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: 4216
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 7:40 pm

David Redszus wrote:
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.
Lets see how many country's have the big ones? US, Rooski's, China, NK, Israel, Iran, I guess you never heard about the nuclear winter caused by global thermonuclear war? Gosh even a few pimples on the face of the earth can change the climate. Pimples ----> Volcano's. Just use every aircraft that exists on this earth all loaded with that chemtrail crap or even very fine dust, and have them all fly at once for 24 hours a day 365 days dumping it, you would see a change. Thermodynamics? Just block the sun. Here you go more of that science stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
And David I respect you and feel your one of the most intelligent people there is on this site. So I will stop here on this thread. Pertaining to you. The democrats are open season.
A very good video to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzsM7H_L6Fk

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
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 8:29 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm

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.
Agreed, and I'm certainly not disputing that. The issue is the radically accelerated rate of change, and what we KNOW is causing it.
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
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.
Earlier, it wasn't a greenhouse gas. Now it's not a greenhouse gas "of significance". Which is it? What is your metric for making this determination? I already agreed with you that historically (on geologic time scales) that c02 usually lags the initial phase of a warming period. The part you are either purposefully or not purposefully ignoring that that once the co2 level begins to increase, the rate of warming increases because of a positive feedback effect, and most of the warming occurs after the c02 level increase kicks in.

In modern times, we are increasing co2 at a rate far beyond anything that's occurred naturally outside of a giant meteor strike or a super volcano eruption. Industrial age c02 level are not lagging temperature in a pattern anything like what naturally occurred in the past.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-t ... ediate.htm

from the link:

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase


Current levels of co2 rise are not the kind that naturally occur do to orbital cycles.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measur ... tainty.htm

We know what is causing the current radically increase rate of atmospheric co2 concentration.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-in ... caused.htm

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
Real climatologists readily admit the climate change religion is a hoax. There is no consensus agreement among honest scientists.
Are we just supposed to take your word for these wild ass assertions? Who gets to decide who the "real" or "honest" ones are?
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
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.
Again, a baseless assertion. What do you mean by "some"? The majority? You're asserting that the majority of scientists are liars and cheats, all for the sake of cash? What an astonishingly ignorant thing to say. Prove it. "Put up or shut up", as they say.
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
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.
What? #-o

Seriously though, you are still just making assertions with nothing to back them. On the other hand, we have these reports which seem to be in opposition to your claims, and that were written by experts in the field. I wonder who I should put my money on. Gee, it's a mystery.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201806

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:53 pm
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.
So the weather in some places is cold. In other news, my refrigerator is full. World hunger must be a myth.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4216
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 9:43 pm

This explains it so even GRT could understand it. This is done very well, yes real science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzsM7H_L6Fk

Its the D layer you have it all wrong GRT. You really need to see this video and learn weather control.
The scientific fellow in the video explains it for you it is the best I have seen.

And like I have said, your concern about the energy required is just like this example. You turn the key in your high powered car what happens a small amount of power is used to cause the cascading effect. The ignition switch sends the small amount of energy to the starter solenoid, that activates a more powerful system, that then activates the extremely powerful system say its a 1000 hp engine. So from that tiny amount of initial power used the amplification effect is huge. There is your energy system you are all so concerned about. A simple example and yeah I know what the comments about it will be, just watch the video argue with that.
In the example you are kicking up a more powerful system by knowing how to kick it.
I've mentioned this about the nuke things as well and the small power needed to get it running.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
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 10:24 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:43 pm
This explains it so even GRT could understand it. This is done very well, yes real science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzsM7H_L6Fk

Its the D layer you have it all wrong GRT. You really need to see this video and learn weather control.
The scientific fellow in the video explains it for you it is the best I have seen.

And like I have said, your concern about the energy required is just like this example. You turn the key in your high powered car what happens a small amount of power is used to cause the cascading effect. The ignition switch sends the small amount of energy to the starter solenoid, that activates a more powerful system, that then activates the extremely powerful system say its a 1000 hp engine. So from that tiny amount of initial power used the amplification effect is huge. There is your energy system you are all so concerned about. A simple example and yeah I know what the comments about it will be, just watch the video argue with that.
In the example you are kicking up a more powerful system by knowing how to kick it.
I've mentioned this about the nuke things as well and the small power needed to get it running.
Thanks for that!! The comments are f**king hilarious! =D>

Otherwise, it’s a bunch of pseudoscience garbage, and you’re a totally retarded goober for believing it.

