Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

[longview]

That manmade global warming will have devastating effect and there is an urgent need to reduce C02 and other greenhouse emissions is something both the IPCC, the world's leading scientific societies and federal agencies under Trump agrees on.

It can also be good to remember that Trump appointed a Republican that had denied manmade global warming in charge of NASA’s hundred million dollar carbon monitoring budget. So of course Jim Bridenstin could have used those funds to disprove the scientific consensus. Instead Bridstein now support the scientific consensus because there was no contrary evidence.

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

The fossil fuel companies have also huge budgets that they could have used to disprove manmade global warming. For example that fossil gas companies spend 100 million Euros, roughly the as NASA’s carbon monitoring budget.to influence European policies to keep EU dependent on fossil fuels during 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

While the result is that they too acknowledge manmade global warming.

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

So what evidence exists that recent changes in the climate are unusual?
As I have cited one of the most cited references Marcott et al 2013, which clearly states that the
proxies have and average resolution of 120 years?

Again, can you state in your own words what you think all of the worlds scientists are in agreement about
with the consensus on climate change?

 

[Disraeli]

We are releasing the accumulated hydrocarbons of hundreds of millions of years into the atmosphere in less than two centuries. What could go wrong with that?

Regardless, we will get to test the beliefs of those who do not believe that we are warming due to human activity. I have lived long enough to realize that there will be no consistent or substantial reduction of emissions in the foreseeable future. By the time warming has accelerated enough to inconvenience those who profit from denial, and can temporarily insulate themselves, it will be too late. We may be self-aware, but we are also subject to self-extinction.

BTW, I am in South Florida and it was 45° this morning. If Trump were in Mar-A-White-Guy-O today, he would be bloviating on twitter about how he could use some global warming right now! His thoughts on climate are the same as our crippling deficit. "I won't be around when it blows up so why should it concern me?"

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

~ So we warm up a few degrees ... Same as living in Arizona, Nevada or Florida. Of more concern is a growing population needing space to live, jobs to survive, and food/water to stay healthy. Growing poverty around the world and unchecked migration will likely kill civilization sooner or later as crime increases and quality of life diminishes.
Want to live longer and better ? Don't smoke, wear a seat belt, drive carefully and watch your weight/blood pressure. You may also skip politics entirely to help with the last suggestion ´

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So what evidence exists that recent changes in the climate are unusual?
As I have cited one of the most cited references Marcott et al 2013, which clearly states that the
proxies have and average resolution of 120 years?

Again, can you state in your own words what you think all of the worlds scientists are in agreement about
with the consensus on climate change?

You can for example visit NASA if you want to read about the evidence.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

NASA is also lead by Jim Bridenstin , a Trump appointed Republican that had expressed that he didn’t believe in manmade global warming before getting appointed as head of NASA. So of course Jim Bridenstin would have used NASA resources to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence existed of that. Instead now both NASA and Jim Bridenstin acknoweledge the urgent need to combat manmade global from C02 and other greenhouse gases.

 

[longview]

You can for example visit NASA if you want to read about the evidence.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

NASA is also lead by Jim Bridenstin , a Trump appointed Republican that had expressed that he didn’t believe in manmade global warming before getting appointed as head of NASA. So of course Jim Bridenstin would have used NASA resources to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence existed of that. Instead now both NASA and Jim Bridenstin acknoweledge the urgent need to combat manmade global from C02 and other greenhouse gases.

If you think that is evidence than cite the particular piece that says CO2 does what they think it does.
The problem with AGW, is that it is all theory, what measurements that exists for a change in energy imbalance over a change in CO2 levels,
do not show the expected level. The CERES satellites were looking for the evidence, but found almost nothing that could be distinguished from the noise.
Many recent papers are finding that the long held ideas of CO2 sensitivity were based on limitations of measuring devices in the early years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

The line-by-line method gives the change of the global temperature .4 K as a result of doubling the carbon dioxide concentration.

Evidence is not someone saying evidence exists, it is actual evidence.

 

[Todzilla]

No, the idea that the opinion of someone with no training or experience in a technical field has as much weight as someoneone who has training and experience is ridiculous.

“Expert” has meaning. An expert in a field, by definition is more knowledgeable about that field than a non expert. The expert’s opinion is based on study and knowledge. A non expert’s opinion can be informed if there has been some study, but without actual study of a field your opinion is pretty much random.

Actually Mr. Trump is claiming that his intuition or "gut" is more reliable than the consensus of the scientific community which studies climate. He is dismissing science in favor of some wishful belief and putting that belief as supreme, without any other substantiation beyond his feelings.

It's truly terrifying.

 

[Todzilla]

What horrors would await us if it turned out that climate change was much further off than experts contend, but we moved away from carbon based fuels any way?

For one thing, we'd be far less dependent on the vicissitudes of the global oil market. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

 

[longview]

What horrors would await us if it turned out that climate change was much further off than experts contend, but we moved away from carbon based fuels any way?

