Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:52 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:11 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:48 pm
Your full of it. The earth produces thousands of tons of that nice clean oil daily, I suppose you need it right down to the ounce am I right? When man doesn't remove it, then it all by it self spews out of the oceans floors and helps feed marine life. Nice huh !
BS. You’re just flat out lying now. Where’s the evidence to back your claim that the earth is producing thousands of tons of “nice clean oil” per day?

Here’s an estimate of around 17000 barrels per year.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ ... -each-year

For reference, we use around 16 million tons per day.
Put in a call to the creator he will set you straight. I may have been too low on the estimate.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:19 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:52 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:11 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:48 pm
Your full of it. The earth produces thousands of tons of that nice clean oil daily, I suppose you need it right down to the ounce am I right? When man doesn't remove it, then it all by it self spews out of the oceans floors and helps feed marine life. Nice huh !
BS. You’re just flat out lying now. Where’s the evidence to back your claim that the earth is producing thousands of tons of “nice clean oil” per day?

Here’s an estimate of around 17000 barrels per year.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ ... -each-year

For reference, we use around 16 million tons per day.
Put in a call to the creator he will set you straight. I may have been too low on the estimate.
Attachments
B7F63BD9-30FD-4012-918D-6A6848677C4C.jpeg
B7F63BD9-30FD-4012-918D-6A6848677C4C.jpeg (43.45 KiB) Viewed 310 times

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by David Redszus » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:08 am

David Redszus wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:55 pm
Oil will never run out. Though "they" have been trying to cause it for many years now.
The supply of hydrocarbon based fuels is virtually endless. All it takes is hydrogen and carbon and some energy to synthesize the molecules.
I would like to see your scientific evidence that oil will be around forever?
All previous "scientific" estimates of oil supply have been based on proven reserves, which are based on extraction costs and current market value. As the price of oil increases, so does the supply; basic economics.

Science is a useful tool to discover facts and information. It is not a useful tool to predict future events and has been wrong whenever so employed. While science may reveal bits of information, it is terrible at conclusion and prediction.
You are way off base here. One of the hallmarks in determining the veracity of a scientific theory is the ability to make accurate predictions. I'm sure you can find inflammatory media reports, and even find some scientific conclusions that have been way off base, but that is cherry picking.
Your opinion lacks substance and fact. Most scientific predictions turn out to be wrong or quickly made obsolete. The "experts" have one unifying code, they are wrong much more often than they are right.
By and large, the scientific method and resulting conclusions (theories) are the best method for understanding and predicting a given phenomenon. If you think there is a better method, I'd like to hear what it is.
Not at all. The scientific method is not even accurate when attempting to explain the past much less the future. It takes many, many, years for a scientific theory to withstand falsification and become accepted; much too slowly to predict the forward progress of man.

Your position reflects the core belief of socialism and communism in that there is one true path forward and we know what that is and you don't...dummy. :wink:

I would suggest a little research into the scientific method starting with the following reading list:
The Half-Life of Facts; why everything we know has an expiration date: Arbesman, Penguin Press

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Thomas Kuhn, Univ of Chicago Press

Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method; Bauer, Univ of Ill Press.
Also, I don't think we will truly run out of oil.
Now we can agree, but for different reasons.
As it becomes more scarce, it will become more expensive.
Your supply and demand argument is only valid if the quantity of production is known and the utility of the product does not change. We do not know what the world's true oil reserves may be. We only count proven reserves that can be extracted at market prices. If demand increases, more exploration and advanced methods of extraction will emerge. Fracking proved that simple fact; it was curtailed in order to prevent the price of oil from collapsing. Reduced oil prices would impose an hardship on those countries who depend on oil revenues for their economic survival; and so production is controlled to stabilize prices.
There will be a point where no one wants or needs to buy it, and that will happen before it is all gone.
In spite of political pressures to replace hydrocarbon energy sources, no other energy source has the energy density and utility as does oil and gas. Transportation energy needs are best served using hydrocarbon fuels and will be until new technology is developed, proven and accepted (a long process); no such technology is on the current horizon.