Here’s a photo “they” snapped of you watching the video.
Attachments
D4B32A3B-4769-48A1-8E90-B2F9DD026717.jpeg
D4B32A3B-4769-48A1-8E90-B2F9DD026717.jpeg (43.45 KiB) Viewed 276 times

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4567
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 » Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:32 pm

Image

Image
Dr. Roy Spencer, PHD wrote:Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.
"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!

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

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

Post by GRTfast » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:33 am

Ken0069 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:32 pm
Image

Image
Dr. Roy Spencer, PHD wrote:Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.
Attachments
820ACFA7-327F-4956-854F-AF762EA492FC.jpeg
820ACFA7-327F-4956-854F-AF762EA492FC.jpeg (24.82 KiB) Viewed 264 times

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

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

Post by exhaustgases » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:53 pm

I like GRT's latest selfy, good pose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was sure a good video proving the Marxist climate lies. It shows you uneducated ones how it is done. Yes a fabrication for the simple minds to BELIEVE. OBUM SAID YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. And you do.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

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

Post by GRTfast » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:41 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:53 pm
I like GRT's latest selfy, good pose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was sure a good video proving the Marxist climate lies. It shows you uneducated ones how it is done. Yes a fabrication for the simple minds to BELIEVE. OBUM SAID YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. And you do.
You're a liar, and an uneducated moron who vastly over estimates his own intellect. Everyone sees it. Even here in this Trump supporter echo chamber, you barely get any agreement or support.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

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

Post by exhaustgases » Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:59 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:41 am
exhaustgases wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:53 pm
I like GRT's latest selfy, good pose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was sure a good video proving the Marxist climate lies. It shows you uneducated ones how it is done. Yes a fabrication for the simple minds to BELIEVE. OBUM SAID YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. And you do.
You're a liar, and an uneducated moron who vastly over estimates his own intellect. Everyone sees it. Even here in this Trump supporter echo chamber, you barely get any agreement or support.
Everyone? you mean all you Marxist idiots right? Its sure not the majority that calls you an idiot.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

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

Post by GRTfast » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:06 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:59 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:41 am
exhaustgases wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:53 pm
I like GRT's latest selfy, good pose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That was sure a good video proving the Marxist climate lies. It shows you uneducated ones how it is done. Yes a fabrication for the simple minds to BELIEVE. OBUM SAID YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. And you do.
You're a liar, and an uneducated moron who vastly over estimates his own intellect. Everyone sees it. Even here in this Trump supporter echo chamber, you barely get any agreement or support.
Everyone? you mean all you Marxist idiots right? Its sure not the majority that calls you an idiot.
I would actually pay to have a professionally moderated debate with you on the topic of your choosing.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

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

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:48 pm

I can't talk retard language I'd have a difficult time.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

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

Post by 86_regal » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:23 pm
86_regal wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:09 pm
GRTfast wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:06 pm


It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind. I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.
I’m no fan of Trump sycophants, in fact, I’m not a fan of sycophants in general. I suspect those who DO have a blind allegiance to Trump, would have NO PROBLEM with
with this report since it WAS reported by Trump’s Administration.

To your second point. Thank you, I appreciate your approval in not having to accept this data at face value... :roll:

Did you really just suggest that with a sufficient understanding and access to the data and the methods, you can replicate the results yourself???

A statement like this makes it hard to know where to start asking questions...

How do you know the data is accurate? How do we know the methods aren’t flawed? How can we possibly know our understanding is “sufficient”?

Let’s for a moment concede all of the above is “spot on”. This data DOES NOT EVEN quantify how much of this warming is borne out by “man made” use of fossil fuels...

That said, IF one were to use THEIR DATA, THEIR METHODS and THEIR EXPLANATION of what is deemed as a “sufficient understanding” IS BY DEFINITION accepting this “report” at face value. Some might even go so far as to ascribe this “acceptance” as sycophantic...

To be clear, I don’t view this as a conspiracy AT ALL. We know not EVERYONE IN the “scientific community” is in agreement on this matter. I have a much deeper question...

