worst in at least 1200 years.

        1. Frankly

          There you go TBD.  DP the leftist blaming the bad weather on his political adversaries.  He is just absolutely sure that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes.  And frack oil production is responsible for earthquakes.  He has it all figured out.  Industrialized man is just killing the planet and it must be stopped!

        2. Davis Progressive

          no, i just pointed out that this drought is in fact something new.  the experts disagree on whether global warming supercharged the drought.  but it is in fact something we haven’t seen before so bp’s comment is inaccurate.

        3. Barack Palin

          DP, read up, this drought is nothing compared to some we’ve had in the past.

          Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

          I know that doesn’t fit the climate alarmist agenda that you seem to espouse but don’t let the facts get in your way.  These documented droughts happened before the combustion engine, imagine that.

          http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

        4. Davis Progressive

          i have read up – you’re citing an article from january 2014 which btw, if you read the full thing agree with my “climate alarmist views.”

          here’s from two weeks ago in the new york times: “The current drought, which began in 2011, is the worst in 120 years of climate record-keeping in the state, and some studies suggest it is the worst in more than a thousand years.”  – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/science/california-drought-is-worsened-by-global-warming-scientists-say.html?_r=0

          part of the problem is the article you posted is only looking at length of time rather than severity which is amplified by the record heat.

          “The drought is made of two components: not enough rain and too much heat,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton. “The rain deficit isn’t clearly connected to climate change, but the planetary warming has made it more likely that the weather would be hotter in California.”
          Warmer temperatures worsen drought by causing more evaporation from reservoirs, rivers and soil. Scientists say that the warming trend makes it highly likely that California and other parts of the Western United States will have more severe droughts in the future.

           

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      His “points” or theories are unproven. We’ve more than doubled the population in a state with a Mediterranean climate, we are our nations garden, the world’s garden, and we’re surprised when a drought hits every few decades?

      If the Liberals are serious, then adopt the major solution that the IPCC suggested – that the world build 1,000 nuclear power plants. That will have a minor effect towards their theory.

      Putting solar panels on a few homes and changing some minor habits is like a child peeing in the Mississippi River and expecting it to change directions.

       

      1. Davis Progressive

        “His “points” or theories are unproven.”

        theories are not “proven” – mathematics has proofs, theories rely on evidence and correlation to substantiate or disconfirm

        1. Alan Miller

          “theories are not “proven” – mathematics has proofs, theories rely on evidence and correlation to substantiate or disconfirm”

          Because scientists never have agendas, politics, or “accidentally” prove the very thing they set out to prove.

      1. hpierce

        You are correct, Don.  Regardless of whether climate ‘change’ or climate ‘aberration’, whether caused by human activity or not, “climate happens”.  The human existence is but a blip, in geologic/climate terms.  Always good to plan and as necessary act.  “Prepare for the worst, expect the best”.  Good survival strategy.

  4. TrueBlueDevil

    Here is a fun site.
     
    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

    Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming

    “If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”

    An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 63 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings: 

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

    Forbes is much more mainstream. Here is one very interesting paragraph:

    Global Warming Pause Puts ‘Crisis’ In Perspective

    “Computer models, of course, are only as accurate as their programmed data, formulas, and assumptions. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges there are many components to climate change for which climate scientists are merely making their best guesses. The IPCC-affiliated scientists have made guesses that the unknown climate components will dramatically accelerate the modest warming caused directly by human carbon dioxide emissions. So-called climate skeptics have argued the UN guesses consistently overestimate the warming propensity of the unknown climate components.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

    1. Davis Progressive

      “If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause”

      good thing the pause is easily explainable.  it’s annoying that you don’t generally respond to comments and instead post from right wing blogs.

      1. Barack Palin

        If there’s a pause it’s because of global warming, if it rains it’s because of global warming, if it snows it’s because of global warming, if we have tornadoes it’s because of global warming, if we don’t have tornadoes it’s because of global warming, if….well you get the idea.  Climate alarmists have it rigged so they can’t lose.

