We do. It just that one side gets better results.
The 2018 UN Climate Report
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
We do. It just that one side gets better results.
Red
Well-Known Member
During a 20 minute Oval Office interview with the Washington Post Tuesday, Trump riffed on how he's too smart to believe the climate assessment report put out by his administration. We're lucky to have a stable genius in charge I guess....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...2f0184-f27e-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html
President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying he is not among the “believers” who see climate change as a pressing problem......
.....“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said during a freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of the dire National Climate Assessment his administration released Friday.
“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it,” he added.
.....“You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia , including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small,” Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution around the globe. “And it blows over and it sails over. I mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific. It flows and we say, ‘Where does this come from?’ And it takes many people, to start off with.”
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, said in an email Tuesday that the president’s comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-growing impacts of a warming planet. “Facts aren’t something we need to believe to make them true — we treat them as optional at our peril,” Hayhoe said. “And if we’re the president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we’re responsible for.”
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M; University, struggled to find a response to the president’s comments. “How can one possibly respond to this?” Dessler said when reached by email, calling the president’s comments “idiotic” and saying Trump’s main motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies of the Obama administration and criticizing political adversaries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...2f0184-f27e-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html
President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying he is not among the “believers” who see climate change as a pressing problem......
.....“One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said during a freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of the dire National Climate Assessment his administration released Friday.
“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it,” he added.
.....“You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia , including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small,” Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution around the globe. “And it blows over and it sails over. I mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific. It flows and we say, ‘Where does this come from?’ And it takes many people, to start off with.”
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, said in an email Tuesday that the president’s comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-growing impacts of a warming planet. “Facts aren’t something we need to believe to make them true — we treat them as optional at our peril,” Hayhoe said. “And if we’re the president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we’re responsible for.”
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M; University, struggled to find a response to the president’s comments. “How can one possibly respond to this?” Dessler said when reached by email, calling the president’s comments “idiotic” and saying Trump’s main motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies of the Obama administration and criticizing political adversaries.
K scale differs from C scale only in the assignment of zero. C is water freezing point. K is absolute zero, -273 C.
lessee..... what's the difference starting 150y vs 100y, 1968 or 2018?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Dutch is correct here. 0.4 C on 100y, 0.9 C on 150y. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was a slow start about 1840 (steam engine), some factories, not much. After 1868 is was pretty rapid. After 1910 the automobile was taking off, plus electric power plants. It looks like it's the Industrial Revolution to some..… but about 0.3 C was probably natural cycle coming off a dip about 1840. And then there was 1797.... the year of no summer for NE US.
Last edited:
Here's some interesting stuff from a skeptic:
uhhhmmmmm….. what's this? Google censoring the site?
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova
joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Feb 21, 2010 ... Global Temperature estimates over the last 65 million years. …
65 M years.... 1.3 M yrs of ice age cycles, part of a significantly cooler regime of climate for us. Pretty clear there are big factors on scales large in comparison to ACC/smudgepot world warming of the industrial age.
uhhhmmmmm….. what's this? Google censoring the site?
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova
joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Feb 21, 2010 ... Global Temperature estimates over the last 65 million years. …
65 M years.... 1.3 M yrs of ice age cycles, part of a significantly cooler regime of climate for us. Pretty clear there are big factors on scales large in comparison to ACC/smudgepot world warming of the industrial age.
Last edited:
This is correct. Where the zero is assigned is relevant when you are talking about a percentage increase.
Even 0.4/25 would be a 1.6% difference, not a 3% difference, and 25C would be a high estimate for the average.
What does this have to do with the disruptions of warming on our current agricultural system?
DutchJazzer
Banned
i see all your ******** scienc epaper about catastrophic climate change and trump it all wuith this kick *** song about big black clouds coming from smoke stacks!
Red
Well-Known Member
Just one more reason why I regard Trump as an enemy of life on Earth. These seismic tests sound every 12 seconds or so, and, in some cases for weeks or months at a time, with a range of 2500 miles. "Incidental" deaths will be tolerated.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/11/trump_administration_approves.html
WASHINGTON - The Trump administration is preparing to take an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests from companies to conduct deafening seismic tests that could kill tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals.
The planned Friday announcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Commerce Department, to issue "incidental take" permits allowing companies to harm wildlife is likely to further antagonize a dozen governors in states on the Eastern Seaboard who strongly oppose the administration's proposal to expand federal oil and gas leases to the Atlantic. Federal leases could lead to exploratory drilling for the first time in more than half a century.
....Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee who will probably take over as chair in the next Congress, blasted the administration's decision to permit acoustic testing as "an alarming sign of [its] indifference to the fate of coastal communities and marine life, including the endangered north Atlantic right whale."
He bemoaned the timing of the announcement shortly after the climate report's release, saying, "there is nothing this administration won't do for the fossil fuel industry, including destroying local economies and ruining endangered species habitats."
According to one model prediction in a 2014 study released by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2014, nearly 2.5 million dolphins would be harassed or possibly killed by acoustic sound blasts each year in the middle and southern Atlantic, and nearly half a million pilot whales would be impacted.
Fewer than two weeks ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service pleaded with commercial fishermen to be careful not to harm Atlantic right whales after an unprecedented 20 deaths in 2016 and 2017 reduced their numbers to a mere 400 in the wild.
.....The Obama administration denied six permits for seismic testing weeks before Trump took office in 2017 out of concern for wildlife and fisheries. "In the present circumstances and guided by an abundance of caution, we believe that the value of obtaining the geophysical and geological information from new air-gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life," said Abigail Ross Hopper, BOEM's director at the time.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/11/trump_administration_approves.html
WASHINGTON - The Trump administration is preparing to take an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests from companies to conduct deafening seismic tests that could kill tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals.
The planned Friday announcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Commerce Department, to issue "incidental take" permits allowing companies to harm wildlife is likely to further antagonize a dozen governors in states on the Eastern Seaboard who strongly oppose the administration's proposal to expand federal oil and gas leases to the Atlantic. Federal leases could lead to exploratory drilling for the first time in more than half a century.
....Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee who will probably take over as chair in the next Congress, blasted the administration's decision to permit acoustic testing as "an alarming sign of [its] indifference to the fate of coastal communities and marine life, including the endangered north Atlantic right whale."
He bemoaned the timing of the announcement shortly after the climate report's release, saying, "there is nothing this administration won't do for the fossil fuel industry, including destroying local economies and ruining endangered species habitats."
According to one model prediction in a 2014 study released by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2014, nearly 2.5 million dolphins would be harassed or possibly killed by acoustic sound blasts each year in the middle and southern Atlantic, and nearly half a million pilot whales would be impacted.
Fewer than two weeks ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service pleaded with commercial fishermen to be careful not to harm Atlantic right whales after an unprecedented 20 deaths in 2016 and 2017 reduced their numbers to a mere 400 in the wild.
.....The Obama administration denied six permits for seismic testing weeks before Trump took office in 2017 out of concern for wildlife and fisheries. "In the present circumstances and guided by an abundance of caution, we believe that the value of obtaining the geophysical and geological information from new air-gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life," said Abigail Ross Hopper, BOEM's director at the time.
well, with something that's clearly an error, as % vs. 0.3 degrees C, it helps move the discussion along to discuss the more reasonable thing. I assumed Dutch meant degrees not percent. I see no reason to assume he understands 0K or -273 C or zero point energy, and almost all you can read in any article, whether news or scientific reports is always degrees, not percent. So I looked for what he meant as a 100y difference, and it's approximate 0.3C, so far as the data goes. The scientific conclusions for 0.9 C over 150y is quite impressively convenient to scare the little chickadees. You need to pick one of the low spots and compare it with one of the high spots recently recorded, and pound on the table and shout that there is no such thing as natural variance, it all has to be man-made. And you have to grab the right reports for estimating the carbon dioxide, too. See how wonderful science is. A politician frowns, points, tells the granting agencies what he needs, and pretty quick he gets something satisfactory.
always works that way. marvelous.
DutchJazzer
Banned
i menat percent .3% in 100 years can be a measuring ERROR! simple as that. climate is always changing! so what does constitute change less then .3% more then .3% whats acceptable chance? these climate delusional alarmist are ****ing crazy
But you are wrong to use the % in this context. What is the magnitude anyone could assume for a percent change estimate? 0 C or O K or 0 F. For any statement of percent change, that must be defined.
yes the absolute change in ambient heat is small. But assuming oh say 30 C or 70 F, something about average for global temps, you still need to go the K scale for that absolute magnitude. OK? So its 300 K which is the basis for "normal", and 0.9 degrees change would indeed be 0.3%.
You have to remember and respect the fact that dedicated progressive ideological hacks like OB are immersed in the absolute fiction of theor belief systems, and that is a natural consequence of being sold on a bill of goods that justifies lies as "good" if they advance their cause.