Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: jrod

Jrod you disappoint son. Al Gore was a reference to the puppetry of the global elite who have been pulling the strings of the liberals for years. You see...they win you over with pseudo "science" which gets you to drink the Kool-Aid like a crack addict looking for their latest fix. Then the hoodwinked liberals do their bidding by passing the largest international taxation laws in history.

Wow, mate are you seriously telling me you actually believe this MMGW BS?

Tell Mad Maxine I said, "What up!?"

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for that last link - bookmarked for a read.
What I keep coming back to is that the CO2 / temperature delta correlation breaks down unless you look at the tiny sliver of time over the past 40 years, which is why I don't believe there is a linear relationship.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

How can you say it any better than that? Muh Global Warming was nothing but a conspiracy to implement the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that this planet has ever seen.

So he did it anyway through the recent tax cuts for the rich

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

'Several' is greater than two, but not many. Three fits the bill.

Water vapor needs heat to exist in considerable quantities in the atmosphere.

We return then to the whole chicken and the egg problem, then - where the Earth receives enough energy from the Sun to be a mere 255 Kelvin... yet the surface continues to be warm enough to have water vapor in the atmosphere.

Why would such a condition persist perpetually?

Also, ozone is sufficient enough to warm the stratosphere... temperature doesn't decline with height there, but increases.

a reply to: jidnum

Ok, I will give you that you believe it is a hoax. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now lets put this into perspective:

You believe that such is a hoax, now would you go out and ask to build a sea wall to protect your property and as a reason list the very thing that you are saying is a hoax for such?

That is exactly what Trump has done. He says that global warming is a hoax, yet on the application for a sea wall to protect a few of his properties, under the reason he stated global warming.

The point being one can not have it both ways. If they say it is a hoax, then they can not use it to get what they want.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Not really as the time line is very much on track:

In 2009 Trump was all for global warming, and wanted the federal government to invest in renewable clean energy.
In 2012, Trump had this to say: The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
In 2013: Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
In 2014: NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?

Now the pattern is there and funny how in May of 2016, Trump applies for a sea wall, on the grounds: global warming and its effects.

And in September he once again calls global warming a hoax.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:

Using your own chart as a refrence.

IN 100 years there has been only 8/10ths of degree in temperature change.

We survived a 10,000 years ice age with only flint knifes and furs but we are supposed to panic because its getting warmer?
lets say we do melt off all the ice in the world. They have already estimated where the high water mark will be SO WE MOVE.
Is it all that complicated?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You are surprised a businessman uses current BS to make a better deal? Regardless if they believe it? I do not.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

NO I am not surprised, however, it does speak volumes to the rest of the geopolitical world and other world leaders.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: notsure1
Arent we all supposed to be dead from a massive hole in the ozone by now?

This shi is comical.

The ozone hole bs was the first screw job.

What about cigarettes?

I've been smoking all day long and haven't even got any cancer!

What kind of screw job was that?

it might be lung cancer
it might be colon cancer
it might be skin cancer
etc.

I wouldn't be flippant about it.

a reply to: Greven

'Several' is greater than two, but not many. Three fits the bill.

Fair enough. I don't think of 3 or 4 when I use the word several, but that's a matter of the language being imprecise. We agree on the technical details.

Water vapor needs heat to exist in considerable quantities in the atmosphere.

We return then to the whole chicken and the problem, then - where the Earth receives enough energy from the Sun to be a mere 255 Kelvin... yet the surface continues to be warm enough to have water vapor in the atmosphere.

Why would such a condition persist perpetually?

I would say it is because the planet's ecology is a stable system using both positive and negative feedbacks. We know this simply from the fact that it has sustained life for as long as it has. If the system were unstable in the least, there would have been runaway conditions long before man walked the planet on two feet.

That doesn't mean there can't have been anomalies, just that all of the anomalies undergone in the planetary history were correctable without interference. Since we are nowhere near historical conditions, it follows that our situation is also correctable without interference. Ergo, we should not interfere.

