The 2018 UN Climate Report
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Trump was asked today his thoughts on the climate assessment released by his administration last Friday. He did not mince words.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/donald-trump-climate-change/index.html
(CNN)President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.
Why, you ask?
"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters on Monday, adding that he had read "some" of the report.
-----------------------------------------------------
This might seem alarming given the consensus among climate scientists who do "believe" the report, but many will breath a sigh of relief knowing that just last month, Trump let us know, in musing on the UN Climate Report that he "has a natural instinct for science". So, all is well. Thank you, Professor Trump!
https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...t-rebuttal-climate-change-global-warming-ipcc
"Only a fortnight after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued what is arguably the most comprehensively damning report on the fate of the planet in the history of science, Trump assured people they don't have to worry, because – basically – he has a gut feeling about stuff like this.
"I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years," Trump told AP when questioned about the looming irreversibility of catastrophic climate change.
"And I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."
The comments, which are not encouraging as world leaders prepare to send delegations to the UN's COP24 climate conference in Katowice, Poland in December, come just days after Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes, acknowledging "something" was happening to the climate, but also introducing new doubts.
"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again," Trump told CBS's Lesley Stahl."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/donald-trump-climate-change/index.html
(CNN)President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.
Why, you ask?
"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters on Monday, adding that he had read "some" of the report.
-----------------------------------------------------
This might seem alarming given the consensus among climate scientists who do "believe" the report, but many will breath a sigh of relief knowing that just last month, Trump let us know, in musing on the UN Climate Report that he "has a natural instinct for science". So, all is well. Thank you, Professor Trump!
https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...t-rebuttal-climate-change-global-warming-ipcc
"Only a fortnight after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued what is arguably the most comprehensively damning report on the fate of the planet in the history of science, Trump assured people they don't have to worry, because – basically – he has a gut feeling about stuff like this.
"I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years," Trump told AP when questioned about the looming irreversibility of catastrophic climate change.
"And I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."
The comments, which are not encouraging as world leaders prepare to send delegations to the UN's COP24 climate conference in Katowice, Poland in December, come just days after Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes, acknowledging "something" was happening to the climate, but also introducing new doubts.
"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again," Trump told CBS's Lesley Stahl."
DutchJazzer
Banned
the 97% consesus is MISSLEADING
i for example believe the climate is changing it is natural. so if i was polled i would fall in the 97%
the 97% is the consensus that man has a part in it. some scientist of that 97% will say man is 100% to blame others will say 1%! that is the consesus. that man has a role in the climate change. i say they have a role but it is not co2. it is concrete jungles building huge lcities. buidlings that eminate wartmh. concrete that warms up the earth.
so this is not alarming it is COMMON sense. climate scoientist have been wrong since the 60's but sudenly the un got it right now. will you apologize to trump in 10-20 years when this proves ******** again! no because then you will scream this time we got it RIGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please describe how concrete generates or retains heat in the earth, as opposed to ground/plants/etc. Concrete radiates the absorbed energy more quickly back into the atmosphere, and reflects more light, than plants or mud. If anything, ignoring the effects of CO2, concrete fights global warming.
Of course, plants/mud retain a great deal of carbon, changing the CO2 into O2, so they are better for global warming. However, that's the effect you are saying does not exist.
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I will not be apologizing to Trump in 10-20 years. No apology from me. It is a wonderful right to criticise power, to speak truth to power even, I would never apologize for that. But I stand ready to hear an apology from him. For being an enemy of life on Earth. He can address all his fellow citizens at that time, and maybe explain what all that was about.
Or maybe in some other future, I should rather expect there will be statues of Trump coast to coast, sea to shining sea. An addition to Mt. Rushmore. And maybe my TV will be watching my every move, if it isn't already.
Red rock houses in canyon alcoves, timeless memories, as ever, in a land called USA. And time erasing just another Ozymandias.
Red
Well-Known Member
Another report released on Friday, 11/23/18, by the USGS, found that about a quarter of all greenhouse emissions in the US resulted from drilling on public lands and offshore drilling:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ntributes-a-quarter-of-all-greenhouse-gas?amp
"The first-of-its-kind U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, released late Friday, found that emissions from fossil fuels produced on federal lands and offshore areas represent an average of 24 percent of all national emissions of carbon, a major contributor to air pollution and climate change.
Wyoming was the top contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Federal lands within the state contributed 57 percent of the climate change contributing emissions across all states and offshore areas combined.
The Obama administration enacted a number of measures making it harder to drill on public land, including creating over 30 national monuments and expanding the boundaries of a number of others - a designation that forbids fossil fuel extraction.
Environmental groups point out that emissions are likely to be higher today due to the Trump administration's more active and supportive approach to drilling on federal lands and offshore.
"The US government has kept the American public in the dark for far too long on the climate impact of subsidized oil and gas drilling and coal mining on our public lands. We know this administration's relentless push to dramatically increase production by recklessly drilling and mining anywhere and everywhere has already threatened important wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and drinking water," said Chase Huntley, senior director for the Energy and Climate Program at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.
"Now top government scientists are clear that this foolhardy favoritism of polluters over people is also making the climate crisis even more severe."
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ntributes-a-quarter-of-all-greenhouse-gas?amp
"The first-of-its-kind U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, released late Friday, found that emissions from fossil fuels produced on federal lands and offshore areas represent an average of 24 percent of all national emissions of carbon, a major contributor to air pollution and climate change.
Wyoming was the top contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Federal lands within the state contributed 57 percent of the climate change contributing emissions across all states and offshore areas combined.
The Obama administration enacted a number of measures making it harder to drill on public land, including creating over 30 national monuments and expanding the boundaries of a number of others - a designation that forbids fossil fuel extraction.
Environmental groups point out that emissions are likely to be higher today due to the Trump administration's more active and supportive approach to drilling on federal lands and offshore.
"The US government has kept the American public in the dark for far too long on the climate impact of subsidized oil and gas drilling and coal mining on our public lands. We know this administration's relentless push to dramatically increase production by recklessly drilling and mining anywhere and everywhere has already threatened important wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and drinking water," said Chase Huntley, senior director for the Energy and Climate Program at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.
"Now top government scientists are clear that this foolhardy favoritism of polluters over people is also making the climate crisis even more severe."
soil is generally moist, whereas concrete is not. any street person could tell you how hot asphalt and concrete get when the sun's out. But Dutch is putting too much on concrete, which may be a noticeable effect in urban areas or near big freeways, but it's not significant globally. On an even less significant fact, concrete when it is poured is essentially a mix of oxides of calcium, magnesium plus impurities tolerated in the formulation, and does absorb and sequester about the same amount of carbon dioxide as was required to be driven off in the manufacture of the mix. net neutral on co2, chemically, but given the general scientific expertise of climate scientists, I am surprised so little attention has been given to the idea that we should ban production of concrete mixes to reduce atmospheric co2.
The whole idea that burning fossil fuels or wood is the cause is pursued on that level of science sensibilities. The reality is that whatever co2 comes from burning fuels will be soon sequestered in new growth or new carbonate rock under shallow warm seas somewhere. If we are seeing the rise in co2 predicted from hand-waving estimates of our burning amidst volcanic emissions and sea releases because of geological upper crustal warming or increases in upper atmospheric debri impacts and natural fires, our sensibilities are lost when we fail to actually measure those inputs and just start screaming "See!!!!!". Nothing is proven, yet. Scientists are doing some measurements, but not nearly enough. At the present time the scientific professionals are scamming the world for fat checks from the political establishment.
I call them professional liars, nothing more.
I don't think you would praise Trump if he had real scientists doing real research to determine the truth. You would be still cheering for the fake political scientists who are gratuitously "Proving" the "truth" desired by our political class. You would never give up your dream, or the hope that science will ultimately prove the political cause you love to be the right one, even after 50,000 years into the next ice age.
yah yah, no doubt there are disbelievers in anthropological climate impacts with the same kind of determined boosterism for the truths they love.
I don't think Trump is like that. I think he listens to both sides and just isn't really convinced, yet. But he definitely does see the impacts the political class project on global governance will have on our economy. I think that is what fuels his skepticism.
I think he will try to get a better deal for the US.
Nice try.
I didn't see the point where ideology is invented and Man becomes determined to lie to conform to societal fashions.
I did see how the comic site made a hail-Mary shot at political correctness in the twentieth century.
not real sure those are all facts, exactly. According to the Goshute Indians (part of the widely spread Shoshone people) who related verbally the reason for the large woolly Mammoth skulls on the desert 55 miles west of Salt Lake City was an unusually hard Great Basin winter circa 1797 (I attribute the exact year to what the Goshutes said they experienced only in their lifetimes, in 1840, to the John Fremont exploration band of US surveyors.
Paleface scientists asked the little brown men about a big pile of skulls. Little brown men said big snow, ten feet deep, trapped the Mammoths there, and "Injun eat'em all up". That's why there wasn't also a little pile of human bones that winter.
Red
Well-Known Member
I have mentioned to you in the past, examples where scientific consensus was in error. The notion of Clovis First, where the peopling of the Americas are concerned, and the belief that "stones cannot fall from the sky", a belief holding sway prior to modern meteoritics, are two such examples. So I know, as well as anyone, having studied the history of science, how consensus and dominant paradigms can be overturned. Science advances one funeral at a time. See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
But, as is often the case, your observation above is typical of you, but will ever be puzzling to me. I am not cheering for rampant global warming or actually hoping for such a thing. I would absolutely hope we will do something to address it, to mitigate it, to avoid all the problems that will ensue should we not address it. I do believe, at present, that the consensus represented by both the UN Climate Report, and this most recent US consensus and assessment, is correct. If, for instance, you are suggesting that 300 American scientists in 13 government agencies created a political document, and fudged all the data to satisfy a political agenda, then you are likely very, very mistaken.
Time will tell, babe. I am not sure I will live to the point where all doubt will be removed. It's possible, no man knows the time or place, and I could live into the 2040's I suppose.
In the meantime, your statement above is absolutely absurd. I don't understand why you are so inclined to make such foolish statements. It truly reflects very poorly on you. Very stupid thing to say.
That happens before humans separate from chimpanzees/bonobos, most likely, possibly before primates separate from rodents.
You have confused "political" with "historical".
Yeah, because Native Americans never lied to impress strangers (assuming any part of your story is true).
Red, that you think my comment is absurd or stupid is not surprising to me.... it proves the point, in fact.
A lot of people believe what they want to believe. Even the USGS. That was an absurd and patently false report about drilling emmissions being such a large contributor. Of course there are gas emissions from drilling. Lots of gas trapped under pressure in certain rock formations. Likely more natural emissions than caused by drilling. Lots of ocean outgassing. Lots of marsh and wetlands outgassing. Thousands of years of gases trapped under ice sheets too. Every one of these, including natural surface fires and volcanic gas emissions, could be more than all human activities. But we don't measure them, yet. Just wild guesses. I suppose we could know how much oil is burned, or how much coal, because we have some production stats. That's about all we do know.
Some people are quite noticeably determined to push some "causes" they believe in. It is not absurd to note that such people often persist in the face of facts.
I find the extinction event pretty far-fetched. You are willing to stake your credibility on it's imminent reality, and do some really bizarre political stuff because of what you fear. Again, people of the cause have been calling disbelievers practically criminal for over a decade already, alleging they don't care about being responsible humans. Because of unfounded beliefs. Or beliefs that just don't really make sense.
That kind of confirmation bias and demand for compliance is on about the same level as burning witches at the stake or drowning them for being, really, nothing but different somehow.
My comments are not really meant to be so particularly personal to you, except so far as they might apply to the little crowd of believers who share those characteristics. I would never imagine you personally don't care about actual people somehow, regardless of the implications of stuff you otherwise believe.
I might not say that about Al Gore or whoever Brit Royals are pushing the cause.
you're just a camp follower, with probably better human concerns. However, you are the one posting stuff in here from their literature.
A lot of people believe what they want to believe. Even the USGS. That was an absurd and patently false report about drilling emmissions being such a large contributor. Of course there are gas emissions from drilling. Lots of gas trapped under pressure in certain rock formations. Likely more natural emissions than caused by drilling. Lots of ocean outgassing. Lots of marsh and wetlands outgassing. Thousands of years of gases trapped under ice sheets too. Every one of these, including natural surface fires and volcanic gas emissions, could be more than all human activities. But we don't measure them, yet. Just wild guesses. I suppose we could know how much oil is burned, or how much coal, because we have some production stats. That's about all we do know.
Some people are quite noticeably determined to push some "causes" they believe in. It is not absurd to note that such people often persist in the face of facts.
I find the extinction event pretty far-fetched. You are willing to stake your credibility on it's imminent reality, and do some really bizarre political stuff because of what you fear. Again, people of the cause have been calling disbelievers practically criminal for over a decade already, alleging they don't care about being responsible humans. Because of unfounded beliefs. Or beliefs that just don't really make sense.
That kind of confirmation bias and demand for compliance is on about the same level as burning witches at the stake or drowning them for being, really, nothing but different somehow.
My comments are not really meant to be so particularly personal to you, except so far as they might apply to the little crowd of believers who share those characteristics. I would never imagine you personally don't care about actual people somehow, regardless of the implications of stuff you otherwise believe.
I might not say that about Al Gore or whoever Brit Royals are pushing the cause.
you're just a camp follower, with probably better human concerns. However, you are the one posting stuff in here from their literature.
Last edited:
well, you don't know if it was a lie. The bones are still there, but nobody has dated them scientifically. yah, people tell stories. Listeners take what they want outta them too. now, are scientists people, too? Sometimes, when there's money in it, will they smile, say what's wanted, and take the money?
however, there was no pay in the tale for the Indians or the Fremont crew. I'm sure there was an attempt to say, however the translation went, "You sure about that?"
Especially when they work for profit-making enterprises like the coal, oil, and gas industries, and the think-tanks funded by these groups? As opposed to boards controlled by other scientists who have no stake in the outcome?
