Stoaty
Well-known member
Time to take off that tinfoil hat and see the rest of the world. Conspiracy theories not needed here.craig said:
Let The Dismantling Begin: Climate-Change Denier Scott Pruitt Trump’s Pick For New EPA Chief
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
craig
Well-known member
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. 
Follow the money, friend: just who is profiting from this manufactured hysteria? Who is gaining money and control?
I would suggest, though, that there is far more evidence to support the existence of a 'control conspiracy' than there is to support the theory of man caused climate change.
Follow the money, friend: just who is profiting from this manufactured hysteria? Who is gaining money and control?
I would suggest, though, that there is far more evidence to support the existence of a 'control conspiracy' than there is to support the theory of man caused climate change.
wwhitney
Well-known member
Unfortunately, that's not true. Statements of this form come about by cherry picking a recent year that was really unusually hot, and starting your time period at that point. By picking an unusually hot starting year, the drop in average temperature from year 1 to year 2 shifts the trend over the whole time interval. But if you look over any other time period, like 15 years, or 5 years, or 20 years, the underlying warming trend is obvious. See, for example, the graph of Global Mean Surface Temperature at:craig said:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Yes, but the burning of fossil fuels has caused a sharp spike in CO2 output, compared to geologic time scales.craig said:
Agreed.craig said:
The Medieval Warming Period was primarily a North Atlantic phenomenon, global average temperatures did not rise much (the rest of the planet was cooler than average).craig said:
The cause of the Little Ice Age is unclear, but it apparently does correspond with a small decrease in incoming solar radiation. There is no corresponding increase in solar radiation during the last few decades that could explain the current warming trend.
You're off about about 4-5 orders of magnitude, volcanoes are producing on the order of 1% of the CO2 that humankind's activities are. See, for example,craig said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
BTW, increased volcanic activity actually cools the planet, as it puts aerosols into the upper atmosphere that reflect incoming solar radiation before it can reach the surface. Increased volcanic activity is another possible cause for the Little Ice Age.
So as I say, there are no other plausible explanations for the current observed increase in heat trapping by the atmosphere. Many people have looked at this and failed to find any other explanation that holds up scientifically.
Cheers, Wayne
The Chinese, by lagging behind in reducing carbon emissions.
The Chinese are "gaining money" and no one is "gaining control" as international standards are voluntary, and national regulation remains the province of the EPA. So I guess that, by your reasoning, this is a joint conspiracy between the Chinese government and the US EPA. Nice work.
Stoaty
Well-known member
As someone who treats people with serious paranoia, I think this discussion has about run its course. You have made your position clear, others can decide for themselves whether to stick with science or join the conspiracy theory bandwagon.craig said:Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
GRA
Well-known member
Just to add some historical perspective, i.e. "we've been here before": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford#EPA_Administrator
And here's James Watt v. 2: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309628-trump-to-pick-rep-mcmorris-rodgers-for-interior-secretary-report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt#Secretary_of_the_Interior
I had hoped that the environmental fights of the Reagan years would be once and done, but I guess the time's come for a sequel.
And here's James Watt v. 2: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309628-trump-to-pick-rep-mcmorris-rodgers-for-interior-secretary-report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt#Secretary_of_the_Interior
I had hoped that the environmental fights of the Reagan years would be once and done, but I guess the time's come for a sequel.
craig
Well-known member
Most folks have made up their minds on this issue, and an internet forum discussion is not going to convert anyone who does not want to be converted.
Thanks for a civil discussion, and continue to enjoy going electric!.
Thanks for a civil discussion, and continue to enjoy going electric!.
I don't know how much it will affect opinions, but I see a major gap what the climate change deniers know about carbon dioxide, aka CO2, and would like to try to explain its importance. (Please keep in mind that the following isn't disputed by any scientists other than 'Biblical Literalists'. I may have made a few unintended factual errors, which I would like corrected as needed.)
* The Earth's atmosphere was, when life on Earth was entirely microbial, originally very high in CO2. It was also very hot then, because of the Greenhouse Effect, and from residual heat from the formation of the planet. Microbes ingested nutrients like sulfur, and gave off carbon dioxide and methane.
