Welcome to American Weather
blizzard1024

What does Trump as President mean for Climate Change research??

174 posts in this topic

On 2/16/2017 at 3:21 PM, Newman said:

The thing is, Earth will never get to that point of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, the CO2 we are releasing is beneficial to our environment in SOME ways, not all obviously.

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Moore - Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions.pdf

That article is full of misinformation. The past CO2 data is outdated below is a more modern estimate. With the improved CO2 data past warm periods are now closely aligned with high CO2. A couple of periods are of interest:

pliocine 3-5 million years ago: CO2 roughly 400 ppm, temperatures 2-3C higher, sea level 15-20 meters higher than today.

early eocene 55-60 million years ago: CO2 1000 ppm, temperature 9-14C higher than today, no land ice

End of Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago: CO2 spiked over 2000 ppm; largest mass extinction event.

CO2Last400millionCapture8trimmed.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2017 at 0:18 PM, BillT said:

I never said we couldnt go to green energy but since you brought it up yes we could spend trillions on green energy and stop  using electricity because green CANT provide the baseline REQUIRED for industry.......we could go back to the stone age.........OR we could use science and stop this LUNACY that humans are controlling the weather and thereby driving the climate.....you are talking about politics i am attempting to discuss science.

lol you know NOTHING about science.  It sounds like you want to go back to a previous era in time- how well do you think humans would exist in that kind of climate?  Fact is green energy+nuclear is the only combination that will work and save us from the pollution of fossil fuels, earthquakes from wastewater fuel injection from fracking and pipeline explosions.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2017 at 3:38 PM, Brewbeer said:

Is this the same group that believes child labor rules "seem rather unnecessary"?

These people are disgusting.  I thought Neanderthals went extinct a long time ago- apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From The Washington Post:

The Trump administration is seeking to slash the budget of one of the government’s premier climate science agencies by 17 percent, delivering steep cuts to research funding and satellite programs, according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would also eliminate funding for a variety of smaller programs, including external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and “coastal resilience,” which seeks to bolster the ability of coastal areas to withstand major storms and rising seas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 21, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Brewbeer said:

Is this the same group that believes child labor rules "seem rather unnecessary"?

??????????  Without a citation and some context, this question is not only misleading but disingenuous and ultimately irrelevant.  Was this posed in the form of a question to avoid a defamation lawsuit?  Anyway, this "group" didn't write the article, this fellow, the CO-FOUNDER of GREENPEACE, did:   

DR. PATRICK MOORE

Dr. Patrick Moore is a Senior Fellow with the Energy, Ecology and Prosperity program at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He has been a leader in the international environmental eld for over 40 years. Dr. Moore is a Co-Founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. Following his time with Greenpeace, Dr. Moore joined the Forest Alliance of BC where he worked for ten years to develop the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which have now been adopted by much of the industry. In 2013, he published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, which documents his 15 years with Greenpeace and outlines his vision for a sustainable future. 

 
On February 21, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Brewbeer said:

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Moore - Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions.pdf

Thanks for posting this article.  Given the prior history of the author, the substance of the article and the typical "insult the individual / ignore the substance" responses, I think it hits a nerve. 

If only more could have the open mind of a Dr. Moore.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Paragon said:

lol you know NOTHING about science.  It sounds like you want to go back to a previous era in time- how well do you think humans would exist in that kind of climate?  Fact is green energy+nuclear is the only combination that will work and save us from the pollution of fossil fuels, earthquakes from wastewater fuel injection from fracking and pipeline explosions.;

"Fact is green energy+nuclear is the only combination that will work and save us from the pollution of fossil fuels, earthquakes from wastewater fuel injection from fracking and pipeline explosions.;"

"Fact is" you need to make this all capital letters, increase the size of the font and make it bold to make it so.  Watch, I'll show you: 

Fact is green energy+nuclear is the only combination that will work and save us from the pollution of fossil fuels, earthquakes from wastewater fuel injection from fracking and pipeline explosions.;

Now the science is settled!!!  LOLOLOLOLOLOL

By the way I have nothing against nuclear energy, which has the demonstrated capability to provide more than sufficient power to maintain if not raise our collective, worldwide standard of living.  Just need to figure out what to do with that troublesome nuclear waste.   As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply.  It's just not there yet and it very may well be that it is superseded by other developing technology such as nuclear fusion (no nuclear waste, but who knows when we'll be able to safely replicate and harness the same energy creating process as the sun) before it ever really matures.  

So, just want to make clear that it's not that I'm disrespectful of the sentiment regarding nuclear and maybe, someday, solar, wind, bio.  But I also want to make clear that I have no respect for statements such as "lol you know NOTHING about science"  (you lose all credibility, not the subject of your attack) and "Fact is" when the remainder of the sentence is clearly opinion. 

On February 23, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Paragon said:

These people are disgusting.  I thought Neanderthals went extinct a long time ago- apparently not.

They are rubber, you are glue...   LOLOLOLOLOLO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2017 at 0:05 PM, chubbs said:

That article is full of misinformation. The past CO2 data is outdated below is a more modern estimate. With the improved CO2 data past warm periods are now closely aligned with high CO2. A couple of periods are of interest:

pliocine 3-5 million years ago: CO2 roughly 400 ppm, temperatures 2-3C higher, sea level 15-20 meters higher than today.

early eocene 55-60 million years ago: CO2 1000 ppm, temperature 9-14C higher than today, no land ice

End of Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago: CO2 spiked over 2000 ppm; largest mass extinction event.

CO2Last400millionCapture8trimmed.jpg

 

What caused CO2 to rise and fall in the past and change the climate??? If CO2 is the global thermostat then what causes it to rise and fall

and change the climate and lead to glacial and interglacial cycles??? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article above states the weather service only takes a 5 percent hit. That's not bad. It looks like research, conservation and climate

programs get hacked the worst. not good, but it doesn't surprise me that this is what the current administration would propose... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
green energy doesn't have a useful place in the world yet.

Are you serious? You must be really out of the loop(to put it kindly) if you think solar and wind dont already play meaningful roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

What caused CO2 to rise and fall in the past and change the climate??? If CO2 is the global thermostat then what causes it to rise and fall

and change the climate and lead to glacial and interglacial cycles??? 

 

Good question. There is still a lot to learn but knowledge is gradually increasing. One main factor is plate tectonics, volcanoes and rock weathering. Biology also plays an important role. Volcanoes put CO2 in the atmosphere and rock weathering removes it. Rock weathering increases with increasing temperature and rainfall. If climate gets too cold weathering slows and CO2 recovers and vice versa. So volcanoes/rock weathering and CO2 act as a slow stabilizing system. The sun has been gradually strengthening at roughly 1% per 100 million years so a long-term decrease in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is needed to maintain a relatively constant temperature. Liquid water was present on the earth's surface 4 B years ago when the sun was 30% weaker. Volcanoes and weathering also had shorter-term impacts. The increase in CO2 about 250 million years ago was caused by massive volcanoes in Siberia. The long downturn in CO2 in the past 50 million years which lead to our current ice age climate was caused at least in part by India hitting Asia and pushing up the Himilayas. This increased rock weathering drawing down CO2.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

What caused CO2 to rise and fall in the past and change the climate??? If CO2 is the global thermostat then what causes it to rise and fall

and change the climate and lead to glacial and interglacial cycles??? 

 

Any complex system is going to have changes that are not monocausal. I mean, people die all the time, but sometimes, it's because other people kill them. We wouldn't say that because people have died naturally in the past, that murder can't happen. So there were other cycles that could cause CO2 to rise and fall, sometimes quickly. Doesn't mean that that's what's happening here. And in any case, even if it were, we're going to have to deal with the results. Putting our heads in the sand is not wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, drstuess said:
10 hours ago, Jack Frost said:
green energy doesn't have a useful place in the world yet.

 

Dr., I was going to reply substantively but something struck me as odd about your citing my quote - I can't find written evidence of these words as you quoted them.

I think this paragraph may be what you are referring to:

"As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply."