Depends upon how much the questioners knew about the skulls, eh?
So the discussion about, specifically oceanic content of CO2 and outgassing that would come from a warming of the seas, is pretty old, really, even on the Webz. The equilibrium of CO2 vapor and surface water/rain water is a fact of life. The current estimates of atmospheric CO2 worldwide having values as low as 280ppm and as high as 390ppm are fairly recent. When I was in high school, the handbook value for CO2 in the air was 400ppm. Can't say where that figure came from, maybe Oxford downwind from some industry who knows. Most of our old data consists of isolated measurements we should NOT mistake for actual worldwide facts. Lots of local variance, likely.
The subject is hotly contested as to whether outgassing is relevant, with the anthropocentric argument being that burning is the only thing that causes declines in 02 to match. Idiots, really, ignoring natural decay and atmospheric oxidation and other natural oxidation issues, with unreliable date on atmospheric changes in 02 levels.....
We should not doubt "greenhouse gas" thermodynamics..... well-known and reliably-proven data for thermodynamic values for heat storage in molecules. At whatever temp. molecular modes of vibrations around chemical bonds store energy. Nor should we doubt absorption of radiation, or re-emission of radiation or the directional nature of solar inputs, surface emissions, and atmospheric dissipation in all directions.
I simply observe that the earth has experienced a very large range of atmospheric content of many things over geologic time. We have seen large climate changes as well. Whatever is going on, we have the capacity to deal with and survive the changes, more than some other niche creatures. But I don't expect a highly-buffered system like our atmosphere to do all the tricks people fear, and I don't think we know enough to even be certain what is happening. or what to do about it. I simply believe we can deal with it. On a personal level, mainly. If we start taxing and spending, in a frantic push to prove a political agenda, I'm sure we're just doing nonsense.
WE SHOULD FUND data collection and a variety of research proposals addressing both sides of this controversy.
The subject is hotly contested as to whether outgassing is relevant, with the anthropocentric argument being that burning is the only thing that causes declines in 02 to match. Idiots, really, ignoring natural decay and atmospheric oxidation and other natural oxidation issues, with unreliable date on atmospheric changes in 02 levels.....
We should not doubt "greenhouse gas" thermodynamics..... well-known and reliably-proven data for thermodynamic values for heat storage in molecules. At whatever temp. molecular modes of vibrations around chemical bonds store energy. Nor should we doubt absorption of radiation, or re-emission of radiation or the directional nature of solar inputs, surface emissions, and atmospheric dissipation in all directions.
I simply observe that the earth has experienced a very large range of atmospheric content of many things over geologic time. We have seen large climate changes as well. Whatever is going on, we have the capacity to deal with and survive the changes, more than some other niche creatures. But I don't expect a highly-buffered system like our atmosphere to do all the tricks people fear, and I don't think we know enough to even be certain what is happening. or what to do about it. I simply believe we can deal with it. On a personal level, mainly. If we start taxing and spending, in a frantic push to prove a political agenda, I'm sure we're just doing nonsense.
WE SHOULD FUND data collection and a variety of research proposals addressing both sides of this controversy.
Last edited:
If you imagine "scientists who have no stake in the outcome" you clearly are ignorant of public grant-seeking research realities. Or government agencies and how their culture affects behaviors and findings..... and research allocations.
The privately funded studies face more scrutiny and clearly understand that there will be no Press to push their cause.... in my mind while that does not really overcome the funding bias, it might mean they are less inclined to falsify their results. Being in second place means, generally, you have to try harder to be credible.
Not a lot of real scientific expertise on skulls in a survey party, but they would've known buffalo skulls. Fairly common mammoth remains around the old Lake Bonneville, none from that epoch likely out in the middle of the old lake. I know what the favored view is. I have heard of many accounts of Smithsonian bias in just chucking stuff into the basement that doesn't fit the narrative. A lot of "Scientists" do that. Not much market for stuff that bucks the accepted narrative. You gotta be willing to stake your reputation on an off-odds bet you can change what is believed.
DutchJazzer
Banned
again 100 years 0.3% temperature difference hahahahahaha
and ya'll want to hand more power to governments!
when i fart in a room, the room warms up more than 10%.
and ya'll want to hand more power to governments!
when i fart in a room, the room warms up more than 10%.
I was referring to the scientists who award the grants, not those that seek them. The US government turns over the award allocation process to scientists with no professional stake in the issue.
Except for the part about much of the private funding under discussion is supposed to support the position the industry wants. I mean, it's like you are saying the research by tobacco companies into the link between cancer and tobacco use was more reliable than the government studies.
Just the occasional Nobel prize or two.
Are you using the Kelvin scale or something?