* As plants evolved into existence from bacteria with masses of chlorophyl, taking in CO2 when exposed to sunlight, and producing oxygen as a waste product, two major things happened, according to the geologic and bacterial fossil records:
1. Most of the then-existing life on Earth died off, because it was not able to tolerate oxygen (aka "anaerobic life"). Oxygen, being highly reactive (think "rust") was toxic to organisms that didn't evolve to use it in their metabolisms.
2. The atmosphere cooled, because oxygen lets heat escape into space much more readily than does CO2 or methane. This began the first of many cycles in which atmospheric CO2 rose and fell, with the global temperatures, most easily measured by sea levels, rising and falling along with or slightly behind CO2 levels.
* During periods of higher oxygen levels, plants were large, densely populated, and were found everywhere on the planet - including the poles. As they 'sucked up' CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperatures gradually cooled, many of the plants died, and their dead "bodies" trapped carbon taken from the atmosphere below the surface of the ground and the floors of the oceans. This dead plant matter (not, for the most part, dead animals like dinosaurs as commonly imagined) was changed, by heat, pressure and time, into fossil fuels, most commonly coal near the surface and oil deeper down, with natural gas mixed in. As this happened, the atmosphere cooled because CO2 levels fell.
* As a result of the explosion in plant life, and the accumulation of dead plant matter below the surface, a substantial portion of the CO2 became locked into subsurface carbon deposits (coal, oil, natural gas) and the wild swings in atmospheric temperatures stabilized somewhat, because they no longer had such large amounts of easily-released carbon to produce carbon dioxide.
* Enter humanity. Actually, nothing much happened as a result of our hunter-gatherer phase. When we started engaging in large-scale agriculture we had modest effects on the climate, but they tended to somewhat cancel out, as we both trapped carbon in fields of plants and released it by burning plants and clearing trees.
* The Industrial Age arrives. Now we are beginning to mine and drill for that trapped carbon, and are beginning to burn it in large amounts. Even now, at this stage, there is a certain mitigating effect on atmospheric temperatures, as our burning of coal tends to block some solar radiation from reaching Earth's surface even as we are releasing carbon dioxide. The atmosphere does start to warm, but it's gradual and uneven.
* The Twentieth Century arrives. The industrialization of the Western world goes into high gear, the deforestation of the surface accelerates, and with the widespread adoption of petroleum as fuel for both vehicles and homes, the production of sun-blocking soot begins to fall well behind the release of carbon dioxide into the air. Still, there are some planetary processes and systems that tend to slow the speed of changes in atmospheric temps. One very big one is the oceans, which can absorb huge amounts of CO2. The changes are still happening, but they seem to be centuries-slow, and not an immediate threat.
* The Twenty-First Century dawns. Fossil fuel consumption is enormous and still growing. The modest air pollution control measures adopted at the end of the Twentieth Century have made the air relatively clear, allowing in more sunlight from space. The oceans are still absorbing CO2, but the process is making them increasingly acidic, resulting in dying coral reefs and an increasing threat to the vast number of sea creatures that rely on shells, which are made from calcium in sea water and don't fare well in acidic water. Humanity is both destroying large areas of forest and making large areas of the oceans nearly empty of life. Storms, which are fueled by heat, become more intense on average...
Speaking of averages, the best way to understand global climate change (and the actual reason it is no longer called "global warming") is to picture a pair of dice. Better yet, make it one large "die" (the singular of dice) with, say, ten sides. In the early Twentieth Century, six of those sides would read "NORMAL WEATHER". Two would read "HOTTER WEATHER" and two would read "COLDER WEATHER". Cast that die in 1900 and the odds would be very much in favor of a normal/average year. In the year 2000, though, picture the same die having four "NORMAL" sides, four 'HOT" sides and two "COLD" sides. As you roll it now, the most likely outcome is a hot year. It's important to note, though, that cold years are still possible, just less likely than in the past. And as more years are Hot and fewer are Cold, the average temperature increases, even with the occasional colder year. By the mid Twenty-First Century, the Die will have 8 HOT sides, one NORMAL and one COLD. Even in otherwise "normal" years, storms will continue to increase in strength and in some cases duration. Disruption of the polar (especially the North polar) wind patterns will result in more frequent "polar vortexes" that bring down cold weather farther South than in centuries past, even as the overall climate continues to warm.
OK, I quit. My fingers are killing me.
* The Earth's atmosphere was, when life on Earth was entirely microbial, originally very high in CO2. It was also very hot then, because of the Greenhouse Effect, and from residual heat from the formation of the planet. Microbes ingested nutrients like sulfur, and gave off carbon dioxide and methane.
* As plants evolved into existence from bacteria with masses of chlorophyl, taking in CO2 when exposed to sunlight, and producing oxygen as a waste product, two major things happened, according to the geologic and bacterial fossil records:
1. Most of the then-existing life on Earth died off, because it was not able to tolerate oxygen (aka "anaerobic life"). Oxygen, being highly reactive (think "rust") was toxic to organisms that didn't evolve to use it in their metabolisms.
2. The atmosphere cooled, because oxygen lets heat escape into space much more readily than does CO2 or methane. This began the first of many cycles in which atmospheric CO2 rose and fell, with the global temperatures, most easily measured by sea levels, rising and falling along with or slightly behind CO2 levels.
* During periods of higher oxygen levels, plants were large, densely populated, and were found everywhere on the planet - including the poles. As they 'sucked up' CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperatures gradually cooled, many of the plants died, and their dead "bodies" trapped carbon taken from the atmosphere below the surface of the ground and the floors of the oceans. This dead plant matter (not, for the most part, dead animals like dinosaurs as commonly imagined) was changed, by heat, pressure and time, into fossil fuels, most commonly coal near the surface and oil deeper down, with natural gas mixed in. As this happened, the atmosphere cooled because CO2 levels fell.
* As a result of the explosion in plant life, and the accumulation of dead plant matter below the surface, a substantial portion of the CO2 became locked into subsurface carbon deposits (coal, oil, natural gas) and the wild swings in atmospheric temperatures stabilized somewhat, because they no longer had such large amounts of easily-released carbon to produce carbon dioxide.
* Enter humanity. Actually, nothing much happened as a result of our hunter-gatherer phase. When we started engaging in large-scale agriculture we had modest effects on the climate, but they tended to somewhat cancel out, as we both trapped carbon in fields of plants and released it by burning plants and clearing trees.
* The Industrial Age arrives. Now we are beginning to mine and drill for that trapped carbon, and are beginning to burn it in large amounts. Even now, at this stage, there is a certain mitigating effect on atmospheric temperatures, as our burning of coal tends to block some solar radiation from reaching Earth's surface even as we are releasing carbon dioxide. The atmosphere does start to warm, but it's gradual and uneven.
* The Twentieth Century arrives. The industrialization of the Western world goes into high gear, the deforestation of the surface accelerates, and with the widespread adoption of petroleum as fuel for both vehicles and homes, the production of sun-blocking soot begins to fall well behind the release of carbon dioxide into the air. Still, there are some planetary processes and systems that tend to slow the speed of changes in atmospheric temps. One very big one is the oceans, which can absorb huge amounts of CO2. The changes are still happening, but they seem to be centuries-slow, and not an immediate threat.
* The Twenty-First Century dawns. Fossil fuel consumption is enormous and still growing. The modest air pollution control measures adopted at the end of the Twentieth Century have made the air relatively clear, allowing in more sunlight from space. The oceans are still absorbing CO2, but the process is making them increasingly acidic, resulting in dying coral reefs and an increasing threat to the vast number of sea creatures that rely on shells, which are made from calcium in sea water and don't fare well in acidic water. Humanity is both destroying large areas of forest and making large areas of the oceans nearly empty of life. Storms, which are fueled by heat, become more intense on average...
Speaking of averages, the best way to understand global climate change (and the actual reason it is no longer called "global warming") is to picture a pair of dice. Better yet, make it one large "die" (the singular of dice) with, say, ten sides. In the early Twentieth Century, six of those sides would read "NORMAL WEATHER". Two would read "HOTTER WEATHER" and two would read "COLDER WEATHER". Cast that die in 1900 and the odds would be very much in favor of a normal/average year. In the year 2000, though, picture the same die having four "NORMAL" sides, four 'HOT" sides and two "COLD" sides. As you roll it now, the most likely outcome is a hot year. It's important to note, though, that cold years are still possible, just less likely than in the past. And as more years are Hot and fewer are Cold, the average temperature increases, even with the occasional colder year. By the mid Twenty-First Century, the Die will have 8 HOT sides, one NORMAL and one COLD. Even in otherwise "normal" years, storms will continue to increase in strength and in some cases duration. Disruption of the polar (especially the North polar) wind patterns will result in more frequent "polar vortexes" that bring down cold weather farther South than in centuries past, even as the overall climate continues to warm.