For one thing, we'd be far less dependent on the vicissitudes of the global oil market. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

The risk, is that in our haste, we promote a solution that is neither sound or economically viable.
An example of this can be seen in the ethanol regulations.
Broad adoption of low or no carbon technologies will happen, when those technologies provide an equal or better result, for less money, naturally.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

If you think that is evidence than cite the particular piece that says CO2 does what they think it does.
The problem with AGW, is that it is all theory, what measurements that exists for a change in energy imbalance over a change in CO2 levels,
do not show the expected level. The CERES satellites were looking for the evidence, but found almost nothing that could be distinguished from the noise.
Many recent papers are finding that the long held ideas of CO2 sensitivity were based on limitations of measuring devices in the early years.
Collision and radiative processes in emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide - IOPscience

Evidence is not someone saying evidence exists, it is actual evidence.

I have for example linked to NASA's website there your find a lot of information and links to sources regarding manmade global warming. Nasa is also lead by Jim Bridenstin, a Trump appointed Republican.

That both IPCC, the world’s leading scientific societies, federal agencies under Trump have looked at the evidence and acknowledge the urgent need to combat manmade global warming. There now even fossil fuel companies acknowledge the urgent need for action.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What horrors would await us if it turned out that climate change was much further off than experts contend, but we moved away from carbon based fuels any way?

For one thing, we'd be far less dependent on the vicissitudes of the global oil market. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

You can also look at Forbes best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

There on fourth place you have Sweden that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995 and is one of the world's most sustainable countries,.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

Sweden also past bipartisan legislation to be carbon neutral by 2045.

https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045

On seventh place you have Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to meet 50 percent of all their energy needs with renewable energy by 2030 is on seventh place.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0111/932573-denmark-wind-farm/

While even Republican coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/

Fossil fuels have also a lot of other negative effects as you write for example that 93 percent of the world’s children under the age of 15 years breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk.

http://www.who.int/news-room/detail...-world’s-children-breathe-toxic-air-every-day

You also have costly war and dependency on brutal dictatorships in the Middle East to protect the flow of cheap oil.

 

[Todzilla]

The risk, is that in our haste, we promote a solution that is neither sound or economically viable.
An example of this can be seen in the ethanol regulations.
Broad adoption of low or no carbon technologies will happen, when those technologies provide an equal or better result, for less money, naturally.

Is this before or after the nation is turned into a charred hellscape?
I know capitalism doesn't care about environmental costs until they directly affect costs right now, but some forethought might be a good idea, since other planetary options seem a bit, I don't know, difficult to implement?

 

[longview]

I have for example linked to NASA's website there your find a lot of information and links to sources regarding manmade global warming. Nasa is also lead by Jim Bridenstin, a Trump appointed Republican.

That both IPCC, the world’s leading scientific societies, federal agencies under Trump have looked at the evidence and acknowledge the urgent need to combat manmade global warming. There now even fossil fuel companies acknowledge the urgent need for action.

The expertise or political persuasions of the person mean nothing if they do not support their position with empirical data.
What I am saying is that, so far there is no conclusive data that even shows that CO2 responds the way that is theorized.

 

[longview]

Is this before or after the nation is turned into a charred hellscape?
I know capitalism doesn't care about environmental costs until they directly affect costs right now, but some forethought might be a good idea, since other planetary options seem a bit, I don't know, difficult to implement?

If you believe that added CO2 has the capability of turning the planet into a "charred hellscape", you are engaging in fantasy, not science.
Capitalism cares about sustainable paths forward, so profits can continue.
The consumers try to get the best deal possible, that still meets their needs.
What do you think we should be doing that we are not, and how do you think that would help?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The expertise or political persuasions of the person mean nothing if they do not support their position with empirical data.
What I am saying is that, so far there is no conclusive data that even shows that CO2 responds the way that is theorized.

How can you believe that you know more than all the scientist at IPCC, the world’s leading scientific societies, federal agencies and also at fossil fuel companies? That all those scientists have looked at the empirical data and come to the conclusions that there is a urgent need to combat manmade global warming.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The oil industry have also a huge influence over the Trump administration.

"When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.

But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation’s oil industry.

In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

 

[Nemiroff]

The expertise or political persuasions of the person mean nothing if they do not support their position with empirical data.
What I am saying is that, so far there is no conclusive data that even shows that CO2 responds the way that is theorized.

Actually there is, we also know the exact mechanism. Here is an explanation:

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

The co2 part is in the 6th paragraph but the beginning was pretty relevant too.

 

[longview]

How can you believe that you know more than all the scientist at IPCC, the world’s leading scientific societies, federal agencies and also at fossil fuel companies? That all those scientists have looked at the empirical data and come to the conclusions that there is a urgent need to combat manmade global warming.

I did not say I know more than the scientist at the IPCC, what I said was the current concept of AGW is not supported
by empirical data, at the most basic level, I.E. there is no data for those scientist to look at.
If you think evidence exists that show a change in energy imbalance over a change in CO2 level, then please cite it.

 

[longview]

Actually there is, we also know the exact mechanism. Here is an explanation:

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

The co2 part is in the 6th paragraph but the beginning was pretty relevant too.