Given that assessment, the next question becomes one of academics: what are the feedbacks and how do they operate? That is what climatologists are trying to discover with their models. Only the politicians and the pundits are taking the extrapolations and presenting them as solid evidence of future happenings.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But we inevitably interfer. You can't have any footprint at zero.

Global warming caused (as though entirely) by human is just a distraction and nice term.

Pollution is the real problem.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

The AGW religious fanatics don't care that there is a different President running the U.S., they will make up more BS claims. But one of the many "irregularities" these religious fanatics will never respond to is how is it possible that from 1998 -2016 atmospheric CO2 levels increased more than half what it had increased from 1898-1997, yet temperatures did not increase accordingly. Over half the amount of CO2 increase during 1998-2016 than what increased during 1898-1997, should have increased global temperatures by at least ~4, but instead temperatures increased by only ~1, which shows that CO2 is not the GHG that has been causing global warming.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but even if you show the fact that in the Troposphere it is water vapor that accounts for 97%+ of the surface warming, and CO2 only causes around 5%-8% of the warming, you still get the AGW religious lunatics claiming that "it's the magical CO2 doing it" despite the fact that nature itself keep showing these "religious lunatics" how wrong they are.

So much ill informed nonsense in this thread. Simple fact - the last 3 years have been the hottest in recorded history and it can be confidently stated that 2018 will be even hotter.
Some of you guys need to understand the difference between local and global climate.

Plus i'd like to know whose pockets global warming is lining given the wealthiest 1% already own 70% of the global wealth?

a reply to: Yabby

and it can be confidently stated that 2018 will be even hotter. 

How can you do that? If it is not hotter, then what will you say?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: jidnum

Ok, I will give you that you believe it is a hoax. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now lets put this into perspective:

You believe that such is a hoax, now would you go out and ask to build a sea wall to protect your property and as a reason list the very thing that you are saying is a hoax for such?

That is exactly what Trump has done. He says that global warming is a hoax, yet on the application for a sea wall to protect a few of his properties, under the reason he stated global warming.

The point being one can not have it both ways. If they say it is a hoax, then they can not use it to get what they want.

Yours is a rather petty argument in the scheme of things. Who cares if Trump (or his management team) want to invoke Climate Change on a building permit? What has that got to do with anything and moreover what does that have to do with what one believes?

Some scientists believe it will continue to get warmer and the VERY recent, but very minor, increases in temperature is related to CO2 increases driven by man's endeavours. Other scientists do not believe in the CO2 correlation. But lets assume the pro climate change scientists are correct. There are still two issues:

1) The temperature increases they are forecasting are wildly different - in fact, 100's of different models are used to come up with a range from between ~1 degree C and ~7 degrees C by 2100. That would still leave the earth not close to the hottest it has been and the human race would have no trouble surviving even at the upper end of estimates.

2) The actual plan to solve this perceived, but totally unproven, issue provides an estimated difference of about 1-2 degree C., In other words, we are being asked to accept countless regulations, economic impact and trillions of dollars of investment to make almost no difference at all. A total waste of time and effort in which a very few people get very rich and the rest of the world pay for it. Doesn't sound like much of a sound strategy - at least not for us. I can see why it is appealing to the likes of Al Gore, though.

Let's be very clear. Even if the pro man-made global warming scientists are right, there is zero threat to the planet. The risk would be to humans, but there is no ELE outcome. Even if the oceans rose by 20ft in the 'doomsday' scenarios we hear about, a tiny fraction of the land mass would be under water.. and I mean a tiny fraction. It would be better spending the money on mitigating such impacts by relocating people or protecting coastal areas.

originally posted by: Yabby
Plus i'd like to know whose pockets global warming is lining given the wealthiest 1% already own 70% of the global wealth?

The 0.01 percent.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: Yabby
Plus i'd like to know whose pockets global warming is lining given the wealthiest 1% already own 70% of the global wealth?

The 0.01 percent.

Bill gates?