Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
That red line is from 2002 to 2012.

You realize it is December 30th of the year 2017, and 2016 was the warmest year in every single data set including the satellite records, correct?

If you pick particular ranges, yes, you can say there hasn't been warming; however, the overall trend has been warming.

What is your point?

a reply to: Greven

The weather outside is frightful.
Before you tell me that Willie Soon is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, recognize that you don't get to know what corps donated to the endowment fund that his research grants came from. Comment on his content only please, not his character, as it's beyond reproach anyways.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Yes because the US actually pays more than other western country to "protect" against Global Warming, as one of the biggest polluters in the world and now trying to re-open coal power plants...

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Yes because the US actually pays more than other western country to "protect" against Global Warming, as one of the biggest polluters in the world and now trying to re-open coal power plants...

Yes? Yes what? Yes, pay until it hurts? Yes, give The Green Energy fund, give it hundreds of billions of dollars? How does that help, except to make Americans poorer?

A cold winter does not mean the average yearly temperatures are not on the rise.

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

I once wrote a little thread about something quite long ago... WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.” Their estimates weren't too bad, given the limited data.

The fundamentals are in the physics; the physics say simply that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the atmosphere nearest the surface, ceteris paribus. Given that we are adding vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, we are therefore responsible for warming the atmosphere nearest the surface.

The inescapable logic is that the only solution to the problem of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is to cease doing so; this is unfortunately neither a pleasant nor cost-neutral solution, given the implications of doing so.

The societal will is not there to take such a drastic action; we will continue to emit CO2, trading the future for the present, and the devil will continue to take his due. It is a harsh bargain we've made.

It might be too late at any rate. We tend to think incrementally - and want to assign singular causes to events. In natural systems, there are often tipping points that are almost chaotic. Things hum along just fine, and then suddenly it all falls apart with little apparent reason as to why. This is what happened to the Carolina parakeets - loud and colorful flocking birds that used to exist in the Eastern U.S. prior to 1918 - suddenly over less than a decade, they simply were no more.

It would not surprise me if it were to be our fate as well. We've been around several hundred thousand years... but so were the Carolina parakeets.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: Greven

The weather outside is frightful.
Before you tell me that Willie Soon is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, recognize that you don't get to know what corps donated to the endowment fund that his research grants came from. Comment on his content only please, not his character, as it's beyond reproach anyways.

I have more valuable things to do with my time than listen to a 50 minute video that starts off with 'satanic CO2.'

Please point out content you feel makes some point, because I know not what your point is.

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.

THIS! Except you need to change it to "I'll believe in MAN-MADE global warming..."

Remember the dumbocrats first started with labeling it:

MAN-MADE global warming (good ol' Al Gore spread this moniker)

Then when that was debunked they realized that was far too specific they switched it to

Global Warming

Then when they realized that, too, was debunked and far too specific they changed it simply to:

Climate change.

Dumb ass liberals never learn.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Soon does get get money from big oil...just sayin'

But hey look anothere youtube clip ....that is perfect for yout audience tha does not have the attention span to actually look at the raw data. Who needs to actually do your own research when some 'authority' figure tells the target audience what to think.

or how that chart matches almost exactly with sun activity, solar flares etc.

a reply to: Outlier13

You refer to Al Gore....not a scientist.

He is an easy punching bag but beating up old man Gore does not debunk the reality of human induced climate change.

What we should find interesting is that Trump with one breath will proclaim that global warming and climate change is a hoax, and turn around and then apply for a sea wall to protect his golf courses, with the reason being to prevent the damage to such from rising sea level, along with the effects and damages from global warming.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think your time line might be backwards.
But I would love to hear how a wall will "prevent the damage to such [golf course] from . . . the effects and damages from global warming."

a reply to: Greven

Very good!

With one exception:

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.

CO2, being linear, has 3N-5 vibrational modes, with N representing the number of atoms. So 3*3-5=4 vibrational modes. Perhaps you consider 4 to be 'several.' Of those 4 modes, 2 have equal energies, which means actually only 3 energy levels can cause vibration. Carbon dioxide thus absorbs 3 narrow spectra, centered at 2.7, 4.3,and 15 um. Carbon dioxide can only absorb energies corresponding to these wavelengths.

Of the three, only the 15 um wavelength lies well within the range of blackbody radiation emitted by the earth. So only that small fraction of the energy emitted via radiation, one might say the minute subfraction of it, is capable of absorption by carbon dioxide.

Water vapor absorbs a very wide range of wavelengths, mostly due to the fact that water can exist as H2O, H3O+ OH-, and several other variants due to hydrogen bonding. Each variant has its own set of vibrational modes, and these sum up to cover a wide range of the emitted blackbody radiation. That's why water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide could ever dream of being.

Oxygen/ozone as well has one vibrational mode in the IR spectrum, at around 11 um, but to be honest it is even narrower than carbon dioxide and is thus just as irrelevant to the overall atmospheric absorption.

There are other reasons why carbon dioxide cannot be responsible for the kind of warming that we are supposedly experiencing. This is a good page that tries to put the technical reasons into a more understandable form, for anyone interested.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

i bet this one is not a real Trump Tweet, but rather one of his staff tweeting under his name. We know now that this happens all the time. The words are too clear, there are no punctuation errors , the sentences are constructed properly and there are no miss-spellings.

No, it's definitely a tweet by Trump himself because he used all caps on some of the words... it's one of his standard signature moves he likes to do on twitter to emphasize how very bigly serious he is.






... and maybe someone should inform him it's winter right now.

Did you not read the tweet? Nowhere does he say it is not winter, he is saying may be the "COLDEST NEW YEARS EVE on record". How does any of that or any of his tweet correspond to him not knowing its winter in any shape or form? So your jab at him trying to say he doesn't know it's winter makes zero sense. I'm not a Trump hater or Lover, but I find it hilarious when people try to make fun of the guy for something he DIDN'T say.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
What we should find interesting is that Trump with one breath will proclaim that global warming and climate change is a hoax, and turn around and then apply for a sea wall to protect his golf courses, with the reason being to prevent the damage to such from rising sea level, along with the effects and damages from global warming.

Sir, sorry to jump in, but rising sea levels do not automatically mean global warming. Are you not aware what Global Warming is? Are you not aware that it is a made up construct? Earth goes through hot and cold cycles. So him wanting a wall isn't to prevent rising sea levels from global warming, it is to protect it from rising sea levels from the natural hot and cold cycle of earth. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Again, I shouldn't have to say this, but I am not a Trump supporter or hater, I just find it funny when people try to bad mouth him at every opportunity.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Or do they now...

You'd be bloody shocked at the conversation around the Thanksgiving dinner table where I was this year...

The host, a former USDA research scientist cum USDA Washington DC bureaucrat right smack in the era all of this was born sure had some illuminating stuff to say!

Especially about the $10 million dollars in experiments he got fellow USDA research scientists funded to do...

The words fraud and shame kept coming up over and over, I felt bad for the guy really. He was obviously pretty distressed and ashamed of something he played a part in...