OK, I quit. My fingers are killing me.
Firetruck41
Well-known member
We can't agree whether a BEV should have TMS or not, but "everybody" agrees with all of that? Okay. :roll:LeftieBiker said:
I'm not exactly clear on what you mean. If you mean that what I wrote about is controversial, please tell me which parts.
craig
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
Wow: that is the clearest, most logical, most easily understood explanation of climate change that I have ever read. I am going to copy it and print it so that I can reread it at leisure. Thanks.
You're welcome - especially if you aren't being sarcastic. ;-) Keep in mind, though, that I'm a Generalist with a failing memory, not a scientist or even a technologist. There are bound to be mistakes in there. I can't, for instance, remember the exact composition of the atmosphere when bacteria first evolved (or arrived here in a comet or asteroid, as the case may be). The importance of carbon and carbon dioxide, though, starts with carbon-based organisms dying and not all being eaten. It's like a big interactive game, as the kids would say, with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere plus the amount under the ground and ocean floors staying roughly the same, but the proportions of how much is where at any given time is what really matters to the temperature and stability of the atmosphere and oceans. We as a species are determined, it would seem, to take as much out of the earth and put it into the atmosphere as we can, because doing so releases for our use the solar energy that went into producing it millions of years ago.
cwerdna
Well-known member
I've seen some discussion by people who know Trump well right after his victory. To them, it's clear that his policy will be "drill, baby drill!"DaveinOlyWA said:
In his 100 day plan (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days and the copy currently at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/.), he says
"* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure"
I'd only heard about this Pruitt guy at a high-level. From the IEV article, he's much scarier than I thought, from an environmental POV.
And from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-transition-wants-names-of-energy-dept-employees-involved-in-climate-talks/ and numerous other sources, it looks like he's trying to target those within the EPA who have worked on anything related to climate change.
Craig, perhaps you're also not aware of figures like these. Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces about 19.4 lbs of CO2: http://web.archive.org/web/20110427044311/http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm. A SINGLE 50 mpg combined (on EPA test) 2010 Prius if driven 15K miles a year, achieving EPA mileage, would emit 2.9 tons of greenhouse gasses/year (mostly CO2) and 0.6 tons of upstream GHGs/year. A battering ram of death like a 16 mpg combined 07 Chevy Suburban 1500 4WD would produce 9.2 + 1.8 tons/year, respectively. You can see figures like these at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26425&id=37164&id=23047&id=28629&#tab2 in the Energy & Environment tab. There are somewhere past 255 million registered passenger vehicles in the US alone.
Think about the rest of the world where China and India have over a billion people each. Think about CO2 emissions from other transportation (e.g. ships, trains, planes, etc.) and fossil fuel-based power plants.
Besides Pruitt, Trump's also selected some pretty scary and questionable people to be on his staff/cabinet like Bannon of "alt right" Breitbart "News" or his education secretary pick who has supposedly never been a teacher nor a principal. Many of his picks just seem to be multi-millionaire and billionaire cronies. He claims he wants to "drain the swamp" but he picks people from Goldman Sachs.
You really think these rich cronies are really interested in helping the middle class and below?
craig
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
No sarcasm
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
for the latest in what I expect to be many many news links to this thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/cia-assessment-russia-tried-to-help-trump-win-2016-election/2016/12/09/2d41cbb0-be7d-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_video.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/cia-assessment-russia-tried-to-help-trump-win-2016-election/2016/12/09/2d41cbb0-be7d-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_video.html
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Very dramatic. It was at that moment I knew Trump had lost the morbidly obese vote.DaveinOlyWA said:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
wow, it never stops. now he is picking a CEO of the fast food industry as his labor secretary? we can kiss minimum wage increases good bye.
so what's anyone's prediction for tomorrow?
I am predicting the CEO of Coke named as the Surgeon General...
so what's anyone's prediction for tomorrow?
I am predicting the CEO of Coke named as the Surgeon General...
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Who would you have picked?DaveinOlyWA said:
GRA
Well-known member
Hey, if we're going to have Reagan redux, maybe we can get another C. Everett Koop. Now there was a cabinet pick whose actions surprised everyone, including Reagan. How many other Surgeon Generals have had "The Capitol Steps" do a song about them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_StepsLTLFTcomposite said:
