Jump to content
JosephM

Presidential Poll

Forum members preference for the next US President  

13 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, thormas said:

Pence is scary in his own right: with his fear of being with another woman alone - even if it is business or political (a bit insulting to women)?? Then there is his ultra right Christianity and what it means for women, immigrants and the LGBTQ community. It would be nice if both were voted out. 

Those are some of his better qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

Rom,

News is often slanted and gives a perception that may not be true by stating a truth but failing to mention associated pertinent data.  Perhaps with some research one might find that Nasa's Carbon Monitoring system is redundant and monitoring will continue with NOAA and their "Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network" among others. Just Perhaps.

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree the news is partisan. But if a small proportion of the negative press about Trump is true then I can't see how we don't have severe doubts about Trump as President. 

Just bear in mind regardless of how useful this bit of technology might have been, this is just part of a systematic dismantling of environmental protection in the US. Pruitt is a case in point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom,

With the exception of Fox news, it is my perception that the democrats control most of the major US newspapers and the news. I'll give you  Trump is unorthodox and doesn't follow normal politician etiquette but he has more support here than reported and especially a large following here in Florida which is among the top states where resides retired people of age 55+. His support is from more than isolationists and extremists who are labeled with the "deplorables" tag coined by Hillary and some democrats. 😊

If i were from Canada or another country and read the news as reported i would share your view of him. However i am not so i don't and i am okay with his progress and direction so far amid the swamp, which some might call a corrupted cesspool, i perceive we have in part operating in Washington DC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just carry on with Pruitt ... we have Trump appointing Pruitt to the EPA ... a climate warming denier. He has been put in charge of undoing much of the work the EPA has been doing. He meets with twelve Vatican people for a dinner at 240 $ a head ... (the Italy trip came to 120 000 $). One of the twelve was a climate warming denier, George Pell. This was arranged, apparently, by an activist and friend of Pruitt. Really? is this what the US voted for? Is this what you and your community voted for? 

Trump has appointed someone who is not a champion for the environment, seems to go against what is accepted science, makes really poor personal choices when it comes to handling taxpayers money. 

Trump appears not to be able to distinguish between his agenda and reality. 

Here is an interesting perspective on green technology*... it's short. Meanwhile the US will try and invest in coal!

* trigger warning - not a Rupert Murdoch news agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom, are you an astrophysically caused climate change denier?  

Heat of the sun, distance from the sun, tilt of the earth's axis.  Those are the causes of climate change.

 

Edited by Burl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Burl said:

Rom, are you an astrophysically caused climate change denier?  

Heat of the sun, distance from the sun, tilt of the earth's axis.  Those are the causes of climate change.

Yes these things do change climate ... eg it's cooler at night usually.

I also don't deny adsorption of infra red energy by carbon dioxide ... it's one the experiments that I did at university. Water vapour is also a strong absorber of infra red, so as things warm there will be more moisture in the air. Something to think about. Perhaps more worryingly is the acidification of the oceans by carbon dioxide. The interaction of carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate and water is interesting and complicated.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burl ... another general scientific thought. The earth is not in equilibrium. I would say it is in a quasi-steady-state where over short periods time (perhaps decades) carbon is fixed at roughly the same rate it is released. Now as the CO2 fixing rate increases with concentration and temperature which is a benefit; but from a life nutrition point of view it is debatable. As CO2 increases, energy adsorption will increase and temperatures will rise. A slightly higher temperature will be a benefit from a Le Chatilier point of view, this is of mild benefit. From a kinetic perspective the increased temperature will significantly increase the rate of organic decomposition. So do we want to bet the enhanced CO2 uptake by biology will overcome decomposition?

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astrophysics causes climate change.  Not CO2.  The sun gets hotter and it gets colder.  The earth get closer and more distal.  The tilt of the earth heats and cools different latitudes as it changes solar exposure.

Once the Sahara desert was a sea and half the earth was covered by ice.  Aeons of geological, biological and historical data going back to the ordovichian period.  We know there are many well established climate change cycles of varying lengths.

CO2 levels at best effect a change of 0.3° but only if the data is first manipulated by theoretical models.  Even if true, CO2 is irrelevant.  As you say; water vapor is by far the most relevant greenhouse gas unless you are in an actual greenhouse.  Greenhouses always have CO2 generators because free CO2 levels are suboptimal.

Compare climate change science to the in vivo experiment  https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/BlackoutFinal.pdf

This is the evil of herding the public into the intellectual penitentiary of climate change.  Policy becomes centered around minutiae and taxes instead of easily achieved real improvement.  Your post is the first time I have heard acid rain and particulate pollution even mentioned since the high priests of ozone hole>global warming>climate change scientism led the public off-task in search of grant funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burl said:

Astrophysics causes climate change.  Not CO2.  The sun gets hotter and it gets colder.  The earth get closer and more distal.  The tilt of the earth heats and cools different latitudes as it changes solar exposure.

Astrophysics causes climate change, no one is claiming otherwise. Yes the sun's irradiance changes with various cycles, the most immediate, the eleven year sun spot cycle. No one is arguing against this. Plus there are several orbital precessions which affect the Earth's temperature. No one is claiming otherwise. So which of these is causing the current observed warming trend? Does CO2 absorb infra red energy? Does CO2 acidify oceans?

4 hours ago, Burl said:

Once the Sahara desert was a sea and half the earth was covered by ice.  Aeons of geological, biological and historical data going back to the ordovichian period.  We know there are many well established climate change cycles of varying lengths.

So what? The questions are, is the current warming trend anthropological in origin and if so do we want do something about it and if so what?

4 hours ago, Burl said:

CO2 levels at best effect a change of 0.3° but only if the data is first manipulated by theoretical models.  Even if true, CO2 is irrelevant.  As you say; water vapor is by far the most relevant greenhouse gas unless you are in an actual greenhouse.  Greenhouses always have CO2 generators because free CO2 levels are suboptimal.

Reference please for the 0.3 degree anticipated increase in temperature please. Wiki Global Warming. What evidence do you have that CO2 is irrelevant to anthropological global warming? Regarding CO2 in greenhouses, yes things grow faster in higher CO2 atmospheres, but the nutritional value might not increase. I already said that. I also said at higher temperatures organic material will decay faster. The interesting thing about water vapour is it is also a huge energy store in the atmosphere, which is released when it condenses. I suggested you think about water vapour in the atmosphere ... you appear not to have done so.

4 hours ago, Burl said:

Compare climate change science to the in vivo experiment  https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/BlackoutFinal.pdf

Did you actually read the paper? It is irrelevant to global warming ... it discusses air quality with respect to ozone, SO2 and CO not CO2 (plus particulates)

4 hours ago, Burl said:

This is the evil of herding the public into the intellectual penitentiary of climate change

Yep I'm afraid you have demonstrated this. I was not talking about acid rain, I was talking about acidification of the oceans Burl. Acid rain is largely irrelevant, in fact it tends to offset global warming. I did not mention particulate pollution, so I don't know where you got that from.   Burl you plainly do not understand the issues and chemistry involved here. A little more scientism, priestly or otherwise would be of benefit on your behalf.

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, romansh said:

Astrophysics causes climate change, no one is claiming otherwise. Yes the sun's irradiance changes with various cycles, the most immediate, the eleven year sun spot cycle. No one is arguing against this. Plus there are several orbital precessions which affect the Earth's temperature. No one is claiming otherwise. So which of these is causing the current observed warming trend? Does CO2 absorb infra red energy? Does CO2 acidify oceans?

So what? The questions are, is the current warming trend anthropological in origin and if so do we want do something about it and if so what?

Reference please for the 0.3 degree anticipated increase in temperature please. Wiki Global Warming. What evidence do you have that CO2 is irrelevant to anthropological global warming? Regarding CO2 in greenhouses, yes things grow faster in higher CO2 atmospheres, but the nutritional value might not increase. I already said that. I also said at higher temperatures organic material will decay faster. The interesting thing about water vapour is it is also a huge energy store in the atmosphere, which is released when it condenses. I suggested you think about water vapour in the atmosphere ... you appear not to have done so.

Did you actually read the paper? It is irrelevant to global warming ... it discusses air quality with respect to ozone, SO2 and CO not CO2 (plus particulates)

Yep I'm afraid you have demonstrated this. I was not talking about acid rain, I was talking about acidification of the oceans Burl. Acid rain is largely irrelevant, in fact it tends to offset global warming. I did not mention particulate pollution, so I don't know where you got that from.   Burl you plainly do not understand the issues and chemistry involved here. A little more scientism, priestly or otherwise would be of benefit on your behalf.

 

My point with that paper was that important air quality issues which are proven to be fixable in under a week have been ignored for a decade and a half in order to push a climate change agenda that cannot possibly produce one iota of change.  The politicians are using  the climate change agenda to distract people from taking effective action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Burl said:

My point with that paper was that important air quality issues which are proven to be fixable in under a week have been ignored for a decade and a half in order to push a climate change agenda that cannot possibly produce one iota of change.  The politicians are using  the climate change agenda to distract people from taking effective action.

Are you suggesting anthropomorphic global warming is real, but we pragmatically can't do anything about it? Exactly how we address these air quality issues within a week? The only coal power fire station I visited in the States did have SO2 and particulate capture in place. I can't imagine most of the others do not. You initially implied that the current global warming was not anthropomorphic but was due other factors. You categorically said CO2 does not cause global warming. This is false. It does, but the question is how much. My greater worry is acidification of the oceans through CO2 release.

Also you did not address my many questions. Please have a try and do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the old AGW political advocates agree there is no global warming anthropogenic or otherwise.  The entire movement capitulated and renamed the issue 'climate change' almost two decades ago when the scare predictions of flooded costal civilizations and polar bears drowning on vanishing ice floes did not materialize and they were exposed as false prophets.

The paper I cited showed a massive and obvious improvement in air quality in only a few days when many NE U.S.  coal plants were turned off for a few days in 2003.

This report hit all major media.  I am surprised you missed it.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Recently - around Sept 2017 I think - there was another report which showed basic assumptions were so flawed all results needed to be recomputed.  I'll google around for that.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiki data ... 

Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Notice the steady increase in actual temperature.

The scary bit over the last forty years or the solar irradiance has been

Changes_in_total_solar_irradiance_and_mo

Notice that the irradiance and sunspot activity have been lower over the last two cycles. So one is left wondering what is causing the increase in the Earth's temperature? It apparently is not the sun's irradiance. Answers please on the back of a post card.

And here is a clue as to what might be the cause ....

Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Show me your data. All models are wrong; but some may be useful. George EP Box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in short we are at an impasse.

I agree models are likely not "right" on either side.

But end of the day CO2 is increasing, as is the acidification of the oceans.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-15/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxN_XBRCFARIsAIufy1YsVWj0yRLvQ151NXlXNoiSHkDWwPl6wbpWiJKp-ZgpHnlTZxQB_BMaAu-9EALw_wcB

No one doubts that CO2 is contributing to the warming we are seeing. Not even the most hardened intelligent skeptic. The are questions about is it warming as much as we (some of us) think? It is warming, and what is the cause of this warming ... saying it is part of some natural cycle is true ... in that human activities are completely natural.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago I was wondering how would Trump fit here? To be fair I do not know the inner workings of Trump's mind, but I can only think his actions are some sort of reflection of his thoughts.

Point 1: Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;

  • Far from convinced.

Point 2: Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;

  • I don't see 'wisdom' in his actions, regardless from what well he has drawn from. 

Point 3: Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, ...

  • Oh dear.

Point 4: Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;

  • I sincerely hope not.

Point 5: Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;

  • This is my problem, but I see little grace in Trump.

Point 6: Strive for peace and justice among all people;

  • ????

Point 7: Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;

  • Pruitt.

Point 8: Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.

  • Selfless love?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, accessible lecture on climate change.  Note it by a non-US scientist, who is free to speak without censure by grantmakers and gatekeepers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breitbart? Interesting ... what does he say about the acidification of the oceans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PaulS said:

89B78855-9C5B-4191-98C6-CC9EF0563CE4.jpeg

The list on the screen contains many of the important topics not being acted on because politicians and industry are diverting attention to a climate change hoax that excludes the world's worst polluters.

Bill Nye the Science guy says climate change is settled science and it should be illegal for scientists to do research which might not confirm that 'fact'.  All those Nobel Laureates, astrophysists, geologists, ecologists, paleontologists and historians who disdain climate change are heretics!  Just listen to the meterologists because they are always right.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×