Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

[Old Rocks]

No, the caps are getting hotter and melting, thus making the water colder, effecting the temperatures of the jet stream and making the winters in areas affected by the jet stream colder.

No.

Yes.

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ARTICLE

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

• Stefan Rahmstorf,
• Jason E. Box,
• Georg Feulner,
• Michael E. Mann,
• Alexander Robinson,
• Scott Rutherford
• & Erik J. Schaffernicht

Abstract

• Abstract•
• Change history•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

Climate change - Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

Climate change. Drought that has killed in the last few years, 100 million trees in California, and 300 million trees in Texas.

And just how did you divine that conclusion?

Trees die, fire, old age, no rain... whatever, and drought isn't global warming.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary.

The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

The whole article at that link. Drought increases the chance of fire, and the drought was predicted as a result of the warming. And when this article was published in 1981, Dr. Hansen was labeled an alarmist. The Northwest Passage first opened up in 2007, the predicted time was in the latter part of this century. And last summer, a luxury liner went through the passage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sunspots and climate

We are currently in a quiescent period for the sunspots. And have had three record hot years in a row. So much for that.

Link?

Activity cycles 21, 22 and 23 seen in sunspot number index, TSI, 10.7cm radio flux, and flare index. The vertical scales for each quantity have been adjusted to permit overplotting on the same vertical axis as TSI. Temporal variations of all quantities are tightly locked in phase, but the degree of correlation in amplitudes is variable to some degree.

Solar cycle - Wikipedia

Nothing current about that, and wiki... really?

Well now, you can get the same graph on other sites, NASA, NOAA, as seperate graphs. But maybe you are just too damned lazy to do that for yourself?

 

[007]

No.

Yes.

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ARTICLE

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

• Stefan Rahmstorf,
• Jason E. Box,
• Georg Feulner,
• Michael E. Mann,
• Alexander Robinson,
• Scott Rutherford
• & Erik J. Schaffernicht

Abstract

• Abstract•
• Change history•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

Climate change - Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

Climate change. Drought that has killed in the last few years, 100 million trees in California, and 300 million trees in Texas.

And just how did you divine that conclusion?

Trees die, fire, old age, no rain... whatever, and drought isn't global warming.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary.

The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

The whole article at that link. Drought increases the chance of fire, and the drought was predicted as a result of the warming. And when this article was published in 1981, Dr. Hansen was labeled an alarmist. The Northwest Passage first opened up in 2007, the predicted time was in the latter part of this century. And last summer, a luxury liner went through the passage.

You won't convince me no matter how much contrived leftist ramblings and faked data you dig up that man has caused global warming, or even that global warming is real, sorry.

The earth has it's own cycles.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you are going to remain a fucked up ignoramous no matter what. LOL You guys are a hoot. You ask for evidence, then when given it, you reject it without doing any research at all because it conflicts with your preferred political gurus. Well, obese junkies on the AM radio are piss poor scientists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.

Let's get this straight. I have no problem whatsoever with Tyndall's contribution to the GH theory. But Tyndall KNEW BETTER than to postulate the accelerations and positive feedbacks that make up the core of this rabid version CATASTROPHIC GW that has been advanced. In fact, he knew enough to say that adding MORE of a tiny fractional atmos component like CO2 does not produce the SAME effect as the previous equal addition. In other words -- there were BOUNDS on the warming power of GH gases.

He also didn't have the Cajones to start conversations about the ocean's boiling and Florida going underwater. Or that 1 or 2 degrees is the largest extinction force ever to hit the planet..

Makes no sense to me that YOU think -- it's significant that GH gases work the way Tyndall predicted. Because that's NOT the general points of contention of GW skeptics..

I see. Then you disagree with Arrhenius? And your creds are equal to his? LOL

Since Arrhenius was NOT a climate scientist with any clue about GLOBAL climate or how it worked, my specialties and credentials might be.
Did Arrhenius have access to the proxy records? To Ice cores? To the global redistribution of heating or the feedbacks involved in GW theory?

This thread is really VERY simple. It's a very short term (less than a year observation of a process that has a mean value determined AT THE MINIMUM of a 30 year average. And you could tell a number of stories based on that NON climate observation. For instance, if you simply showed the past 2 or 3 years of data (instead of less than ONE year) -- EVERYTHING then folds back into the central distribution. You should know that. If you don't realize that -- you shouldn't be quoting ancient scientists. Because they were more objective than the "made for the public propaganda" like this piece..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

The seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in Antarctica has been fairly stable over the length of the satellite record. There is a slow growth of sea ice from a minimum of ~3x106 km2 in February to a maximum of ~19 x106km2 in September in February before a relatively rapid fall in the Antarctic spring.

But this year something different is going on.

Below is Tamino's image for the Southern Hemisphere, the red line is 2016 up to 16 November 2016.

The annotated seasonal extent of sea ice in the Southern hemisphere. From Tamino's post Sea Ice, North and South.

From January up to September the sea ice extent follows all previous data.

But what happened in September?


After that date it dipped low, to reach historic lows by the end of October.

Well, there goes Antarctica argument the loserterians had.

How many times must I tell you that the sensor aboard the satellite, which makes this calculation, is failing? They know about the sensor failure.. Yet fools keep crying wolf before they can get it fixed..

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess we will find out by September this year just how minor the deviations that we are seeing in temperature and ice are.

You are really a moron. You will have a lot longer than that to observe it.

View attachment 99925

View attachment 99926

View attachment 99927

In that last graph, the 1st Industrial age doubling from 280ppm does not occur until 2080 or so. 2070 at the soonest. And the free market and innovation will stem that rate way before that. So by Arrhenius rules and basic physics, the NEXT doubling where CO2 consistently is above 1120ppm (560 x 2) wont' likely OCCUR in the 22nd century.. Makes it hard for the BASIC warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF to make 2degC until then.. Without periodic help from natural variations.

The GW doom and gloom is based on CONTESTED and very unsettled science regarding those feedbacks and accelerations. And that's where -- I and other skeptics are not gonna go.. It's NOT based at all on those 18th/19th century scientists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sunspots and climate

We are currently in a quiescent period for the sunspots. And have had three record hot years in a row. So much for that.

And Old Crock shows how he has no clue about how or why our buffered earth systems work..

 

[westwall]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

 

[Lewdog]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

 

[ding]

No.

Yes.

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ARTICLE

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

• Stefan Rahmstorf,
• Jason E. Box,
• Georg Feulner,
• Michael E. Mann,
• Alexander Robinson,
• Scott Rutherford
• & Erik J. Schaffernicht

Abstract

• Abstract•
• Change history•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

Climate change - Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

Climate change. Drought that has killed in the last few years, 100 million trees in California, and 300 million trees in Texas.

And just how did you divine that conclusion?

Trees die, fire, old age, no rain... whatever, and drought isn't global warming.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary.

The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

The whole article at that link. Drought increases the chance of fire, and the drought was predicted as a result of the warming. And when this article was published in 1981, Dr. Hansen was labeled an alarmist. The Northwest Passage first opened up in 2007, the predicted time was in the latter part of this century. And last summer, a luxury liner went through the passage.

Wow... CO2 fell from 3500 to 600 ppm and it took 12 million years for the temperature to fall 7C to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.

Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

 

[jc456]

Whose history?

 

[westwall]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

Because they have a vested interest in keeping people alarmed. Here's the deal, EVERYTHING that they are warning us about has already happened. MANY times over. And not once has any bad thing that they claim will happen....happened. It's that simple. You actually seem like you wish to learn so here is a little bit of homework for you. Go back and take a look at all of their wild claims of impending disaster. Go ALL the way back to the 1970's. Then actually take a look at what happened.

They love to terrify people with their claims of massive storms are going to kill us all! Look up the Great Drowning of Men. Look up the Great Flood of 1862. HUGE storms that killed tens of thousands of people. They all happened before CO2 levels got to "dangerous" levels. Drought your ticket? Look up California mega droughts. And you will find a story where scientists have been able to map out multiple droughts in California over the last 1200 years where the droughts lasted for over 200 years!

In other words, all of the hysteria that they are propagandizing you with is just that. Propaganda not founded in reality.

 

[ding]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

 

[Lewdog]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

 

[westwall]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

 

[Lewdog]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

 

[westwall]

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

 

[Lewdog]

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

 

[westwall]

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Actually none. There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process. Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel. The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money. They don't give a crap about the environment.


Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study

Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf