Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[snip]
Isn't it a major consideration that Trump believes climate change is a hoax?
Climate Change, Global Warming, Weather Change, or whatever the latest term is a myth if you read the literature and consider the sources. And No, I won't beat this dead horse again with sources to the literature. Look it up if you want to see the studies.
The evidence is so plain and it's as sure as the evidence supporting evolution. We're putting CO2 into the atmosphere and it's accumulating and has been since we start burning fossil fuels. What gets the idiots who deny this is going on is that they do some cursory research that shows yes, what humans contribute is a small percentage of the global CO2 that circulates from ocean to atmosphere and back to ocean, and also of course from land to atmosphere and back again, on an annual basis. This is called the global carbon cycle and it's been going on since Jesus was a carpenter.
BUT HERE'S THE KICKER. Although 40% of the carbon emissions we produce can be absorbed by this carbon cycle, 60% cannot. So every year, we pump 29 gigatons into the atmosphere, and 17.4 gigatons of that CO2 cannot be absorbed in the biosphere. So it accumulates.
So this is a partial txpt of HRC's answer this morning on KXL at the Building Trades Union meeting. She seems to transition to climate change more generally - and we're working on transcribing that now - but just wanted to send the most relevant section now since we don't know when this will leak.
...HILLARY CLINTON: It's symbolic and it's not going to go away. They're all hanging on to it. So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he's out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I'm not into it for that. I've been-- my view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I'm already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that's what I'm [inaudible] about-- getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody's not going to get everything they want, that's not the way it's supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other.
And we need to do-- you know, nuclear, talk about climate change -- nuclear is no greenhouse gas emissions. France has it for nearly 100% of their energy-- they've never had a problem. We've had two problems that people know about: Chernobyl, which was a disaster and [inaudible], and you know Three Mile. Right, those were the problems we had. We've come a long way from there...
Before any one on here tries to claim that no one said it was:
Climate change is widely acknowledged as being one of the most pressing issues for the global community, including for NIRS/WISE and our allies. Climate change affects many aspects of the environment and society, including human health, ecosystems, agriculture and water supplies, local and global economies, sea levels and extreme weather events. However,
many in the nuclear industry see climate change as a 'lever' by which to revitalize the fortunes of nuclear power. However, in various stages of the nuclear process huge amounts of energy are needed, much more than for less complex forms of electricity production. Most of this energy comes in the form of fossil fuels, and therefore nuclear power indirectly emits a relatively high amount of greenhouse gases. Emissions from the nuclear industry are strongly dependent on the per-
centage of uranium in the ores used to fuel the nuclear process, which is expected to decrease dramatically. Recent studies estimate that nuclear power production causes the emission of just 3 times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural gas power stations.
Back to Hillary and her lies:
Quote:
...At some point, I mean, look, I'm being hammered because I won't take a position. And I thought I was doing the right thing by not taking a position. I'll try to figure out the right wording. I get what you're saying. And, look, I want to be a champion for your members. Obviously I would love to have your endorsements. But, in any event, to be a champion for your members...
She won't take a position until she can word it right to make people believe that she's for something without coming right out and actually saying she's for something. Public position/private position.
Quote:
...You know, I'm having conversations in these town halls and these meetings I'm having with a lot of people who break into my meetings, they hold up posters, they scream at me, and all the rest of that: 'Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal' you name it. They are after everything and I'm just talking through them. And of course they go support somebody else. That's fine and I don't particularly care. But I do think I have to say, look, given everything else we have to do in this country, this is not an issue for me that I'm going to say I support. I want to work on other stuff...
She doesn't care what you think or want. You're so busy talking about Trump, you don't realize that gee, Clinton wasn't saying anything, either.
Now you know why. She simply wanted to do other things - it wasn't important to her.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 10-22-2016 at 04:24 PM..
BUT HERE'S THE KICKER. Although 40% of the carbon emissions we produce can be absorbed by this carbon cycle, 60% cannot. So every year, we pump 29 gigatons into the atmosphere, and 17.4 gigatons of that CO2 cannot be absorbed in the biosphere. So it accumulates.
Yes, and while CO2 production is higher than ever and continues to increase at record rates, temps just aren't going up. Time to try some new models... or guesses.
Yes, and while CO2 production is higher than ever and continues to increase at record rates, temps just aren't going up. Time to try some new models... or guesses.
From your cited website (Remote Sensing Systems.com):
Quote:
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
From your cited website (Remote Sensing Systems.com):
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
Why didn't you just check the source? Talk about amateur night!
BOOM, ROASTED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
As I said and the chart shows, no warming while CO2 has gone through the roof.
Are you blind?
Perhaps you should have read my response the first time you posted this graph. 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 are the four hottest years on record. It's unfortunate that your graph stops at 2012. What matters is the trend, not what a fourteen year window looks like. If you were to post a graph of the last fifty years, there would be an undeniable warming trend continuing through 2015.
If I were a scientist and the government was giving away millions of tax payer money as grants to prove any theory, I'd make up data, statistics to prove any claim they wanted. And how would anyone prove me wrong and there wouldn't be anyone in government that would want to prove me wrong anyway.
Last edited by d4g4m; 10-22-2016 at 07:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
