Advertisement

cg22165

Follow

Comment history

Lawrence residents take climate change fight to D.C.

Good article Peter, but a couple of minor notes. Cap&trade is a completely different animal involving government issued carbon credits, and Boxer-Sanders is not entirely revenue neutral where our proposal is.

July 15, 2014 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Campaigning for Brownback, Santorum says American values under assault

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Declaration of Independence

"we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-pl...

Yes, American values of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and equality are under attack.

July 15, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

"That does not mean we do nothing."

OK, but I think a lot of people could read Dr Eagleman's letter and conclude that we don't need to do anything until we know more. Waiting until we know more is paralysis of analysis, and is deciding to do nothing.

July 13, 2014 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

What do you mean by "not settled"? If you mean we don't have a very good idea that continuing to increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere will be detrimental to our well-being, that's just not facing the reality of the difficult situation we are in.

I understand this is not your belief, but then that leads us to a discussion/argument about why we believe the way we do. And that leads to this tedious rehashing of what we have learned from science over the last 200 years or so.

Not sure what your background is, but I have a masters of science, which just means that, while I'm not a climate scientist, I have a pretty solid foundation of math, physics, and chemistry, and I can understand what the actual scientists write, for the most part. (I have a broad knowledge, but not very deep. For instance, I can tell you that the energy states of an electron shell and the strength and nature of the bounds between atoms within a molecule are quantum in nature and determine what wavelengths of light a molecule can absorb and emit. But, I can't tell you which states are associated with which wavelengths, where a physicist of radiative energy could.)

So, when I read the reports about how the world is changing physically, and the reports about how those physical changes will affect our food production, I believe we have a serious problem. I would very much like to believe everything is fine, but I can't get that out of the information available. And yes, I have read a lot of material from the more optimistic camp.

July 13, 2014 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

What do you mean by "not settled"?

July 13, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

And he previously stated there is no trend explicitly, immediately followed by this statement about record high levels. How hard is it to tell that his intent was to support his assertion about trends with this statement?

July 13, 2014 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

"But, how do you know for a fact that some unknown unknown will not arise to regulate the increases in CO2??"

Since it has not happened in the history of the earth before, as demonstrated in the temperature history graphs I provided, I think it is unlikely to this time. I'm unwilling to bet my children's prosperity on some unknown unknown which has never happened before.

July 12, 2014 at 9:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

He made the statement about needing perfect models, and the statement is wrong. We make decisions every day in the face of uncertainty, but it behooves us to consider the risks and the odds.

You said: " I did not read that he wrote there is no decline in snow cover. " after he said "the overall trend is neither up nor down."
If there is no trend up or down, there is no downward trend.

What part is not settled? He left that as ambiguous and you and Scott take comfort in believing that he has supported whatever it is you believe.

You are trying to paint me as an absolutist, and I'm wondering why you are ignoring the fact that I stated there is uncertainty. There are bounds to uncertainty, and I did not suggest that the worse end was more likely than the low end.

No one is suggesting you give up your air conditioning. In fact, we can grow GDP, increase jobs, and have a very minor impact to standard of living and deal effectively with climate change without EPA regs or growing government. But we can't do that with unrestrained fossil fuel use, and business as usual carries high risk that it will itself bring about the end of business as usual.

BTW, I was wondering the same about your reading comprehension, because I can't see how you can read, "In fact, the amount of Antarctic ice and snow cover set a new record this year for most coverage" and not understand it to imply there has been no decline. Else, why did he write it?

Also, I was talking about conservation energy, and you mention generation of CO2. That would be conservation of matter. Molecules are matter; photons are energy.

July 12, 2014 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

On the Antarctic sea ice extent, yes, we know that it has been increasing. The picture in the Antarctic is, again, complicated, but part of it is that we also know that the salinity has been decreasing, as a result of increased ice sheet melt and snow.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feat...

Why do we put salt on roads in the winter? Because it lowers the freezing temperature of water. So, if you dilute the salt water with fresh, would you expect more freezing. We are seeing more freezing despite the fact that we know the ocean temperature is getting warmer because we have measured it. So, if your point is that more freezing means the ocean is getting colder, you are mistaken.

July 12, 2014 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

You are not entitled to your own facts.

Fact: He claims we would only have certain knowledge if we had perfect models, but we know quite a lot about a lot of things and there has never been a perfect model, ever. That's why they are called models. Show me a model that perfectly reflects reality, on anything.

Fact: He claims that the climate is self-regulating and gives clouds as an example of how this works. a) Observations of the real world do not show a cooling effect from clouds. b) Does this look like an inherently stable system to you?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/tempera...
http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/ice_...

Fact: He claims there has been no decline in snow cover, and I already showed that there is.

Do you believe in conservation of energy? Because we can measure inbound and outbound, and outbound has been reduced in the wavelengths affected by CO2. Again, observations, not hypothesis.

Here are many
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...

Here is one in particular
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/...

July 12, 2014 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous