Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But more than anything else, the concept that this warming is mostly or entirely caused by humans simply flies in the face of historical evidence. That the warming is our fault, that it will send the planet off balance in a way it cannot naturally recover from, is absurd.

That seems like the wrong way to think about the issue.

For starters, we certainly have the power to drastically alter the world. We can level forests, hunt species to extinction, and have built so much infrastructure that our machinations can be seen from space. Between exponential population growth* and (apparent) exponential technological growth**, we have more power to change things on a massive scale than we ever did in the past for the better or for the worse.

Separately, the planet isn't going to die if the temperature wildly shifts. Many of us will (due to rising waters causing migrations, the turning of arable land, and so on). Other life forms that don't have the power to plan ahead certainly will suffer and the effect on ecosystems at large is highly unpredictable. The planet will continue spinning in its orbit silently and presumably some forms of life will manage.

The question should be posed as "What can we do to keep the temperature exactly the way we are used to". We don't have a backup planet to go use if this one gets fucked up by our own hand or by a natural hand.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 in the air means increased temperatures. If we're measuring an uptrend, we should strive to counter it with a downtrend (and vice versa); not throw up our hands and say "welp, nothing we could've done". We like the temperature that we're at and we've planned everything around it not changing by too much.

The reality is that it requires coordination between lots of people that all generally hate each other and/or want each other's resources for their own while at the same time being a massive sacrifice in our daily freedoms. As a result of this, I have approximately zero hope that it will be addressed at all, even as the results of climate change (natural or man-made!) kick our ass.

It's way easier and honestly probably more productive to ignore the issue, continue burning hydrocarbons (read: just generally not giving a shit about CO2 levels), and focus on practical things like building bunkers and learning how to hunt wildlife.

---

As a great example of how we saw a problem and fixed it in the past, we knew that CFCs were causing ozone depletion in the atmosphere. Countries around the world agreed to ban their use and the problem halted. It didn't go away naturally (notably, it wasn't even caused naturally) -- it took a conscious choice.

(Of course, you can't run a car on CFCs, nor can you heat a house or any of the other millions of reasons why portable, dense energy in the form of hydrocarbons is so appealing. CFCs were replaced with something else less harmful.)

---

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm becoming more convinced that Trump is a fake populist, too.

Becoming more convinced? As in you had doubt to a degree?

Wow.

The whole "CIA fake dirt" drama had me hoping he truly would be an enemy of the deep state, as his campaign promises seemed to indicate. I thoroughly believe that, if we're not at least mildly concerned about our president getting assassinated by the CIA JFK-style, then we have a shitty president.

I think Trump still has it in him; I view his recent remarks as cowardice rather than conviction. I hope he finds his bravery again, as this is the closest we'll probably ever come to taking down the military-industrial complex. I don't think we have any chances left.

It's Trump's actions we need to pay attention to now, not what he states in public. With the CIA, I think it is a matter of "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer". Trump can be praising the CIA with one hand, while gutting and cleaning house with the other. Praising them publicly just makes it harder for them to complain. Companies do this all the time - talking about how their employees are their greatest asset while quietly releasing hundreds of them to "seek other opportunities"

Think of it like a breakup and Trump is publicly saying - "It's not you, it's me." Trump has to get all his people in place and figure out who the moles and traitors are first.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Sometimes compromise is necessary in politics. If you look at the following video, that´s just one of the examples, why it was important to stop Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJsg6nUKEjE

Some choice moments from Sanders attempt to badger Pruitt"

"97% of scientists "

Ah - so there is no more testing of theories, but science is rather determined by popular vote now? If 97% of them say the speed of light is 68 km/hr will the speed of light actually change to comply?

"Scientists believe.."

Ah - so science is now faith based? Is that what Sanders is telling us?

"Scientists say we have got to act bodly.."

Because human intervention with nature has worked out so well.

Sanders has drank deeply of the Kool Aid.

A series (12?) of satellites could be put up to measure the Earth's varying infrared albedo, and the spectrum of absorption would give us almost real time data on what gases are absorbing what frequencies (C02 has a unique spectrum signature, just like other compounds and elements). If Sanders is trying to tell us that 97% of scientists can't have figured that out by now, those scientists should all be sent back to school for retraining.

It's like someone telling us that their house is too hot, and they have lasers and chemical sniffers, and tree rings but no thermometer or thermostat. If humans have become this inane, we should start tinkering with Chimpanzees so they can take over early for us.

"

pneuma wrote:

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 in the air means increased temperatures.

We know that CO2 absorbs infrared wavelengths which means that less is available to be reflected into space. We know that C02 in simple laboratory models absorbs infrared and causes heat to rise. It is likely that it behaves similarly in our atmosphere. It is not the only "greenhouse" gas, and the effects of other gases may be even greater than C02. Telling people that water vapor is bad doesn't sell well to the masses.

How much of the heat rise is caused by C02 and what percentage is caused by other factors is the question that is not being properly addressed.

- -

Some carbon based food for thought:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4143

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/12/climate-models-for-lawyers/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/06/01/climate-spin-behind-scenes-emails-show-profs-evading-questions.html?intcmp=latestnews

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Fact: In the years 1996-2012, average annual temperature increase was 0.017°C. That's one degree every 60 years, assuming that current rate.

Fact: The earth has been warmer in the past than it is now. Historical estimations of past temperature indicate the earth was about 0.3°C warmer 7000-8000 years ago than it is presently.

A shift of 0.017°C/ year compared to a shift of 0.00004°C / year. The rate of change differs with about 3 orders of magnitude. More precisely, 425 times faster.

How much more does it take for you to find it alarming, I wonder?