Under the right conditions CO2 can absorb 15 um photons, but that alone is not evidence of the concept of AGW.
The concept is that CO2 absorbs the 15 um photons and then re emits some of them downward.
This causes an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, (3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2)forcing the surface troposphere system to get warmer
to bring the system back into balance.
The problem with the concept is that we have not actually measured the predicted imbalance over a change in CO2 levels.
We can detect a signal, but much weaker than the prediction.

 

[Nemiroff]

Under the right conditions CO2 can absorb 15 um photons, but that alone is not evidence of the concept of AGW.
The concept is that CO2 absorbs the 15 um photons and then re emits some of them downward.
This causes an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, (3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2)forcing the surface troposphere system to get warmer
to bring the system back into balance.
The problem with the concept is that we have not actually measured the predicted imbalance over a change in CO2 levels.
We can detect a signal, but much weaker than the prediction.

So we agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas AND we know the exact amount of energy it can hold.

Are you perhaps disputing that cars and factories release co2?

Because if we agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas AND that we are releasing it, I dont understand how man made global warming isnt the obvious conclusion.


As to the smaller then expected air increase, you do know of how heat sinks work? (Like in computers.)

One of the magical things about water, and one of the reasons its indispensable for life, is its ability to hold temperature.
Try putting an empty pan on the stove on high heat and compare it to a pan full of water. The empty pan might get burnt in 2 minutes while the water one will take 10 just to reach boiling. When you factor the ocean temperature, the math is perfect as always.

 

[longview]

So we agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas AND we know the exact amount of energy it can hold.

Are you perhaps disputing that cars and factories release co2?

Because if we agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas AND that we are releasing it, I dont understand how man made global warming isnt the obvious conclusion.


As to the smaller then expected air increase, you do know of how heat sinks work? (Like in computers.)

One of the magical things about water, and one of the reasons its indispensable for life, is its ability to hold temperature.
Try putting an empty pan on the stove on high heat and compare it to a pan full of water. The empty pan might get burnt in 2 minutes while the water one will take 10 just to reach boiling. When you factor the ocean temperature, the math is perfect as always.

the greenhouse effect describes theoretical energy transit, the long wavelength infrared energy emitted from earth is slowed on it's path to space.
As I said the problem with the concept is that we have not actually measured the predicted imbalance over a change in CO2 levels.
In your boiling pot analogy, we do not know the stove setting, high heat, low heat, off, we have measured the temperature increasing about 1C,
which could have been caused by simple dead band changes in the kitchen.
The math is not perfect, it is buried in the noise and uncertainty.
Clouds alone add about ten times the uncertainty as the expected measurement.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I did not say I know more than the scientist at the IPCC, what I said was the current concept of AGW is not supported
by empirical data, at the most basic level, I.E. there is no data for those scientist to look at.
If you think evidence exists that show a change in energy imbalance over a change in CO2 level, then please cite it.

Well both IPCC, the world¨s leading scientistific societies, federal agencies under Trump and even fossil fuel companies acknowlegde the urgent need to combat climate change from C02. So either you agree with them or you beleieve that you know more than they.

Also I linked to evidence presnted by NASA and posters have also tried to explain the evidence to you in threads like this one.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...called-global-heating-says-key-scientist.html

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Trump administration have also tried to undermine the climat meeting in Katowice, Poland

'The nations of the world are meeting here to hash out a "rulebook" to help ensure the viability of humanity -- preventing runaway global warming from causing even greater calamity in the form of superstorms, searing droughts and deadly heat waves.

That work, which follows up on the 2015 Paris Agreement, is seen as more critical now than ever. A damning report from the United Nations this fall said there's only about a decade left to avoid the worst of climate change. The message: cut fossil fuel pollution to "net zero" in just a few decades.


Yet the United States held a discussion on Monday that was meant, among other things, to "showcase ways to use fossil fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible."'

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/10/...yd5Vcr767LNaQ4Xn044K524Payo2okJBWsdCKXWChir1k

 

[year2late]

Actually Mr. Trump is claiming that his intuition or "gut" is more reliable than the consensus of the scientific community which studies climate. He is dismissing science in favor of some wishful belief and putting that belief as supreme, without any other substantiation beyond his feelings.

It's truly terrifying.

Trusting his gut? Hell, he cannot even acknowledge his accurate weight.:lamo

 

[longview]

Well both IPCC, the world¨s leading scientistific societies, federal agencies under Trump and even fossil fuel companies acknowlegde the urgent need to combat climate change from C02. So either you agree with them or you beleieve that you know more than they.

Also I linked to evidence presnted by NASA and posters have also tried to explain the evidence to you in threads like this one.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...called-global-heating-says-key-scientist.html

You are still not getting it,
If co2 has a minimal response,
Then the urgent calls for action,
Are unwarranted.
Again there is minimal empirical
Data to support co2 forcing at the predicted levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

You are still not getting it,
If co2 has a minimal response,
Then the urgent calls for action,
Are unwarranted.

I regret to inform you that you do not have super secret anti global conspiracy information. You're not here to save us. You're here for self worth.