        1. Davis Progressive

          it’s not a pause.  it’s an issue of measurement and accounting for the fact that most of the earth’s surface is covered by oceans which absorb much more heat than land masses.

        2. Davis Progressive

          this is as simple an explanation as i have seen:

          tribeUSA
          April 17, 2015 at 4:47 am

          PB–yes, there has still been a net radiation imbalance (more short wave solar energy absorbed by earth/atmosphere system than long-wave emitted by earth/atmosphere system), so the planet has continued to absorb more energy than it gives off–more and more evidence has been accumulating that this excess energy is being absorbed by the oceans–the ocean has a much larger heat capacity than the atmosphere, so this ocean warming has been slight, not much larger than the margins of uncertainty in estimating worldwide volumetric average ocean temperature. The ocean currents are not strictly steady-state, not only are there El Nino/La Nina oscillations of a few years, but there is the Pacific decadal oscillation (typical period several decades), and other oscillations in the Atlantic (and possibly Indian and Antarctic Oceans). These phases of the ocean currents affect the transfer/exchange of heat energy between the atmosphere and ocean, and from the surface waters to deeper waters, at rates and in ways that are currently under intense investigation.
          Also remember your CO2 chemistry–CO2 combines with water to form H2CO3; the pK for the first proton to dissociate is over 9 in ocean water (if I remember correctly), so at ocean pH near 8.0 will get HCO3- + H+; the second proton (maybe the one you are thinking about) has a pK of about 6.5. So consider add 1 proton to ocean water for each molecule of CO2 added to ocean water.

  5. LadyNewkBahm

    DP if the oceans swallowed up the heat, they needed to account for that in their modeling systems so they wouldn’t over-predict temperatures.

      1. Don Shor

        Tens of thousands of geophysicists doing research on the many aspects of climate change. “One person with a good counterexample” might be challenging one range of data in one sub-discipline. He or she would publish and subject the work to peer review. Others in that narrower discipline would respond and see if they can replicate the results.
        Those kinds of debates go on all the time in the field of climate science. Some of it even plays out in discussions on blogs.

      1. Frankly

        I find it fascinating the read stuff like this:

        To understand global warming, scientists must first understand the oceans.

        And then hear all the Al Gorsians rant about the abolutism of man-made climate change.

        How about we add?…

        – To understand global warming, scientists must first understand solar activity and variance.

        Climaxing last week, the sun will have unleashed three X-class solar flares. These are the strongest flares of the year so far, and they signal a significant increase in solar activity with more to come. Historically, research has been conducted to link the 11 year cycle of the sun to changes in human behavior and society. Research done in the last hundred years that shows the most malefic effects from solar activity come at the sunspot minima.

        – To understand global warming, scientists must first understand the geology of the earth’s mantel and core.

        Earth’s internal engine is running about 1,000 degrees Celsius (about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than previously measured, providing a better explanation for how the planet generates a magnetic field, a new study has found.

        – To understand global warming, scientists must first understand water vapor cycles, sources and impacts.

        Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

        Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

        – To understand global warming, scientists must first understand natural production and absorption of greenhouse gas.

        The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

        And…

        Tolstoy wanted to figure out how often these volcanoes erupt and what causes their eruption. Her ocean voyage happened in 2005, and five years later, her research was published this week in Geophysical Research Letters.

        In it, she finds that the Earth’s volcanism is tied to minute shifts in motion of the Earth around the sun, as well as to sea levels, in a chain of events that scientists have never before envisioned. The elegance of the theory surprised Edward Baker, a scientist at the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

        “We don’t usually think of eruptions as being affected by very small changes—astronomical changes—and sea levels rising and falling, and the Earth spinning around the sun at different distances,” Baker said in a phone interview. “It’s another way of understanding how the Earth works.”

        The bottom line is that there is more we don’t know than we do know about the causes of climate change.  Scientists have jumped the gun believing they have absolute proof (their never ending pursuit) and leftists jumped the gun using this flawed science for political and ideological pursuit.

        We can all agree to focus on adaption for climate change, because we all agree that the climate will change because it has always changed.