The world energy consumption thru 2040 is expected to increase by 28%, most all of which will be supplied by oil and gas.
For real facts and less bullshit, go to:
EIA.gov

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:05 am

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:08 am
Your opinion lacks substance and fact. Most scientific predictions turn out to be wrong or quickly made obsolete. The "experts" have one unifying code, they are wrong much more often than they are right.
That is a mis-characterization. The scientific method doesn't yield absolute proclamations. The conclusions are tentative and are the best explanations we have at any given moment, fitting all the evidence we've collected. I would assert that we know almost nothing in an absolute sense, but that doesn't in any way take away from the the utility and effectiveness of the theories and conclusions when it comes to furthering our understanding and helping us make informed decisions. You say "wrong" and "right". These are black and white terms. Was Newton wrong? Technically yes, but Newton's equations yield essentially the same results as Einstein's equations at the masses and velocities we deal with on a daily basis in earthly human existence. You're being obtuse.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:08 am
Not at all. The scientific method is not even accurate when attempting to explain the past much less the future. It takes many, many, years for a scientific theory to withstand falsification and become accepted; much too slowly to predict the forward progress of man.

I don't think I am suggesting it can predict the forward progress of man. It can allow us to understand what is most probably true about a given phenomenon.

Your position reflects the core belief of socialism and communism in that there is one true path forward and we know what that is and you don't...dummy. :wink:
Tell me David, what method is better for uncovering facts about the nature of reality? Science is the most demonstrably reliable method I have seen. If you've got something better, let's see it. I'm sure your Nobel prize will be waiting.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:08 am
Your supply and demand argument is only valid if the quantity of production is known and the utility of the product does not change. We do not know what the world's true oil reserves may be. We only count proven reserves that can be extracted at market prices. If demand increases, more exploration and advanced methods of extraction will emerge. Fracking proved that simple fact; it was curtailed in order to prevent the price of oil from collapsing. Reduced oil prices would impose an hardship on those countries who depend on oil revenues for their economic survival; and so production is controlled to stabilize prices.

In spite of political pressures to replace hydrocarbon energy sources, no other energy source has the energy density and utility as does oil and gas. Transportation energy needs are best served using hydrocarbon fuels and will be until new technology is developed, proven and accepted (a long process); no such technology is on the current horizon.

The world energy consumption thru 2040 is expected to increase by 28%, most all of which will be supplied by oil and gas.
I have no doubt that we will be using hydrocarbons for many decades. It is obvious that once our energy storage tech is sufficiently advanced, we will get our energy directly from the 1 million mile diameter nuclear reactor in the sky, and the burning of fossil fuels for energy will be as antiquated of a notion as using smoke signals to communicate.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by David Redszus » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm

The scientific method doesn't yield absolute proclamations. The conclusions are tentative and are the best explanations we have at any given moment, fitting all the evidence we've collected. I would assert that we know almost nothing in an absolute sense, but that doesn't in any way take away from the the utility and effectiveness of the theories and conclusions when it comes to furthering our understanding and helping us make informed decisions.
Science does not produce conclusions; it only seeks to disprove theories that have been advanced. In almost every scientific field, there is disagreement and difference of opinion regarding methods and findings. Conclusions and projections need not apply. I would agree that virtually all knowledge is relative and not absolute. Yet some seek to make use of science and pseudoscience to gain control of political power. Rational and scientific thought as a basis for political decisions have proved to fail almost inevitibly, and those facts are then concealed.
Not at all. The scientific method is not even accurate when attempting to explain the past much less the future. It takes many, many, years for a scientific theory to withstand falsification and become accepted; much too slowly to predict the forward progress of man.
I don't think I am suggesting it can predict the forward progress of man. It can allow us to understand what is most probably true about a given phenomenon.
Yes, I agree, as long as the application is kept very close to the scientific topic and not extended beyond. A change in CO2 does not indicated global warming nor climate change.
Your position reflects the core belief of socialism and communism in that there is one true path forward and we know what that is and you don't...dummy. :wink:
Tell me David, what method is better for uncovering facts about the nature of reality? Science is the most demonstrably reliable method I have seen. If you've got something better, let's see it. I'm sure your Nobel prize will be waiting.
While the scientific method sometimes works, it often does not. The nature of reality is a foolish concept since we cannot define or understand reality. We only get to see small snippets, like mosaic tiles, from which we attempt to visualize the entire picture. It cannot be done; hopefully each small piece of the puzzle gets us a tiny bit closer.
Hang on to that Nobel prize; since being awarded to Obuma, it has no value.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:08 am
Your supply and demand argument is only valid if the quantity of production is known and the utility of the product does not change. We do not know what the world's true oil reserves may be. We only count proven reserves that can be extracted at market prices. If demand increases, more exploration and advanced methods of extraction will emerge. Fracking proved that simple fact; it was curtailed in order to prevent the price of oil from collapsing. Reduced oil prices would impose an hardship on those countries who depend on oil revenues for their economic survival; and so production is controlled to stabilize prices.

In spite of political pressures to replace hydrocarbon energy sources, no other energy source has the energy density and utility as does oil and gas. Transportation energy needs are best served using hydrocarbon fuels and will be until new technology is developed, proven and accepted (a long process); no such technology is on the current horizon.

The world energy consumption thru 2040 is expected to increase by 28%, most all of which will be supplied by oil and gas.
I have no doubt that we will be using hydrocarbons for many decades. It is obvious that once our energy storage tech is sufficiently advanced, we will get our energy directly from the 1 million mile diameter nuclear reactor in the sky, and the burning of fossil fuels for energy will be as antiquated of a notion as using smoke signals to communicate.
Correction; many centuries, not decades. Our sun (diameter 865,000 miles) is the real source of energy on earth. Solar energy has been stored on earth in various forms for billions of years. Unless we consume energy more rapidly than the sun can produce it, we will have an adequate long term supply. The only issues are methods of conversion and storage.
Photosynthesis works very well, solar panels do not.

One problem to be solved is the proper distribution of energy based on best application. Burning oil to produce electrical power is foolish; nuclear should be used. Burning gas for heat makes much more sense than electrical heating, but not for cooling. Transportation needs are best served by oil not gas or electrical.

Rather than allowing the free market to allocate and distribute energy, political forces with their little axes to grind will interfere and often use pseudoscience as a justification for their wrong headed decisions.

Politics very often makes the inaccuracy of the scientific method much worse.

Over the past 150 years, the global average temperature has risen by only 0.8F degrees while CO2 has increased significantly. But the very slight temperature rise has preceded the CO2 rise. Meanwhile the earths human population has increased from one billion to seven billion. CO2 is not an actual greenhouse gas; but water vapor certainly is.

Climate science is in its infancy and there is NO universal agreement among scientists as to method or measure.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:42 am

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm

Science does not produce conclusions; it only seeks to disprove theories that have been advanced. In almost every scientific field, there is disagreement and difference of opinion regarding methods and findings. Conclusions and projections need not apply. I would agree that virtually all knowledge is relative and not absolute. Yet some seek to make use of science and pseudoscience to gain control of political power. Rational and scientific thought as a basis for political decisions have proved to fail almost inevitibly, and those facts are then concealed.
A scientific theory is an explanation for the facts observed. You could call it a type of conclusion. If you are trying to explain a given phenomenon, that explanation is what you have concluded to be correct, or most probably correct. Again, you're being obtuse.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
A change in CO2 does not indicated global warming nor climate change.
Demonstrably false (links provided later.)
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
While the scientific method sometimes works, it often does not. The nature of reality is a foolish concept since we cannot define or understand reality. We only get to see small snippets, like mosaic tiles, from which we attempt to visualize the entire picture. It cannot be done; hopefully each small piece of the puzzle gets us a tiny bit closer.
The nature of reality is what we are investigating any time we attempt to understand some physical process or phenomenon. Again, you're being obtuse and arguing semantics. Quit dodging the question. What process is better at distinguishing what is likely true from what is likely not true?
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Correction; many centuries, not decades.
Too bad neither of us will be around to see your prediction proven incorrect. I will assert that in my lifetime (I'm 42), we will see a massive shift away from fossil fuel use, across the board. I'll admit I am wrong if I end up being wrong.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Our sun (diameter 865,000 miles) is the real source of energy on earth. Solar energy has been stored on earth in various forms for billions of years. Unless we consume energy more rapidly than the sun can produce it, we will have an adequate long term supply. The only issues are methods of conversion and storage.
Photosynthesis works very well, solar panels do not.
I was rounding with regard to the sun's diameter. Again with the needless nit picky corrections that have no bearing on the discussion. You must be a hoot at parties. :roll:

I understand that the energy in all fuel sources on the planet has solar origins. Solar panels do not work very well at the moment. Tell me, have solar panel gotten more or less efficient in the past 50 years?
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
One problem to be solved is the proper distribution of energy based on best application. Burning oil to produce electrical power is foolish; nuclear should be used. Burning gas for heat makes much more sense than electrical heating, but not for cooling. Transportation needs are best served by oil not gas or electrical.
I agree with all of this based on the current state of our technology.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Rather than allowing the free market to allocate and distribute energy, political forces with their little axes to grind will interfere and often use pseudoscience as a justification for their wrong headed decisions.