And in the larger context of my full paragraph:

By the way I have nothing against nuclear energy, which has the demonstrated capability to provide more than sufficient power to maintain if not raise our collective, worldwide standard of living.  Just need to figure out what to do with that troublesome nuclear waste.   As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply.  It's just not there yet and it very may well be that it is superseded by other developing technology such as nuclear fusion (no nuclear waste, but who knows when we'll be able to safely replicate and harness the same energy creating process as the sun) before it ever really matures.  

It is more than disconcerting that you would mislead readers into thinking the you are quoting someone - me - directly when in fact you are paraphrasing.  Not only is it intellectually lazy, but disingenuous at best.

As to the substance, in the US, how many solar, wind or bio power plants exist?  I've been involved with the development of solar farms and, while they contribute to the national energy requirement, it is currently (no pun intended!) very much a de minimis contribution.

Always eager to learn.....    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply.  It's just not there yet and it very may well be that it is superseded... 

I don't think it was too dishonest of a paraphrase of this comment. Notice the "it's just not there yet."

If you are actually open to learn, wind and solar installation was responsible for >60% of utility scale capacity installed in 2016.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25172

This is hardly indicative of "just not there yet." Additionaly, this growth shows no sign of stopping as prices continue to decrease rapidly. This is from a recent report from Lazaeds showing LCOE of projects across technologies. LCOE is not perfect in several ways, however it shows how inexpensive properly sited utility scale renewables already are, and they will only get cheaper

3_LCOE_comparison.png

Also, btw, I am not a dr, so no reason to refer to me as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another EIA plot. Trying to bring back coal or slow its demise is the wrong strategy and is going to increase cost to society in the long run.

USelectricity.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, drstuess said:

I don't think it was too dishonest of a paraphrase of this comment. Notice the "it's just not there yet."

Thanks for the admission of dishonesty.  

Too bad you had to caveat it with "I don't think it was too dishonest..."  That's a slippery slope when you lead people into thinking you are quoting someone directly and you in fact are not.  Even worse when you intentionally and knowingly modify the quote, however slight or well intentioned you think that modification might be.

In a court of law, that tactic could lead to serious repercussions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the admission of dishonesty.  

Too bad you had to caveat it with "I don't think it was too dishonest..."  That's a slippery slope when you lead people into thinking you are quoting someone directly and you in fact are not.  Even worse when you intentionally and knowingly modify the quote, however slight or well intentioned you think that modification might be.

In a court of law, that tactic could lead to serious repercussions....


I didn't realize I was in a court of law. Thanks for the warning; the Internet is serious business ;) Also, how do you know I even typed all that? The science on the forces acting on our galaxy and universe are not known with certainty, so what I actually typed could have been corrupted on the way to the forum servers by quantum thingys.

Finally, all this talk of dishonesty from you certainly rings shallow. Your whole presence on this forum is a facade. You make phony posts about innocently pursuing the truth and true science, yet clearly have no intention of actually, honestly doing that. You never acknowldedge science contrary to your beliefs or admitting your errors. A clear example of this is this exchange.

1. You make an ignorant comment about renewables not being a meaningful energy source.
2. You are provided with pretty clear evidence to the contrary.
3. You post some stupid comment about dishonesty that reads like you are talking down on everyone and think you are intellectual superior, without actually acknowledging the substance of the evidence you are confronted with.

I know this forum is supposed to be clear of this ad hominem stuff, so from here on out I am just gonna ignore your posts. Keep on fighting the good fight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, drstuess said:


I didn't realize I was in a court of law. Thanks for the warning; the Internet is serious business ;) Also, how do you know I even typed all that? The science on the forces acting on our galaxy and universe are not known with certainty, so what I actually typed could have been corrupted on the way to the forum servers by quantum thingys.

Finally, all this talk of dishonesty from you certainly rings shallow. Your whole presence on this forum is a facade. You make phony posts about innocently pursuing the truth and true science, yet clearly have no intention of actually, honestly doing that. You never acknowldedge science contrary to your beliefs or admitting your errors. A clear example of this is this exchange.

1. You make an ignorant comment about renewables not being a meaningful energy source.
2. You are provided with pretty clear evidence to the contrary.
3. You post some stupid comment about dishonesty that reads like you are talking down on everyone and think you are intellectual superior, without actually acknowledging the substance of the evidence you are confronted with.

