Meteorologists refute EPA head on climate change

Bill

Malarkeyville
The nation’s top organization for meteorology is refuting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent comments on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change.

there-is-a-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states-and-there-always-has-been-politics-quote.jpg

Pruitt questioned mainstream climate science last week, saying in a CNBC interview, “I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The American Meteorological Society wrote a letter to Pruitt Monday saying he is wrong.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” the group’s executive director, Keith Seitter, wrote in the letter.

“This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world,” Seitter said. “We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”

He added that “mischaracterizing the science” is not a good place to start in constructive policy debates surrounding climate, and offered his organization’s assistance in helping Pruitt to understand the data.

Pruitt’s statement cause a firestorm among Democrats, liberal organizations and scientists, some of whom have charged that he does not belong at the EPA if he does not understand climate science.

Pruitt and his boss, President Trump, are planning a wholesale rescission of former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies at the EPA and elsewhere. Trump is expected this week to start the process of undoing Obama’s climate rule for power plants and his coal leasing moratorium for federal land.

TrumpClimateTweet2.png

Meanwhile, Pruitt plans to start the process soon of reconsidering Obama’s aggressive greenhouse gas standards for cars.
 
I propose we cut carbon emissions by the same degree humans cause global warming. So the first thing is to determine without a doubt what the weather would be without humans. Modeling doesn't count.
 
Good, it is about time that climate alarmist wings were clipped. There is a petition organised by leading atmospheric scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen of over 300 scientists calling for climate alarmism to be halted. The worm has turned.

Sent from shitty, cheap junk Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists but only in my fucked up little mind

I propose we cut carbon emissions by the same degree humans cause global warming. So the first thing is to determine without a doubt what the weather would be without humans. Modeling doesn't count.

there-is-a-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states-and-there-always-has-been-politics-quote.jpg


He's talking about you two and idiots like you.
 
The OP is fake news.

It should read 'meteorologists *confront* EPA head on climate change'.

If they refuted them, the argument would be settled---and it clearly isn't.
 
I am still amazed that despite all of the evidence proving that the data has been cooked that the democrat party still believes in the hoax that is man made global warming

Poor babies
 
I am still amazed that despite all of the evidence proving that the data has been cooked that the democrat party still believes in the hoax that is man made global warming

Poor babies

I am still amazed that despite all of the evidence proving that they are all a bunch of congenital liars and gullible sheep who believe whatever bullshit propaganda their leadership tells them to believe, that the republican party still believes in the hoax that man made global warming is a hoax.

Poor babies
 

Pruitt questioned mainstream climate science last week, saying in a CNBC interview, “I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The American Meteorological Society wrote a letter to Pruitt Monday saying he is wrong.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” the group’s executive director, Keith Seitter, wrote in the letter.

“This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world,” Seitter said. “We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”

He added that “mischaracterizing the science” is not a good place to start in constructive policy debates surrounding climate, and offered his organization’s assistance in helping Pruitt to understand the data.

Pruitt’s statement cause a firestorm among Democrats, liberal organizations and scientists, some of whom have charged that he does not belong at the EPA if he does not understand climate science.

Pruitt and his boss, President Trump, are planning a wholesale rescission of former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies at the EPA and elsewhere. Trump is expected this week to start the process of undoing Obama’s climate rule for power plants and his coal leasing moratorium for federal land.

TrumpClimateTweet2.png

Meanwhile, Pruitt plans to start the process soon of reconsidering Obama’s aggressive greenhouse gas standards for cars.

Great quote and excellent article
 
Last edited:
I am still amazed that despite all of the evidence proving that they are all a bunch of congenital liars and gullible sheep who believe whatever bullshit propaganda their leadership tells them to believe, that the republican party still believes in the hoax that man made global warming is a hoax.

Poor babies

Maybe we should believe teflon & his dear leader, aka the dirty..:dunno: What are 10's of thousands of researchers & scientists compared to teflon & rumpf who between them have ZERO QUALIFICATIONS to determine nary a damn thing.:rofl2:
 
Maybe we should believe teflon & his dear leader, aka the dirty..:dunno: What are 10's of thousands of researchers & scientists compared to teflon & rumpf who between them have ZERO QUALIFICATIONS to determine nary a damn thing.:rofl2:
What qualifications do Bill Nye or El Gordo have in climatology, physics or any even remotely related scientifically to climate? Let me help you, fuck all is the answer!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
What qualifications do Bill Nye or El Gordo have in climatology, physics or any even remotely related scientifically to climate? Let me help you, fuck all is the answer!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

& bill nye & gordo have what to do w/ the know nothings rumpf & don?? Or are you merely saying those two w/ fucking ZERO KNOWLEDGE are in good company??:D
 
“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” the group’s executive director, Keith Seitter, wrote in the letter.
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It's physically impossible.
Read this.
 