WHO EXACTLY is it that DEFINES who is part of this “scientific community”? How can we be sure those on the other side of this issue weren’t discredited into obscurity never having gotten an opportunity into this community?

I have no doubt many in this “community” are honest and well intentioned people. Certainly you’re aware of the pshycological hurdles of cognitive dissonance and biases inhibiting the ability to “unsee” what we’ve learned.

For the record, rejecting opposing points of view by ascribing them as ludicrous does nothing to refute their veracity.
Veracity is tied directly to evidence in my view. If a scientific approach isn’t the best, most reliable method to determining what is true, what method would you propose we use in its place?

Another question: How verses are you on the topic? I ask because there are methods for determining how much impact humans have had.

I will address the rest of your post in another reply.
Evidence of what? What IS the evidence (information that is irrefutable to ALL, without the need of a Phd in Climatology, meteorology, geology etc.) that undisputably PROVES the existence of climate change? You can't SEE IT or FEEL or utilize any of the other senses to CONFIRM its existence. The ONLY "evidence" available is what OTHERS have TOLD us. The fact there are other, albeit far less prominent, counterarguments of climate change is "evidence" enough that this "science" is NOT settled.
I am likely not as "well versed" as you. I do understand the bullet point assertions. My question is, how could you possibly KNOW the models, processes AND any of the collected data used is/are accurate?

As I've stated previously, a more than 90% of those in the science "community" are funded by the Federal Government. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of those in that "community". It would take an act of willful ignorance NOT to see the motives of those in the political sphere. On that basis along with the policy proposals which will have a MORE PROFOUND impact on our ALL of our lives than the "potential impact" if we do nothing, IT IS prudent to remain skeptical AND not only ask more questions, but ALSO to receive "answers" from OTHER sources...

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

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

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:47 pm

86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm

Evidence of what? What IS the evidence (information that is irrefutable to ALL, without the need of a Phd in Climatology, meteorology, geology etc.) that undisputably PROVES the existence of climate change? You can't SEE IT or FEEL or utilize any of the other senses to CONFIRM its existence. The ONLY "evidence" available is what OTHERS have TOLD us. The fact there are other, albeit far less prominent, counterarguments of climate change is "evidence" enough that this "science" is NOT settled.
I am likely not as "well versed" as you. I do understand the bullet point assertions. My question is, how could you possibly KNOW the models, processes AND any of the collected data used is/are accurate?
Ignorance isn't a valid argument against the evidence, processes, or conclusions. What you're saying is akin to saying "calculus don't make no sense 'cuz math ain't got letters in it!". #-o

You are talking about thousands upon thousands of people's professions.. their life's work. It's not like you've gone out there, educated yourself to a high level, observed everything, and shown how it's all BS. You're basically saying "I'm not up to speed with the evidence, methods, and results, so I don't believe it". In order to do that, you have to rationalize the idea that the world's best and brightest, most rigorous and disciplined minds are all lying for cash, and all somehow continually successful at pulling off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind. It's ludicrous.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm
As I've stated previously, a more than 90% of those in the science "community" are funded by the Federal Government. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of those in that "community". It would take an act of willful ignorance NOT to see the motives of those in the political sphere. On that basis along with the policy proposals which will have a MORE PROFOUND impact on our ALL of our lives than the "potential impact" if we do nothing, IT IS prudent to remain skeptical AND not only ask more questions, but ALSO to receive "answers" from OTHER sources...
The scientists by and large are not "in the political sphere". People don't become scientists (or engineers) to get rich. If you think they do, you are grossly misinformed.

Tell me Mr "not very well versed", how do you know what the severity will be if we do nothing? How do you weigh the impact of doing nothing vs the impact of doing something sensible when you admittedly don't understand the details of the topic?