        1. Tia Will

          We can all agree to focus on adaption for climate change, because we all agree that the climate will change because it has always changed.”

          I agree with this statement. I also believe that we should all also agree to focus on those aspects of human behavior that are more likely than not to be contributing since they are the only aspects of climate change, or pollution, or environmental destruction, or what ever else one might one to call it, that we are able to control. So as part of our “adaptation”we should be minimizing our negative impacts on the environment where ever they may be occurring.

           

        2. Frankly

          We already do plenty of that Tia.  The problem is that the environmental wackos are exploiting the theories of anthropogenic climate change to demand more and more and more and more… it is already too much.   It is already stifling business activity needed to sustain the nation.

          If there is no material benefit to derive from stopping or slowing man made climate change, then you cannot use it as a justification for prohibiting industry unless you are willing to accept the label of being irrational and an extremist.

          You want to make the case that it is the right thing to do… to keep layering on business-killing costs and regulations to reduce carbon output.  But the right thing to do is to reduce regulation so more people can work.  This is the right thing to do because we can calculate the damage to the human condition with the economy growing too slowly and too many people under-employed.  And your demands for more business-punishing environmental regulations will hurt these people and then not do a damn thing to impact climate change.

          So for you and others to keep demanding those stronger regulations is irrational, ideological, political, and worthy of all the scorn heaped upon it.

          1. Don Shor

            If there is no material benefit to derive from stopping or slowing man made climate change

            You don’t believe there is any material benefit that would be derived from stopping or slowing man-made climate change? It’s never clear to me what you actually believe about climate change. So please clarify: you actually, specifically believe that there would be no benefit to anyone, now or in the future, to take action to reduce or stop the human-caused percentage of climate change?
            You don’t believe there is any benefit from reducing carbon output? You don’t think there is any reason to regulate carbon output of, say, coal plants? You believe that to regulate that is irrational?

        3. Frankly

          From an NPR report (I have to look for sources you won’t dismiss as quickly):

          Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.

          As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world’s top climate scientists.

          “We’re used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix,” Solomon says. “Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it’ll go away pretty quickly.”

          That’s the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won’t stop global warming.

          So please explain why we would support even GREATER environmental regulations to harm business, industry, reduce economic growth, reduce jobs, reject capitalism and industrialism… all in the name of global warming… if none it will do a thing to reduce global warming?

          You got the logic figured out for that buster?

          How about “it just feels like the right thing to do”?

          1. Don Shor

            If 1/3 of the global temperature increase is caused by CO2 emission, and 2/3 is happening naturally, what will happen to the pace of change — sea level rise, agricultural impacts, hydrological impacts — what would happen if we reduced that 1/3 component? Will sea level rise slow down? Will the pace of impact on agriculture slow? Will the change from snow-pack water source to rain-based water source in California be easier or more difficult for us to adapt to?
            Would reducing the human impact on climate change make it easier or more difficult for the world’s complex representative democracies to find the will and the means to develop adaptive strategies?
            Do you not consider that a gradual reduction in the human role in climate change would enable us to adapt better?

        4. hpierce

          To Don’s 8:00 post:

          “If 1/3 of the global temperature increase is caused by CO2 emission, and 2/3 is happening naturally, what will happen to the pace of change — sea level rise, agricultural impacts, hydrological impacts — what would happen if we reduced that 1/3 component?”  You might want to look at the word “naturally”… how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by the world’s population respiring? Is that “natural”?  I agree with what I think is your main point, ‘why not do what we can’, but it’ll be a fool’s errand to think that the rest of the world’s population will commit to the same.  If everyone in the US committed to the huge reduction in CO2, big time, at great expense/inconvenience, we might change CO2 emissions ~ 1.5% at most, nowhere near the 33% you posited.

