Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears

Emissions targets are ridiculous. Either the market will reduce emissions because renewables are competitive enough,

The cap and trade model seems to have been effective in reducing sulpher dioxide emissions. Among other things, it led to improved technology while not resulting in increases in consumer costs.

Would have to look at the studies, a lot of scientific studies are nonrepeatable and biased to show one outcome or another.

Wasn't sulfur dioxide one of the particulates that reflected sun light and was reducing temps?

As for financing improving tech diverting funds from things like military spending would be more apt. Isn't cap and trade when it comes to carbon credits, unfairly penalizing fossil fuel energy producers in developed countries? It seems like part of what they would normally be allowed to emit, is now a right given to a foreign country unable to emit as much, to which they must pay to be able emit as much as they need to.

Sometimes countries that are worse off aren't worse off because of lack of funds, but lack of capacity of the population and giving them more funds is just making the situation worse for all. Reducing quality of life both in the developed country subsidizing them, and in the developing country who misallocate funds and concentrate wealth on corrupt officials, or misuse the resources to outbreed the carrying capacity of their country leading to famine.

a reply to: Phage

No, I do not doubt the validity of your knowledge, Phage. I only wonder now why you so regularly doubt the validity of others' knowledge.

Most news stations employ several weathermen/weatherwomen to report the weather. They look good for the camera and talk good for the mic, and they have some knowledge of meteorology. They also typically employ a meteorologist, which is a degreed scientist in the field and who does the local forecasts based on NOAA and other general forecasts.

On our local networks, we only typically see the meteorologist when severe weather is approaching. He/she is often seated behind a screen spouting technical data on the impending storm(s), but sometimes they do the green-screen map to point out what they are expecting. They rarely if ever stand in front of the weather map otherwise.

You indicated you know more than meteorologists... not just weathermen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xenogears

Wasn't sulfur dioxide one of the particulates that reflected sun light and was reducing temps?

Yes. While causing acid rain.

As for financing improving tech diverting funds from things like military spending would be more apt.

Indeed. Such funding can also be used for mitigation of the effects of warming.

Cap and trade is not necessarily a one size fits all proposition, adjustments can be made (as set forth in the Paris agreement) and it does not mean that it would necessarily harm developing countries. It has been shown to work.

a reply to: Xenogears

Comparing cap and trade on carbon dioxide to cap and trade on sulfur dioxide is apples to oranges.

Sulfur dioxide is the common reduced form of sulfur in fuels. It is responsible for acid rain (and I believe for most of the ocean acidification). Carbon dioxide is the reduced form of carbon. All fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, meaning they are by definition composed of hydrogen and carbon. If one removes the carbon from a hydrocarbon, all that is left is the hydrogen. The fuel is destroyed. If one removes the sulfur impurities, however, the actual fuel continues to exist.

Cap and trade on sulfur dioxide can work because fuel cleaning technology can remove the sulfur while maintaining the fuel. Cap and trade on carbon dioxide will not work because it is not possible to clean carbon out of fuel without destroying the fuel. Technology cannot fix that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I only wonder now why you so regularly doubt the validity of others' knowledge.

You wonder why I doubt the claims made in the face of vast body of knowledge?

The conversation began as an appeal from an authority (Coleman). I don't rely upon appeals from authority, I prefer a broader base. Never mind the fact that a TV weatherman can hardly even be considered an authority on climate.

a reply to: Phage

So you know for a fact that he isn't a hang-glider then?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I know for certain he is not a hang glider.

Further, I doubt that he is a hang glider pilot. A person who pilots a hang glider.

You indicated you know more than meteorologists... not just weathermen.

I said TV weathermen. Several times. I am aware of the difference.

a reply to: Phage

Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary about a sport I have never participated in. I prefer having a motor with me when I fly.

So you don't know for sure he isn't a hang-glider pilot?

ETA: You also indicated there was no difference between weatherman and meteorologist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you don't know for sure he isn't a hang-glider pilot?

Not for sure, but he does not seem to be a registered member of the USHPA nor has he ever been. You just made me check.

ETA: You also indicated there was no difference between weatherman and meteorologist.

Please refresh my memory.

a reply to: Phage

Not for sure, but he does not seem to be a registered member of the USHPA nor has he ever been. You just made me check.

Are all hang-glider pilots members of this USHGP? I thought one only needed a hang-glider to operate it.

Please refresh my memory.

Gladly.

Just below this post, there are numbers. Those are pages of this discussion. If you click on these numbers, you will be able to see what both of us have posted on every page. There is also a little symbol of a man just below your stats. If you click on it, a menu will open up and you can choose "posts in thread" to see every post you have made in this thread.

No need for thanks; I'm happy to help.

TheRedneck

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Get Yer Red Hot Carbon Credits Here ! Red Hot Carbon Credits , Keep Ya Warm .Burrrrr.........

a reply to: amfirst1

I would be fascinated where you got the information that the amount of money spent on climate change is 10x that of the oil companies.

I'd be fascinated where you got the information that the CO2 correlation has been debunked.

The temperature of the Earth, so long as within semi-reason, is a net nuetral number, indicative of nothing.

The rate of change, fast fast fast change is the problem, bc our infrastructure, where we farm, fish, get water, go to harbor, all of it, is set up to handle the world as it has been - as a relative constant over the last 200-400 years. The rate of change they are predicting is beyond our ability to handle the infrastructure needed to keep pace.

The inability to keep pace with the changes will lead to famine, disease and war. Our military, which isn't a bunch of liberal environmentalists, has fully accepted that climate change is real and been planning for the consequences for decades, planning for the need to guard the coming open passage north of Canada, planning open water ports, planning on the wars to come as certain areas dry up or flood out.