If you built an engine for someone, and they came to you with it making some kind of noise, and you told them they need to tear it apart and do a full rebuild before they catastrophically fail a bunch of large expensive components, would they be justified in continuing to operate because they don't understand what is going on inside and engine, and they can't afford to pull it down at that moment? Would that be a smart decision on their part in the long run?
Last edited by GRTfast on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

GRTfast
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1337
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

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

Post by GRTfast » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:49 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:48 pm
I can't talk retard language I'd have a difficult time.
Oh the irony of that statement. :lol:

You're a lulz factory. The gift that keeps on giving the whole year 'round.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

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

Post by 86_regal » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:30 pm

GRTfast wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:47 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm

Evidence of what? What IS the evidence (information that is irrefutable to ALL, without the need of a Phd in Climatology, meteorology, geology etc.) that undisputably PROVES the existence of climate change? You can't SEE IT or FEEL or utilize any of the other senses to CONFIRM its existence. The ONLY "evidence" available is what OTHERS have TOLD us. The fact there are other, albeit far less prominent, counterarguments of climate change is "evidence" enough that this "science" is NOT settled.
I am likely not as "well versed" as you. I do understand the bullet point assertions. My question is, how could you possibly KNOW the models, processes AND any of the collected data used is/are accurate?
Ignorance isn't a valid argument against the evidence, processes, or conclusions. You are talking about thousands upon thousands of people's professions. It's not like you've gone out there, educated yourself to a high level, observed everything, and shown how it's all BS. You're basically saying "I'm not up to speed with the evidence, methods, and results, so I don't believe it". In order to do that, you have to rationalize the idea that the world's best and brightest, most rigorous and disciplined minds are all lying for cash.
86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm
As I've stated previously, a more than 90% of those in the science "community" are funded by the Federal Government. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of those in that "community". It would take an act of willful ignorance NOT to see the motives of those in the political sphere. On that basis along with the policy proposals which will have a MORE PROFOUND impact on our ALL of our lives than the "potential impact" if we do nothing, IT IS prudent to remain skeptical AND not only ask more questions, but ALSO to receive "answers" from OTHER sources...
The scientists by and large are not "in the political sphere". People don't become scientists (or engineers) to get rich. If you think they do, you are grossly misinformed.

Tell me Mr "not very well versed", how do you know what the severity will be if we do nothing? How do you weigh the impact of doing nothing vs the impact of doing something sensible when you admittedly don't understand the details of the topic?

If you built an engine for someone, and they came to you with it making some kind of noise, and you told them they need to tear it apart and do a full rebuild before they catastrophically fail a bunch of large expensive components, would they be justified in continuing to operate because they don't understand what is going on inside and engine, and they can't afford to pull it down at that moment? Would that be a smart decision on their part in the long run?
You respond with my query of the existence of this "evidence" with "ignorance is NOT a valid argument against evidence???

I'm ASKING YOU for PROOF of the veracity of the evidence!!! How am I being ignorant of it???

Even IF I were being IGNORANT, Asserting that position as such isn't evidence EITHER. It ONLY serves to disparage my position whilst dodging YOUR responsibility to ANSWER the question!

Also, thousands and thousands of people's lives work isn't EVIDENCE either. AND why exactly is it that I AM REQUIRED to do my own research to PERSONALLY DEBUNK this "evidence"?
Because I don't want to see people murdered, is it MY responsibility to stop ALL MURDER???

Stop continuing to mischaracterize my position by suggesting I'm ascribing nefarious motives to scientists!!! ~40~50 years ago a majority in the science community, EVERY ONE of which may have been as honest as nuns were asserting the "real" concerns
of "global cooling". Should we have been deferential to those in the science community then?

Certainly, science and technology has made exponential advancements since then. That's NOT a reason to BLINDLY accept the "evidence" of change.

Im sure Scientists and Engineers aren't trying to get rich, are you? I'm not... I'm sure interested in retaining employment..
I'm also sure they're not interested in doing WHAT they're doing for free...

How do I know what the severity will be if we do nothing? I don't. Asking ME obfuscates the fact that YOU DONT EITHER!!!

I am NOT a DENIER, I am skeptical and simply ASKING MORE QUESTIONS. I am interested in CORROBORATION from other NON-government funded entities. THATS IT, nothing more & nothing less...

If I built this engine you speak of that a customer is complaining is now making some kind of noise. I would attempt to remedy the problem by identifying it using the EASIEST and simplest solutions possible. I wouldn't just rip the engine out of the car and scatter the parts across my garage. AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T make pay my customer pay for doing so without EMPERICAL JUSTIFICATION for it...

Post Reply