          1. Don Shor

            I don’t favor drastic solutions. This is a long-term problem that will be best met with gradual solutions.
            The world needs to get away from carbon sources like coal, or develop technology that extracts and burns it more cleanly. For the EPA to set standards, and then give industry 15 – 20 years to achieve them, is not necessarily a ‘great expense/inconvenience’. That is a very appropriate role for government, since industry has zero incentive to set or meet those goals on their own. World leaders can agree on long-term reductions in CO2 generation.
            Set long-term goals, reduce carbon, switch gradually to other sources, focus on technology, plan and invest in adaptation. There could be plenty of area of agreement on those things. But it’s hard to get past denialism, because then you aren’t even willing to set the goals. And at the moment, even though a majority of Republicans agree on the problem and a majority of Republicans are willing to adopt measures to deal with it, the strident minority that rules that party prevents it. Polls show that the Tea Party members deny climate change and vigorously oppose any policies directed at it. And they rule the roost in that party and in the House.

        5. wdf1

          Frankly:  So please explain why we would support even GREATER environmental regulations to harm business, industry, reduce economic growth, reduce jobs, reject capitalism and industrialism… all in the name of global warming… if none it will do a thing to reduce global warming?

          Because if you don’t, then you make the situation worse.  Add even more CO2 in the atmosphere => more heat storage than before.  We have already committed to a certain level of warming given past rates of CO2 emissions.  You won’t have to deal with the worst of the consequences — you’ll die soon enough — but your descendants will.  It is future economic harm.

        6. Frankly

          Don you are dancing on the head of a irrational pin… as I expected.

          Did you read the scientific explantion that we cannot turn back the clock on c02?  Come on now, if you are going to base your position on science, then you lose complete credibility if you are just going to cherry pick which science you will accept.

          “Gradual”?  Gradual would not include the elimination of coal plants in less that one Presidential term.  Gradual would not be the complete elimination of oil and gas production on all federal lands.  Grandual would not be the vetoing of the keystone pipeline.  Gradual would not be the EPA out of control implementing more and more regulations to punish business in the name of global warming.   There is nothing gradual in what this administration and leftists are doing.

          Gradual would mean we invest in and help industry develop clean alternatives and then work to promote their advancement.  Gradual would mean that we don’t cut and chop with an alarmist narrative.

          Why do liberals always approach this and other need to change with an artificial scarcity approach?  It is the stick instead of the carrot.? The new rules to prohibit instead the new programs to encourage?

          The global warming alarmist crusade is hurting a lot of people.  And it is doing so for reasons that are false.

          1. Don Shor

            Don you are dancing on the head of a irrational pin… as I expected.

            Always good having a conversation with you. Always.
            Didn’t bother to read on.

      2. wdf1

        Frankly:  The bottom line is that there is more we don’t know than we do know about the causes of climate change. 

        And how do you know that scientists haven’t already carefully considered the things you mentioned?

        Scientists have jumped the gun believing they have absolute proof (their never ending pursuit) and leftists jumped the gun using this flawed science for political and ideological pursuit.

        Which you can apply to any scientific framework you want — gravity, the atomic theory of matter, plate tectonics, electromagnetic energy, cellular theory of life — maybe we shouldn’t be too hasty to claim absolute knowledge of any of this, after all there is always a certain possibility that we could be wrong.

        1. Frankly

          Agree – but we are not making sweeping environmental and economic policy based on new theories within those other scientific disciplines.

          Do you understand the economic carnage being wrought on people and communities over the global warming alarmist crusade?  And it isn’t enough for these people.

          Read what DavisBurns and Tia Will and others write.  These are anti-capitalists and anti-industrialists and they are giddy with the prosepcts of using global warming fear to advance their worldview.

          I find it interesting that you bring up the fear that my kids will suffer if we don’t accept all this elimination of economic opportunity.  Because I see much more human suffering coming as a result of the anti-capitalists and anti-industrialists getting their way.

    1. paul Brady

       
      1.    
      I have not seen any response to the fact that warming has stalled for the past 17 or so years according to satellite and ground data?  At most, the warming in the last 20 years has been only about 10% of that predicted by the climate models.  CO2 emissions during this period have been the largest ever, with atmospheric CO2 levels rising almost 10%!  How can one trust the models’ predictions for the next 50-100 years? 
       