I know this forum is supposed to be clear of this ad hominem stuff, so from here on out I am just gonna ignore your posts. Keep on fighting the good fight!

Best defense...  I get it.

You were the one who admitted to your dishonesty:

14 hours ago, drstuess said:

I don't think it was too dishonest of a paraphrase of this comment. Notice the "it's just not there yet."

And that's an exact, unaltered quote.  Only way any honest person would roll...

I didn't even get to the way you mislead and take things totally out of context.  Comparatively speaking, when you have a felony, the misdemeanors just don't seem as important. 

"I know this forum is supposed to be clear of this ad hominem stuff, so from here on out I am just gonna ignore your posts."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL  You admit to being dishonest and then take the high road - how noble.  It is not "ad hominem" to probe both the substance of the scientific discussion as well as the credibility of the speaker.  As to the latter, my good sir, you currently have none.

Fortunately, the hope for redemption springs eternal.  You may have made a silly mistake and certainly have the opportunity going forward to redeem yourself.  If I remember prior posts of yours correctly, you always seemed to me to be somewhat reasonable.

The intentional altering of someone's quote and then holding it out to the world, internet or not, as an original quote, is a major. ....mistake.  So many other words I wanted to use there, but not in polite company.

Oh, and after what you did, I don't blame you for your stated intention to ignore my posts in the future.  Too painful a reminder of your "misstep" I would imagine....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, unlike Russiagate, let's let "Quotegate" fade a little for the moment.  

Hopefully the Mods will address AWx's policy on altering quotes and that will be that.

As I noted above: 

By the way I have nothing against nuclear energy, which has the demonstrated capability to provide more than sufficient power to maintain if not raise our collective, worldwide standard of living.  Just need to figure out what to do with that troublesome nuclear waste.   As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply.  It's just not there yet and it very may well be that it is superseded by other developing technology such as nuclear fusion (no nuclear waste, but who knows when we'll be able to safely replicate and harness the same energy creating process as the sun) before it ever really matures.

I stand by this, meaning solar in particular is a nice contributor but in no way can presently substitute for the energy delivered by more conventional sources.  Take the Northeast for example.  How many major cities, let alone regions, are powered by standalone solar plants?

The serious among you, I believe, get my drift....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

So, unlike Russiagate, let's let "Quotegate" fade a little for the moment.  

Hopefully the Mods will address AWx's policy on altering quotes and that will be that.

As I noted above: 

By the way I have nothing against nuclear energy, which has the demonstrated capability to provide more than sufficient power to maintain if not raise our collective, worldwide standard of living.  Just need to figure out what to do with that troublesome nuclear waste.   As to green energy, continue to develop the technology and maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply.  It's just not there yet and it very may well be that it is superseded by other developing technology such as nuclear fusion (no nuclear waste, but who knows when we'll be able to safely replicate and harness the same energy creating process as the sun) before it ever really matures.

I stand by this, meaning solar in particular is a nice contributor but in no way can presently substitute for the energy delivered by more conventional sources.  Take the Northeast for example.  How many major cities, let alone regions, are powered by standalone solar plants?

The serious among you, I believe, get my drift....

 

 

Jack Frost: Member since 2010 yet it seems 96% of posts have occurred in the last ~2 months with rabid voracity about one subject in particular.

Personally, I'm having a hard time associating your posts with any sort of credibility in any capacity.

 

In the above QUOTATION you are requesting Mods to go after another posters actions for not using your exact words but instead substituting those words' perceived meaning as your own without providing a proper paraphrase or direct quotation. OK, fair enough- but his perception is not far off from what I also distilled from these, your very own, words:

"...As to green energy...maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply. It's just not there yet..."

So, now that I have properly paraphrased your very own quotation of your very own words, would you agree that the following complete sentence is not without the bounds of logical interpretation:

"Green energy doesn't have a useful place in the world yet."

 

Forgive me for my own look of incredulity...


Furthermore, you then you turn around and quote your own words and distill your own implied meaning out of them after the fact:

"...I stand by this, meaning solar in particular...can presently substitute for the energy delivered by more conventional sources..."