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It's physically impossible.
Read this.
It is a greenhouse gas, Arrhenius established that fact over 100 years ago. The big problem though for climate alarmists is that a predicted warming of around 1.2c for a doubling of CO2 concentration is not going to scare anyone so they need to invent various positive feedbacks to truly scare the shit out of the bewildered. Bear in mind that is from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 2070 or roughly 300 years.There is no empirical evidence for any of these postulated feedbacks, the only 'evidence' comes from climate models.

There is much evidence that the CO2 increase has been a positive, not least in the profound effect it's had on the greening of the planet. You will of course never hear any climate alarmist mention that inconvenient fact.

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Last edited:
It is a greenhouse gas, Arrhenius established that fact over 100 years ago. The big problem though for climate alarmists is that a predicted warming of around 1.2c for a doubling of CO2 concentration is not going to scare anyone so they need to invent various positive feedbacks to truly scare the shit out of the bewildered. Bear in mind that is from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 2070 or roughly 300 years.There is no empirical evidence for any of these postulated feedbacks, the only 'evidence' comes from climate models.
The misnomer term "Greenhouse effect" implies a positive feedback. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G&T) paper (peer reviewed) shows that it is physically impossible . And you are correct, imperical evidence correlates with G&T.
I'm not familiar with Arrhenius, but I assume he established that an increase in atmospheric [CO2 ] causes an increase in atmospheric temperature, but as you stated, no positive feedback has been shown to exist, consistent with G&T.
 

Pruitt questioned mainstream climate science last week, saying in a CNBC interview, “I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The American Meteorological Society wrote a letter to Pruitt Monday saying he is wrong.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” the group’s executive director, Keith Seitter, wrote in the letter.

“This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world,” Seitter said. “We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”

He added that “mischaracterizing the science” is not a good place to start in constructive policy debates surrounding climate, and offered his organization’s assistance in helping Pruitt to understand the data.

Pruitt’s statement cause a firestorm among Democrats, liberal organizations and scientists, some of whom have charged that he does not belong at the EPA if he does not understand climate science.

Pruitt and his boss, President Trump, are planning a wholesale rescission of former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies at the EPA and elsewhere. Trump is expected this week to start the process of undoing Obama’s climate rule for power plants and his coal leasing moratorium for federal land.

TrumpClimateTweet2.png

Meanwhile, Pruitt plans to start the process soon of reconsidering Obama’s aggressive greenhouse gas standards for cars.

An inmate is running the asylum...
Colorado is seeing the warmest winter on record...
8 to 10 degrees above normal...
Everyone here know that trump and Pruitt are full of shit...
 
The misnomer term "Greenhouse effect" implies a positive feedback. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G&T) paper (peer reviewed) shows that it is physically impossible . And you are correct, imperical evidence correlates with G&T.
I'm not familiar with Arrhenius, but I assume he established that an increase in atmospheric [CO2 ] causes an increase in atmospheric temperature, but as you stated, no positive feedback has been shown to exist, consistent with G&T.


The simplified first-order approximation expression for the carbon dioxide radiative forcing effect is:

e36cc031b0e6d6b47508b2ae11126abee86f2de8


Where C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
 
Last edited:
The simplified first-order approximation expression for the carbon dioxide radiative forcing effect is:

e36cc031b0e6d6b47508b2ae11126abee86f2de8


Where C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
Curious. Do you know if that equation was derived empirically or experimentally? My guess would be experimentally. Not that it matters.

I believe I've seen an equation showing negative feedback for ^[co2], I'll try to find it. Regardless there are numerous examples. Greening of the Sahara is one.
 
Last edited:
Curious. Do you know if that equation was derived empirically or experimentally? My guess would be experimentally. Not that it matters.

I believe I've seen an equation showing negative feedback for ^[co2], I'll try to find it. Regardless there are numerous examples. Greening of the Sahara is one.

That equation has been derived using a mixture of voodoo, empiricism and climate models. The result is achieved by integrating all the lines in the 15 micron CO2 IR adsorption band. It assumes a constant lapse rate and surface temperature of 288k.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Last edited:
Back
Top