      Are the climate people aware of the predictions that global CO2 emissions will begin to decline in 20- 25 years: energywatchgroup.org; ExxonMobil: The Outlook for Energy, etc.  This is despite large population and energy-use increases.  Emissions  have already declined in the EU and USA with small changes.  Major global  decline will be  due to energy conservation and efficiencies and [ mainly] to the global switch from coal to natural gas, and  also to the increase in “renewables” such as solar, wind power, etc., as well as increased contributions from nuclear and possibly hydro power.
       
      Each year only about 50% of the CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere.  The other 50% is taken up by global greenery and the ocean.  In the ocean most CO2 does not  hydrolyze to raise the acidity.  It is much more soluble in cold water so tends to diffuse or travel  to the deep ocean.   In this scenario of declining emissions and CO2 absorption a global warming crisis is unlikely.
       
       My brother in Canada tells me that the Canadian prairies have already experienced higher  temperature rises in the past 50 years, and higher average summer and winter temperatures [+1.7 and 2.5 C] which are similar to global values  predicted for decades close to 2100.  Of course, these have been beneficial for the expansion of crop-land and crop-yields in Canada, as well as a more moderate climate for all. The north is colder and drier with less water vapor, the dominant GHG, so CO2 becomes relatively more important.  IPCC models show this.
       
       Prairie lake pHs have declined more than the ~ -0.1 in going from 8.2 to about 8.1 as measured in the oceans, but many mining smelters have SO2 and SO3{?} getting past their stack scrubbers [recall acid rain?], so more study is  needed to separate these and CO2 effects.
       

  6. LadyNewkBahm

    just so I understand this, we should forgive innacurate predictions because its difficult. ummm……no.

    and I read the article.

    “The study was called “deeply flawed” by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He faulted the authors’ choice of data and sampling methodology.”

    so much for that concensus crap.

    1. Davis Progressive

      you mean this kevin trenberth who said:  

      “The planet is warming”, but “the warmth just isn’t being manifested at the surface.” He said his research showed that there had been a significant increase in deep ocean absorption of heat, particularly after 1998.  

      “There are these other signs of a warming planet,” Trenberth notes, pointing out that melting has accelerated on Greenland’s ice sheet and glaciers around the world. “One doesn’t just have to use the global mean surface temperature.”

    2. Tia Will

      NKB

      just so I understand this, we should forgive innacurate predictions because its difficult. ummm……no.”

      Of course we should. This is how scientific advancements are made. Theories and predictions are put forth based on those theories. Then solutions are tested. Some theories will be upheld while others will be replaced with more accurate models and theories. This is the heart of science.

      An example from my field. Let’s take prevention of cervical cancer. 30 years ago, not enough was understood about the causal agent of upwards of 95% of cervical cancer, human papilloma virus, to use it as a predictor of cervical cancer. So in my early career, I over treated many, many women based on the best available information of the time. As the science has evolved, we have been able to determine better ways to screen, follow, and treat the many fewer women who are actually at risk for cervical cancer.

      Does this mean that we should vilify scientists and doctors for acting on the best information available to them at the time ? Or worse still, should we have stopped them from treating woman altogether because the information was admittedly incomplete or  “inaccurate” thus allowing many more women to proceed to develop cervical cancer because the testing was less than perfect ?  I think that we can all agree that this would not have been desirable, and yet this would be the outcome if we did not “forgive” scientists for being wrong.

       

      1. LadyNewkBahm

        if those doctors are unwilling to acknowledge their own mistakes when they make them, then yes, we shouldn’t believe them. When those doctors are making decisions under various political influences, yes we don’t necessarily trust their judgment.

  7. LadyNewkBahm

    btw: how does this paper help your case? basically they’re not sure where the heat is and why and they argue it amongst themselves:

    “The challenge goes to a key problem in climate science today. Sea surface temperatures over the last decade have essentially been at a standstill, which is a problem, since the ocean warms from the top down. So, it would appear, global warming has “paused.”

    “Trenbeth and others have used simulation-based studies to suggest that the ocean is continuing to warm, but the deeper layers have been warming up more in the last decade.