The problems would be every bit as real if the global temperature was dropping just as fast. It is the pace of change that can't be handled.

The world has been warmer and colder, but there's no evidence at all that billions of people could survive changes at this pace. Many do not care about whether 2 - 3 generations down the road many people from some other country die. Of course, if your great grandson/daughter dies in that war, it would seem to be something that would move a person.

The fact is the world is warming, the glaciers are receeding everywhere, the tundra is melting (which releases methane and adds a positive feedback loop) the polar cap is melting (which causes the ocean to absorb light/heat that would otherwise reflect back off snow, another positive feedback loop) and air bubbles found in glaciers, air trapped for 25,000 years or more, indicates there's a relationship between CO2 and temp. It just does.

It's highly complicated and imperfect science. But the evidence is very strong. If you had cancer and the evidence of a treatment to save your life equated to strength of evidence in this matter, you'd demand the treatment to save your life. It's only because it's truly inconvenient to us, it costs money, that some wish it away.

Exxon's scientists affirmed that C02 (man made) caused climate change long ago, they just hid it, and put out propoganda: www.scientificamerican.com...

Show your citations, and find something that refutes Exxon's own scientists, and I'd listen. But, as with everything, when the scientific community comes to a consensus, despite a small fraction of voices, I listen to the people who know. It's the best evidence we have. If you're demanding certainty, that's simply gambling the future on a completely unreasonable demand.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are all hang-glider pilots members of this USHGP? I thought one only needed a hang-glider to operate it.

In order to fly at a regulated site in the US, one must be a member of the USHPA. While there are unregulated sites, it would be unusual in the extreme for an experienced pilot to not be a member. In a way it's similar to SCUBA, while one can dive without certification, it can be problematic to obtain tank fills and stuff. Since he lived in California for a long while, it would be pretty much impossible to be a pilot and not a member.

Those are pages of this discussion. If you click on these numbers, you will be able to see what both of us have posted on every page.

I'm quite aware of that feature, thank you.

I cannot seem to find a post of mine in which I equated TV weathermen with meteorologists. That is why I asked for your assistance.

a reply to: Phage

I'm quite aware of that feature, thank you.

Ah, that's good then. I thought you were unaware it existed.

The thing is that right now, I am pretty busy in other tabs and don't have the time to help you look. Sorry about that. So let's do things the easy way: do you think you or any other hang-glider pilot would have more knowledge of weather phenomena than a degreed meteorologist solely by virtue of your hang-gliding ability?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I'm sorry; I missed this:

In order to fly at a regulated site in the US, one must be a member of the USHPA. While there are unregulated sites, it would be unusual in the extreme for an experienced pilot to not be a member. In a way it's similar to SCUBA, while one can dive without certification, it can be problematic to obtain tank fills and stuff. Since he lived in California for a long while, it would be pretty much impossible to be a pilot and not a member.

Thank you for the information. My son SCUBAs, so I am a little familiar with those restrictions.

I learned something today!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

This is what you said:

It is all most as if the climate has been getting warmer since the last ice age. Oh wait. It has been.

This is not true. It has not been getting warmer. After the last ice age (glacial period, to be more correct) temperatures went into a slow decline.

Well then, you just proved global warming is a hoax. Congratulations.

a reply to: TheRedneck

do you think you or any other hang-glider pilot would have more knowledge of weather phenomena than a degreed meteorologist solely by virtue of your hang-gliding ability?

First: Hang gliding ability? I don't think that's a valid criterion. One would have to consider the depth and breadth of the pilot's knowledge base. One could be a pilot of average average ability but still be knowledgeable (me). The point of pointing out my avocation (and duration of it) was to indicate that I (and others who engage in the sport) have had very good reasons to become highly knowledgeable about weather.

Now, to answer your question, I think that it is entirely possible for someone without a degree to be as knowledgeable on a topic as someone with a degree. However, when someone is presented as an authority on weather and climate ( and is a featured member of the Heartland Institute) one might desire that there be some credentials (other than a career as a TV weatherman). When the claims that person makes fly in the face of a vast body of knowledge, it gives me little reason to accept that that person is highly knowledgeable. He was a TV weatherman, not a climatologist.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

This is what you said:

It is all most as if the climate has been getting warmer since the last ice age. Oh wait. It has been.

This is not true. It has not been getting warmer. After the last ice age (glacial period, to be more correct) temperatures went into a slow decline.

Well then, you just proved global warming is a hoax. Congratulations.

No. That chart is using proxy data of limited resolution (about 300 years). It does not show the past 100 years of observed temperatures. But it does show that it has not been getting warmer since the last glacial period quite clearly. That was what your claim was.

a reply to: Phage

I think that it is entirely possible for someone without a degree to be as knowledgeable on a topic as someone with a degree.

That is what I wanted to hear, Phage. I know it probably hurt, but you're a better man for saying it.

Now my turn for a concession: I also agree that a person without a degree can have as much knowledge as, or even superior knowledge to, someone with a degree. A degree is (should be?) evidence of superior knowledge; a lack of a degree is not evidence of a lack of superior knowledge. I do not doubt your knowledge on local weather patterns.

As to the rest of your post, I tend to not take "vast bodies of knowledge" at face value, especially where profits are involved. If basic principles of scientific research are violated or ignored, it becomes a vast body of questionable data. It is harder to reach a conclusion that way, but it is also far more accurate. And far more scientific.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I know it probably hurt, but you're a better man for saying it.

It didn't hurt. Really. And it had no effect upon my character.

As to the rest of your post, I tend to not take "vast bodies of knowledge" at face value, especially where profits are involved.

Yes. The vast profits of the fossil fuel industry are being desperately clung to.