Nowhere in your own quoted post did you say you meant solar, out of all the green energy systems available, in particular, could at present, replace any conventional means of energy production. But yet you think it is OK to rework your statements after the fact to tell us what you really meant. Now where have I seen this tactic recently deployed before?

The hypocrisy on display here is shameful.

Russiagate? What does throwing that out there add to the conversation- or have anything to do with anything here? This is such a sad attempt at trolling politics in to discussion and a clear distraction.

Hopefully the Mods WILL step in here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, grambo said:

In the above QUOTATION you are requesting Mods to go after another posters actions for not using your exact words but instead substituting those words' perceived meaning as your own without providing a proper paraphrase or direct quotation. OK, fair enough- but his perception is not far off from what I also distilled from these, your very own, words:

"...As to green energy...maybe someday it will have a useful place in the world energy supply. It's just not there yet..."

So, now that I have properly paraphrased your very own quotation of your very own words, would you agree that the following complete sentence is not without the bounds of logical interpretation:

"Green energy doesn't have a useful place in the world yet."

 

You don't get it, but that's ok.  

The problem is using the quote feature in the first place, which tells the world that the person quoted stated certain words in the order quoted.  Why anyone would click "Quote this" and then alter the quote is beyond me, but it is beyond wrong to do so.  Have you ever even been tempted to "Quote this" and than edit the quote.  It would never even occur to me to do such a thing.  Quote the sentence and leave it alone or, better yet, quote the paragraph or post to put it all in context.  Takes less, not more time to do this and eliminates any issue as to what the person quoted stated exactly.  Note that I quoted the entire paragraph to which I am responding to give anyone reading this the benefit of your thoughts, as a whole and in context.    

From your quoted paragraph above: "OK, fair enough- but his perception is not far off from what I also distilled from these, your very own, words:"

So you honestly believe that it is OK to deliberately misquote someone as long as the misquote represents a "perception" not far off from what you "distilled".  If you can't see the dangerous slippery slope that condoning intentional misquotes leads to - regardless of whether you think harm is done in any particular circumstance - then you still just don't get it.  

And if you don't get it by now, that's not ok.

 

On March 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, grambo said:

Furthermore, you then you turn around and quote your own words and distill your own implied meaning out of them after the fact:

"...I stand by this, meaning solar in particular...can presently substitute for the energy delivered by more conventional sources..."

Nowhere in your own quoted post did you say you meant solar, out of all the green energy systems available, in particular, could at present, replace any conventional means of energy production. But yet you think it is OK to rework your statements after the fact to tell us what you really meant. Now where have I seen this tactic recently deployed before?

The hypocrisy on display here is shameful.

This is precious.  So let me get this straight.  It is hypocritical to accurately quote one's self and then elaborate on the point?  Surely that can't be what you meant.  Or maybe you don't know what you meant:

"Furthermore, you then you turn around and quote your own words and distill your own implied meaning out of them after the fact:" (emphasis mine)

Guilty as charged.  I turned around, quoted my own words and then distilled my own implied meaning out of them after the fact.  Huh???

Parenthetically, you sure like to use the word "distill".  What chu boys got go'in on over there on the Grand Isle?  Anythin the federial reggulators might be interested in know'in bout?

At least that would help to explain a few things...... 

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Señor Frost, have you read "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway?  Given your style of argument, I think it's particularly on point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 10, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Solar said:

Señor Frost, have you read "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway?  Given your style of argument, I think it's particularly on point.

Much better Solar.  No personal attack and throwing in "Señor" definitely serves to lighten the mood.

"Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences.  She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.  Professor Oreskes’s research focuses on the earth and environmental sciences, with a particular interest in understanding scientific consensus and dissent"

"Erik M. Conway is a historian of science and technology employed by the California Institute of Technology. He recently received a NASA History award for "path-breaking contributions to space history, ranging from aeronautics to Earth and space sciences," and an AIAA History Manuscript Award for his fourth book, Atmospheric Science at NASA: A History."

 

I promise to read the works of historians as soon as I get through all of the papers being published by PhDs in Atmospheric Science that prove the release of geolocked carbon has absolutely no impact on the climate of the earth.  

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.