Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler>>> That is one thing I like about Trump, he's not afraid to bash his opponents over the head with the truth and won't even try to be nice about it. Global warming is a scam. They've tried to convince us for years it was real and kept producing fake data . They tried to use celebrities as alarmists to convince us. They flat out made up fake stories about melting ice and glaciers. Then the real data and evidence slowly got released and they said it was just a blip in an overall trend. Now we're looking at colder temps and more ice at the poles and they won't even talk about it. They just drag out lackwit scientific illiterates sell outs like Bill Nye or face men like Obama and say the situation is what they say it is, ignore what we see around us. Attaboy, Trump, F up their plans and make them lose billions. Hit them where it hurts them most, their greedy hearts.

a reply to: Dutchowl

Notice how Obama tried to perpetuate the consensus, and actually added a line, saying scientists agreed it was man made and dangerous. Contrast that with Trumps style. Obama was a fraud.

a reply to: Greven

It was funny, though.

a reply to: Greven

ha ha, my family has real Cherokee Native Americans and they say Lie-awatha is a "FRAUD".

originally posted by: Nickisup
That’s something i can agree with. Making Scott Pruitt head of the EPA doesn’t really fall in line with these kinds of ideals.
a reply to: UKTruth

Interestingly, here is Scott Pruitt, on Fox News:


This is a 10min video, and it starts with the Clean Air Act discussion.

At 5min in, Chris Wallace confronts him on a past statement about CO2 not causing warming. He dances around it until 6min45sec in, when Wallace calls him out.

At 7min11sec, Pruitt states CO2 (along with methane) has a greenhouse gas effect and contributes to global warming.

I suspect those who reject basic science - such as the indisputable fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation - will ignore that even the Republican-appointed head of the EPA and former head of an oil company accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The surface will grow increasingly warmer, and I hope those who embrace this ignorance live long enough that it is unquestionable beyond the Backfire Effect.

a reply to: Greven

the indisputable fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation

Of course it does. So does every other gas known to man (well, not all operate infrared, but all absorb and re-emit radiation). Do you understand how and why carbon dioxide does this?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Really

Starving Polar Bear

Although he has seen over 3,000 bears in the wild over the course of his biologist and wildlife photography careers, Nicklen had never seen anything like this particular polar bear. “The emaciated polar bear […] was one of the most gut-wrenching sights he’s ever seen,” National Geographic says.

Tell that starving Polar Bear it doesn't exist, people who earn a living in those regions know better than armchair idiots/politicians thousands of miles away.

Wait till his homes in Florida are being flooded it will all change then

President Trump's golf course in Scotland filed motion to install sea walls using climate change as one reason - even though he personally might not believe it.

a reply to: Greven

Remind me who said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

As you seem to have a good handle on this - can you let us know the specifics of the increasingly warm earth surface? What time period are you talking about? How much warmer? If you could post some of the detail of your calculations that would be great too.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

the indisputable fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation

Of course it does. So does every other gas known to man (well, not all operate infrared, but all absorb and re-emit radiation). Do you understand how and why carbon dioxide does this?

TheRedneck

For infrared radiation... N2, the largest component of our atmosphere, does not. O2, the second largest component of our atmosphere, does not. Ar is the largest remaining component of dry atmosphere, and it does not. Water vapor (though variable) and carbon dioxide would be the next two largest, and they do. O3 is another greenhouse gas - it absorbs IR while O2 does not; the key is in the structure of the molecule.

Photons at certain wavelengths strike the molecule, and absorption depends on whether this has enough energy to elevate an electron or vibrate the molecule. Longer wavelengths like IR are lower energy, which is too low to elevate electrons, so it's going to be absorbed by vibrating the whole molecule. Photons must be at the same wavelength that this vibration can occur; CO2 is structured with three atoms in a row, having the carbon atom in the middle. This structure allows several modes of vibration, which increases the wavelengths that may be absorbed.

Wow, imagine being so stupid you can't even figure out the difference between weather and climate.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Greven

Remind me who said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

As you seem to have a good handle on this - can you let us know the specifics of the increasingly warm earth surface? What time period are you talking about? How much warmer? If you could post some of the detail of your calculations that would be great too.

If you accept it is a greenhouse gas, you must accept that us adding more of it to the atmosphere will lead to increased surface temperatures, ceteris paribus. However, we also cause dimming - it will get even warmer if we stop emitting sulfates from burning coal, because that's artificially keeping it cooler than it ought to be. That is to say, we're already probably above the 2°C from human activity... but we also cause dimming that somewhat offsets our warming influence. Contrails from aircraft mediate (lower highs and higher lows) temperature as well; there claims of up to 30% reduction (Russia) in sunlight reaching the surface due to our combined dimming effects.

The Sun hasn't appreciably changed, which means the energy the Earth receives hasn't appreciably changed. The Earth should be at 255 Kelvin - which it actually is, if you look at the whole of the atmosphere; only a minuscule amount of energy from other sources has any impact on us. The incoming 255K does not change. What greenhouse gases do is redistribute that 255K to about 288K at the surface down to 216K at the tropopause. An increase in these greenhouse gases means more heat is retained nearer the surface - but this must cool the rest of the atmosphere as a whole, because that 255K does not change.

Warming is already happening; it's visible in the satellite record. One problem we have with observation via satellite data is that this is large chunks of atmosphere; the lower troposphere temperature with UAH, for example, is calculated to be from the surface to several kilometers up. Yet, a warming atmosphere at the surface will reduce the rest of the atmosphere's temperature. They try to get around this by weighting the Monte Carlo estimation that they use to derive temperature, but they don't have it perfect (we're on revision 6 with UAH, and temperature records between 6 and earlier versions are vastly different - even for older records). Ground records are far more accurate, but also much more localized.

Still, it is certainly warming in the satellite record:
UAH lower troposphere data:
1970s Mean anomaly: -0.284583°C (1978 & 1979)
1980s Mean anomaly: -0.142167°C
1990s Mean anomaly: +0.00125°C
2000s Mean anomaly: +0.10425°C
2010s Mean anomaly: +0.223583°C (through May 2017)
This mean does not omit 1997-98, for the record... it's just that it's an outlier, and the overall trend is up and away.

Radiosonde surface data going back to 1958, shows a much larger change:
1950s mean anomaly: -0.05°C (1958 & 1959)
1960s mean anomaly: -0.118°C
1970s mean anomaly: -0.13°C
1980s mean anomaly: +0.06°C
1990s mean anomaly: +0.185°C
2000s mean anomaly: +0.352°C
2010s mean anomaly: +0.739°C (through 2016)

One thing to keep in mind is base periods - where 0°C mean anomaly is - which differs between the various records. Satellite measurements only started in 1978, so they tend to use later base periods. This unfortunately has the side-effect of making changes look smaller than they have been. For example, over the 58 year period of radiosonde data, the annual increase in temperature is about +0.0136°C. Meanwhile, over the 39 year period of satellite data, the annual increase in temperature is about +0.0134°C. These are rather close, yet the resulting means look vastly different due to the different base period and shorter satellite record.

I'm not sure what you want as far as calculations, though. We have super computers and a plethora of models trying to estimate where we'll be in the future. The 2°C goal over preindustrial temperatures is already dead; 2016 was very close to or above that. Sure, it was an exceptional year... but it's just going to keep getting warmer on average. Worse, two months of this year were record warm - September and October 2017 were in the top 10 warmest anomalies in the UAH record, even though there was no El Niño.

Sea ice is extremely low - not quite as bad as last year, but it's again below the 2016 record low in the Arctic and still abnormally low in the Antarctic. The Arctic itself has decided again to visit the U.S. which, given the power of our country in the world, does not help matters - snarky quips about how it's cold so where's warming... ignoring that the warming forced the cold temperatures to move here... it's sad.

originally posted by: bluechevytree
I`ll believe in global warming when someone can explain to me how the ice age in north America happened and ended with NO human intervention.

until that can be explained I`ll just assume that hot and cold cycles are a natural occurance and us tiny humans have no ability to cause it or stop it,and while I`m waiting for the explaination please don`t steal money out of my pocket to put in your own pocket in the name of preventing global warming or preventing global ice age.

Bingo! You got it. But the media doesn't want you thinking for yourself.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: spacedoubt
That can't be the right tweet.
It's just a weather observation, followed by ignorance.

Whats the difference between the weather and the climate?
Neither can be predicted very far into the future correct?

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

What do you think that the IPCC is telling you with that statement? You could interchange the word climate with weather and you would still have a valid statement.
Three day forecasts are about all I rely upon when I am sailing, after that it's a crapshoot.

you forgot all of the flashy new tech they sent to space. Weather prediction 10 days away should be as good as a two day forecast soon.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: bluechevytree
I`ll believe in global warming when someone can explain to me how the ice age in north America happened and ended with NO human intervention.

until that can be explained I`ll just assume that hot and cold cycles are a natural occurance and us tiny humans have no ability to cause it or stop it,and while I`m waiting for the explaination please don`t steal money out of my pocket to put in your own pocket in the name of preventing global warming or preventing global ice age.

Bingo! You got it. But the media doesn't want you thinking for yourself.

where is the evidence saying we cannot influence the weather?
The same scientists that say Earth's weather changes on its own are the same ones saying is quite probably true that we can be and are possible of influencing it as well. Don't forget, we did put a hole in the 03 layer... We knew we did and fixed the problem. Sigh...

a reply to: Gyo01

There was more pollution during the Industrial Age and it didn't impact climate. The sun is the main driver of climate change, only that doesn't aide the climate tax demons that want to enslave us through their tax plan.

a reply to: bluechevytree

Not that I expect you actually REALLY care to have anyone give you a theory with *massive* amounts of supporting geological evidence, but you should look into the work of Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson on this subject.

There is a huge amount of geological evidence that a large camet struck the ice caps in North America and cause a rapid melting of the ice which lead to massive amounts of flood in North America. The evidence for this is particularly thick in Washington State.

Check it out, very compelling:

a reply to: Greven

OK, thank you for taking the time to post this information.

There is some data there I have not seen, though overall it leaves me still with same questions and sense of unease that I usually have when reviewing data presented in support of man-made global warming being an issue. Note the words 'being an issue'. This is different from dismissing the data we do have.

Here is where I am:
I do believe the earth is warming over a short period of time (relatively speaking). The data shows this.

I do believe there is a relationship between CO2 and warming - though I don't think that relationship is linear.

Ergo, I believe that man has an effect on temperature, but I have seen no compelling evidence to tell me by how much (and this is the really key question when it comes to changing our behaviour and spending trillions of dollars)

I really don't see good arguments - yet - to explain the more limited data we have pre the 20th century - we're measuring a blip in time. Going back further we have less granular data, but the data we do have throws up a lot of questions relating to the pre-industrial and pre-human ages. This data shows we are in a relatively cool period despite man's activity. I'd like to see some data that measures all the other effects (e.g. volcanic activity) and ideally to see a trend that explains temperature variations in earlier times without human effects.

Finally, I am still looking into the forecasting models, which seem to be extremely poor. This gives me a lot of doubt that the scientists have a good handle on this. For years I built statistical models for a living and the ones being used for global warming forecasts would not have made it past a usability filter. That said, I want to see more of the assumptions and dependent variables being used.

All wrapped together - I see no settled science and see no compelling evidence to take the steps that are being pushed. I would like to see this entire subject removed from the political arena and I would like to see cost-neutral solutions. Most of all, absolutely no tax initiatives should be attached to this effort. Until the politicians get the hell away from this, there will always be a reluctance to go along with the journey. You see, with good reason, many people require absolute proof before trusting anything a politician (or some administrator for a scientific foundation or organisation) says despite the potential urgency. They have been caught lying, stealing, cheating and corrupting too many times. The potential for a scam is just too high.

originally posted by: captainpudding
Wow, imagine being so stupid you can't even figure out the difference between weather and climate.

Whats the difference?

a reply to: Greven

wattsupwiththat.com...