Politics very often makes the inaccuracy of the scientific method much worse.
What the science says, and what politics "does" with the science are two different things. You generally won't find me advocating for radical government intervention.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Over the past 150 years, the global average temperature has risen by only 0.8F degrees while CO2 has increased significantly.
It's actually about 1.8 F in the last 100 years.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
But the very slight temperature rise has preceded the CO2 rise.
That kinda true, but that isn't the whole story. A more accurate statement is that co2 is an amplifier due to positive feedback.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1958

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
CO2 is not an actual greenhouse gas
Demonstrably false.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... effect.htm
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Climate science is in its infancy and there is NO universal agreement among scientists as to method or measure.
An absolute statement, that is again, demonstrably false.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... 7S3-3tKhEY

rebelrouser
Pro
Pro
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by rebelrouser » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:03 am

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:42 am
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm

Science does not produce conclusions; it only seeks to disprove theories that have been advanced. In almost every scientific field, there is disagreement and difference of opinion regarding methods and findings. Conclusions and projections need not apply. I would agree that virtually all knowledge is relative and not absolute. Yet some seek to make use of science and pseudoscience to gain control of political power. Rational and scientific thought as a basis for political decisions have proved to fail almost inevitibly, and those facts are then concealed.
A scientific theory is an explanation for the facts observed. You could call it a type of conclusion. If you are trying to explain a given phenomenon, that explanation is what you have concluded to be correct, or most probably correct. Again, you're being obtuse.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
A change in CO2 does not indicated global warming nor climate change.
Demonstrably false (links provided later.)
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
While the scientific method sometimes works, it often does not. The nature of reality is a foolish concept since we cannot define or understand reality. We only get to see small snippets, like mosaic tiles, from which we attempt to visualize the entire picture. It cannot be done; hopefully each small piece of the puzzle gets us a tiny bit closer.
The nature of reality is what we are investigating any time we attempt to understand some physical process or phenomenon. Again, you're being obtuse and arguing semantics. Quit dodging the question. What process is better at distinguishing what is likely true from what is likely not true?
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Correction; many centuries, not decades.
Too bad neither of us will be around to see your prediction proven incorrect. I will assert that in my lifetime (I'm 42), we will see a massive shift away from fossil fuel use, across the board. I'll admit I am wrong if I end up being wrong.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Our sun (diameter 865,000 miles) is the real source of energy on earth. Solar energy has been stored on earth in various forms for billions of years. Unless we consume energy more rapidly than the sun can produce it, we will have an adequate long term supply. The only issues are methods of conversion and storage.
Photosynthesis works very well, solar panels do not.
I was rounding with regard to the sun's diameter. Again with the needless nit picky corrections that have no bearing on the discussion. You must be a hoot at parties. :roll:

I understand that the energy in all fuel sources on the planet has solar origins. Solar panels do not work very well at the moment. Tell me, have solar panel gotten more or less efficient in the past 50 years?
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
One problem to be solved is the proper distribution of energy based on best application. Burning oil to produce electrical power is foolish; nuclear should be used. Burning gas for heat makes much more sense than electrical heating, but not for cooling. Transportation needs are best served by oil not gas or electrical.
I agree with all of this based on the current state of our technology.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Rather than allowing the free market to allocate and distribute energy, political forces with their little axes to grind will interfere and often use pseudoscience as a justification for their wrong headed decisions.

Politics very often makes the inaccuracy of the scientific method much worse.
What the science says, and what politics "does" with the science are two different things. You generally won't find me advocating for radical government intervention.
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Over the past 150 years, the global average temperature has risen by only 0.8F degrees while CO2 has increased significantly.
It's actually about 1.8 F in the last 100 years.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
But the very slight temperature rise has preceded the CO2 rise.
That kinda true, but that isn't the whole story. A more accurate statement is that co2 is an amplifier due to positive feedback.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1958

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
CO2 is not an actual greenhouse gas
Demonstrably false.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... effect.htm
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:37 pm
Climate science is in its infancy and there is NO universal agreement among scientists as to method or measure.
An absolute statement, that is again, demonstrably false.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... 7S3-3tKhEY
Several years ago I ate lunch with a climate scientist at the university of Columbia in Missouri, and a scientist who was working on bio diesel. We had a good talk about global warming. The climate scientist was an admitted republican, and he may have been pretty accurate in his predictions, he said climate change is real, facts back it up, but that we should focus on coping with the changes coming, as there is nothing the human race can do about it, we won't change our lifestyle, and we will never have the political will to act on an issue that would take decades to influence. Sad to say I am beginning to agree with him.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:20 am

rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:03 am


Several years ago I ate lunch with a climate scientist at the university of Columbia in Missouri, and a scientist who was working on bio diesel. We had a good talk about global warming. The climate scientist was an admitted republican, and he may have been pretty accurate in his predictions, he said climate change is real, facts back it up, but that we should focus on coping with the changes coming, as there is nothing the human race can do about it, we won't change our lifestyle, and we will never have the political will to act on an issue that would take decades to influence. Sad to say I am beginning to agree with him.
grudgingly, I admit that is likely the case, but I am a bit torn. I see a movement towards renewables that could really catch on if the tech advances at a sufficient pace. That being said, I'm not convinced that the amount of carbon we have in the air now (or a little bit more) is necessarily a bad thing. There have been some good cases made that the pre-industrial atmosphere was a bit "carbon starved". From what I've read, when you start to get above 800-1000 ppm is when the real S could hit the fan, and we could get into some kind of runaway effect.