    Willis’ study suggests this is not the case. That’s not to say Willis believes global warming has paused; he does not. He simply thinks other mechanisms are likely to account for it.

    ps. thanks for the ammunition. I really didn’t need anymore, but I’ll take it if you’re gonna give it to me.

     

    1. Davis Progressive

      i’m not sure you why you think there is a problem that scientists don’t fully understand the manner in which the earth is warming.  the bottom line is that they know that the earth is receiving more heat energy in than it’s losing to space and they understand that greenhouse gases hold that heat in more and that the increase of greenhouse gases is largely due to human factors.  given the enormity of the oceans, it’s not particularly surprising that they can act as a heat sink.

      1. LadyNewkBahm

        no that is not the bottom line. the bottom line is they BELIEVE the earth is recieving more heat, they BELIEVE its coming from CO2, they just CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR IT. otherwise, they would have produced ACCURATE MODELS.

        btw: the ocean heatsink theory is disputed by willis:

        “Trenbeth and others have used simulation-based studies to suggest that the ocean is continuing to warm, but the deeper layers have been warming up more in the last decade.

        Willis’ study suggests this is not the case. That’s not to say Willis believes global warming has paused; he does not. He simply thinks other mechanisms are likely to account for it.

        TWO CONFLICTING VIEWPOINTS. so what are we to do? throw willis under a bus?

         

        just as we don’t believe the weekly forecast if it is not accurate – and it doesn’t matter how many phds get behind behind teh weatherman. if he makes false predictions enough times, we simply don’t believe him, no matter who supports him and what their credentials are.

  8. Alan Miller

    Anyone ever notice how you never see John Garamendi and Al Gore in the same room?     Hmmmmmm . . . . . . . .

    And what ever happened to all the phone booths?

  9. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Read what DavisBurns and Tia Will and others write.  These are anti-capitalists and anti-industrialists and they are giddy with the prospects of using global warming fear to advance their worldview.”

    Since you have called me out directly, I will respond directly. You call me anti capitalist, and this is true,  but only with regard to the “winner take all” brand of capitalism that we have allowed to develop in this country. When you talk about “human misery” you fail to acknowledge the misery that exists today because of our desire for never ending inexpensive goodies made by child or sweat shop labor. You fail to acknowledge the misery of those that have been consigned for their entire life times to work in our fields so that we can enjoy inexpensive produce. You fail to acknowledge that much of the land that we control was taken by force either physical or economic from those who would have continued to choose a more simple, less wasteful lifestyle. And yet you seem to see this as the “way things should be ” without ever considering the downsides to such greed, or to interpret this also as the “advancement of an agenda”. It amazes me that you seem blind to the fact that you also have an agenda.

    What further amazes me is that you claim repetitively that you see the US as a world leader, and then claim that we could not possibly influence the thinking of other countries in what pitfalls to avoid when developing. How refreshing it would be to hear US leaders in industry and politics, instead of pounding their “American exceptionalism” chests, give an honest accounting of the good, the bad, and the ugly that have come from our brand of capitalism and industrialism as both inspiration and a cautionary note to those who have yet to develop.

    As doctors, as part of sharing and teaching, we have leaning sessions called Morbidity and Mortality reviews. We review not only our good outcomes, but also our bad outcomes in order to demonstrate not only our best practices, but also to make clear to all where we went astray and what could have been done differently to avoid our bad outcomes.

    If our experienced industrialists, business leaders, and politician were to take the same approach, you could count me as a capitalist and industrialist. However, what I see is individuals, companies, corporations, politicians and political parties all covering up for themselves, dissembling, lying, using the courts as a battle ground in our never ending adversarial rather than collaborative system. You are correct. I don’t like this. I would prefer a transparent, honest, open and collaborative system in which the highest recognition would be for contribution to the society, not how much wealth one could accumulate. I don’t see this as utopian or impossible. I see it as a matter of choice. An alternative that we simply have not chosen in this country. Yes, I have an agenda. But it is not evil,  nor impossible, it is just different from the materialistic agenda that you hold dear.

     

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for