(edit: yes, I'm well aware concentrating on a spike vs longer term average is going to yield very different results. But the argument is seldom that "change kills" but that "fast change kills". And 1 full degree every 60 years is fast.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"97% of scientists "

Ah - so there is no more testing of theories, but science is rather determined by popular vote now? If 97% of them say the speed of light is 68 km/hr will the speed of light actually change to comply?

"Scientists believe.."

Ah - so science is now faith based? Is that what Sanders is telling us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

A consensus does indeed not decide the science, but communicates it.

Denialism is not scepticism.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"Scientists say we have got to act bodly.."

Because human intervention with nature has worked out so well.

If we didn't want to clean it up, we shouldn't have messed it up.
By your decree, we should never have acted on the freon crisis either (or any other of the environmental side effects our (often) shortsighted ingenuity has rendered). That would have worked out just splendidly.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

We know that CO2 absorbs infrared wavelengths which means that less is available to be reflected into space. We know that C02 in simple laboratory models absorbs infrared and causes heat to rise. It is likely that it behaves similarly in our atmosphere. It is not the only "greenhouse" gas, and the effects of other gases may be even greater than C02. Telling people that water vapor is bad doesn't sell well to the masses.

How much of the heat rise is caused by C02 and what percentage is caused by other factors is the question that is not being properly addressed.

While water is an integrated part of our biosphere, the co2 released from the fossil fuel we keep extracting hasn't been so since millions upon millions of years ago. It's not that this co2 is particularly volumous compared to the "native" gases; it's that it threatens the balance of a delicate scale.

Or, to put it in terms that might resonate with you better; we have an uncontrolled immigration of prehistoric co2 and we need to build a wall (intersperse 'amazing', 'very' and 'great' as you see fit).

Unless you force China and other developing countries to abide to the rules, all these anti global warming measures, will be just another governmental scam to waste your money for corruption & bullshit projects.

While China is dumping massive amounts of toxic shit into the atmosphere and two billion of Chinese & Indians want to have cars, it's globally irrelevant how many electric cars the EU governments subsidize, for example. It's like pissing into a fire tornado.

"

morbo wrote:

Unless you force China and other developing countries to abide to the rules, all these anti global warming measures, will be just another governmental scam to waste your money for corruption & bullshit projects.

While China is dumping massive amounts of toxic shit into the atmosphere and two billion of Chinese & Indians want to have cars, it's globally irrelevant how many electric cars the EU governments subsidize, for example. It's like pissing into a fire tornado.

Naturally, it's in our best interests that they aquire cleaner technology. Meanwhile, even pissing on the fire is probably less insane that doing your very best to fuel it further.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

Unless you force China and other developing countries to abide to the rules, all these anti global warming measures, will be just another governmental scam to waste your money for corruption & bullshit projects.

While China is dumping massive amounts of toxic shit into the atmosphere and two billion of Chinese & Indians want to have cars, it's globally irrelevant how many electric cars the EU governments subsidize, for example. It's like pissing into a fire tornado.

Naturally, it's in our best interests that they aquire cleaner technology. Meanwhile, even pissing on the fire is probably less insane that doing your very best to fuel it further.

Don't worry. We will outsource CO2 emissions to developing economies. Then we will buy carbon allocation from third world countries. Countries that pledged to cut emissions will fail to meet their promises. The chances that the world can cut its emissions quickly enough to stay below the 2C threshold are somewhere between zip, zilch and zero. We are gonna break Paris Climate Agreement.

It will be glorious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeD2sli_ATU



in the last 48 hours Trump has been doing more for his country than Obama in the last 8 year.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But more than anything else, the concept that this warming is mostly or entirely caused by humans simply flies in the face of historical evidence. That the warming is our fault, that it will send the planet off balance in a way it cannot naturally recover from, is absurd.

That seems like the wrong way to think about the issue.

For starters, we certainly have the power to drastically alter the world. We can level forests, hunt species to extinction, and have built so much infrastructure that our machinations can be seen from space. Between exponential population growth* and (apparent) exponential technological growth**, we have more power to change things on a massive scale than we ever did in the past for the better or for the worse.

Separately, the planet isn't going to die if the temperature wildly shifts. Many of us will (due to rising waters causing migrations, the turning of arable land, and so on). Other life forms that don't have the power to plan ahead certainly will suffer and the effect on ecosystems at large is highly unpredictable. The planet will continue spinning in its orbit silently and presumably some forms of life will manage.

The question should be posed as "What can we do to keep the temperature exactly the way we are used to". We don't have a backup planet to go use if this one gets fucked up by our own hand or by a natural hand.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 in the air means increased temperatures. If we're measuring an uptrend, we should strive to counter it with a downtrend (and vice versa); not throw up our hands and say "welp, nothing we could've done". We like the temperature that we're at and we've planned everything around it not changing by too much.

The reality is that it requires coordination between lots of people that all generally hate each other and/or want each other's resources for their own while at the same time being a massive sacrifice in our daily freedoms. As a result of this, I have approximately zero hope that it will be addressed at all, even as the results of climate change (natural or man-made!) kick our ass.

It's way easier and honestly probably more productive to ignore the issue, continue burning hydrocarbons (read: just generally not giving a shit about CO2 levels), and focus on practical things like building bunkers and learning how to hunt wildlife.

Here's what I mean by absurd: I am willing to bet that on at least one occasion an accountant has raped a midget. This is a bad thing and it would be better if it was prevented. However, if your politicians then issue several statements about the accountant rapist epidemic, or the midget rape crisis, that would be absurd. In the same way, the *scope* of climate change (and, for that matter, human-caused extinction of species) is massively overblown. I guess it technically is a problem, but we've so many bigger things on our plate to address first.

And yes, reliable energy is on the list of higher priorities.