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4575
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by Ken0069 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:08 pm

95percent.jpg
95percent.jpg (53.98 KiB) Viewed 247 times
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8169
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by pdq67 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:46 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Several years ago I ate lunch with a climate scientist at the university of Columbia in Missouri, and a scientist who was working on bio diesel. We had a good talk about global warming. The climate scientist was an admitted republican, and he may have been pretty accurate in his predictions, he said climate change is real, facts back it up, but that we should focus on coping with the changes coming, as there is nothing the human race can do about it, we won't change our lifestyle, and we will never have the political will to act on an issue that would take decades to influence. Sad to say I am beginning to agree with him.

I contacted Shumacher at UMC if I have the name right and asked him about what ester that make up bio-diesel has the lubricity property and he couldn't tell me.

I wanted to know because they add bio-diesel to de-sulfured diesel to put back some lubricity.

pdq67

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:54 am

pdq67 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:46 am
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Several years ago I ate lunch with a climate scientist at the university of Columbia in Missouri, and a scientist who was working on bio diesel. We had a good talk about global warming. The climate scientist was an admitted republican, and he may have been pretty accurate in his predictions, he said climate change is real, facts back it up, but that we should focus on coping with the changes coming, as there is nothing the human race can do about it, we won't change our lifestyle, and we will never have the political will to act on an issue that would take decades to influence. Sad to say I am beginning to agree with him.

I contacted Shumacher at UMC if I have the name right and asked him about what ester that make up bio-diesel has the lubricity property and he couldn't tell me.

I wanted to know because they add bio-diesel to de-sulfured diesel to put back some lubricity.

pdq67
And wasn't Mcain an admitted republican? And yes climate change is real, it is being engineered that way. Just like Kavanaughs sexiness is engineered.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by GRTfast » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:21 am

Ken0069 wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:08 pm
95percent.jpg
Yes, the vast majority of the world's scientists (our best and brightest people) are money hungry liars/conspirators with no integrity. :roll:

How can you be this stupid and operate a computer?

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by David Redszus » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:21 am
Ken0069 wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:08 pm
95percent.jpg
Yes, the vast majority of the world's scientists (our best and brightest people) are money hungry liars/conspirators with no integrity. :roll:

How can you be this stupid and operate a computer?
How can anyone be that gullible?

Let's get some facts straight.

Global warming and global cooling have existed in regular cycles for millions of years, long before man walked the planet. Over those years, the planet has experienced massive changes and continues to change.

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a greenhouse gas of significance. The earth's atmosphere once contained a much, much higher concentration of CO2 than it does now. Plants thrived on CO2 and warmth and so would humans.

CO2 is NOT a precursor to temperature rise. It is a trailing indicator not a leading indicator.

Ocean temperatures can only be measured at the surface in certain locations. Deep water temperatures take centuries to change simply based on the volume of water.

Real climatologists readily admit the climate change religion is a hoax. There is no consensus agreement among honest scientists.
Some scientists will say almost anything to obtain research funding. The same is true of college professors who need research grants to be able to hire graduate students to do their research. Research is a little dirty but necessary.

It is not possible to measure the Earth's actual surface temperature due to the erratic placement of measurement sensors. Satellite imaging, if properly employed will produce a much clear temperature picture but only of the surface.

Greenland snow pack is higher than ever measured before. The polar caps are colder than measured before. All the numbers oscillate considerably and always have done so.

Climate change is only a political religion for those who pray to the Great God Gore.

The bottom line is that man cannot and has not engineered the climate. Man is much too puny.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:57 pm

With the special nuclear power devices man could engineer the climate very fast in one day, yes destroy everything in the process but it is the most simple proof( for the engineering deniers) there is that yes man can engineer the climate.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

Post by David Redszus » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:07 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:57 pm
With the special nuclear power devices man could engineer the climate very fast in one day, yes destroy everything in the process but it is the most simple proof( for the engineering deniers) there is that yes man can engineer the climate.
Nonsense. Do the energy math. How much energy would it take to accomplish what?
How could you use "special nuclear power devices" to cool the earth?

The whole concept lacks an understanding of global scale.

And of thermodynamics.

Post Reply