Remember me
▼ Content

President Trump and climate change policy



Page 1 of 3123>
President Trump and climate change policy15-11-2016 22:21
JackCapp
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Hi Everyone,
New to the forum. I've been grappling with the ramifications of Trump's victory in last week's election as it relates to climate change. Obviously, it looks bleak in the first assessment. But as I thought about it more, I began to think that perhaps President Trump presents an opportunity. Would like some feedback.

Anyway, here's my line of thought – the primary obstacle to worthwhile climate change action in the US is the partisan nature of the debate. If Secretary Clinton had been elected President, the partisan framework would remain in place and she'd be limited to executive orders, just as President Obama was. As a result, we would take baby steps, but sweeping government action would remain out of reach.

But if Mr. Trump can be convinced that government action on climate change is worthwhile, then the entire nature of the debate is reframed. Despite whatever else you think of him, one thing he CAN DO successfully is persuade traditionally conservative voters to go against Republican orthodoxy. The conservative electorate was never going to listen to President Obama or a would-be-President Clinton regarding climate policy. But they WILL listen to Donald Trump.

Furthermore, I see no reason why Trump can't be swayed to take climate action. Certainly, he tossed around climate change denial in the campaign, but he also said the Bible was his favorite book. I think he said whatever he needed to say to secure the Republican base, but I don't think he has strong feelings on it one way or the other and he has no qualms about reversing himself on an issue. Also, I believe he craves acceptance throughout the electorate as a whole, and I think he'd relish the improved standing in the Northeast (his home) and California (coastal states he lost to Hillary) that would come with taking a positive attitude toward climate policy. If successful, he could someday be seen in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt – a brash, tough-talking New York Republican whose enduring legacy is protection of the environment through the National Parks (and it got him immortalized on Mount Rushmore).

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it would allow him to go to war with the Republican establishment with whom he is already hostile. I'm sure he'd love to beat the Koch Brothers at their own game. And I think he could win it. All he has to say is "I had my top people look into it and climate change is real and I'm the only one that can fix it". Republican base voters would love it for no other reason than Paul Ryan would hate it. His agenda could include infrastructure investments in solar/wind/green technologies in the Rust Belt states that comprise his base, boosting the economies of those states and the nation as a whole and creating a whole new job market for the displaced coal/oil/gas workers. He'd boost the economy, gain the respect of other world leaders, and be able to claim that he was the single most consequential elected leader in US history with respect to climate change action. He'd lose support from hardcore climate change deniers, but I don't think he'd lose the core Trump voters, and he'd pick up support from traditional Democrats for whom the environment is paramount.

Thoughts?
15-11-2016 23:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I think it's possible. Trump is a narcissist and craves praise and will do and say anything to get it. I suspect he didn't actually want the job of POTUS or expect to win, he just wanted the attention and publicity of running. When he lost the election he could then set up his Trump cable network and kick it off with conspiracies about how the election was 'rigged' and keep using Hillary "lock her up!" rallying cries. Now that he actually has the job, all bets are off.

As recently as 2009 he and his children signed a letter supporting addressing climate change:
http://time.com/4362393/donald-trump-supported-addressing-climate-change-before-calling-it-a-hoax/

(Same thing with supposedly being 'pro-life'. It was just another rallying cry to win over religious conservatives)

You'd have to get rid of Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway being in his ear all time as they are minions of hedgefund billionaire Robert Mercer. Trump campaigned on 'draining the swamp' but he'll just refill it with his own 'swamp'.

Trump listens to those he trusts and sees as loyal -like his children Ivanka, Don Jnr and Eric. They could have more sway than Bob Mercer's stooges.



Edited on 15-11-2016 23:38
16-11-2016 14:22
JackCapp
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Thanks for the feedback. Conway is a traditional conservative operative, so I agree with you that she's a dead-end, and also agree that his kids (Ivanka most of all) would be the best avenue to get his attention on this.

But I think even Bannon and the alt-right movement he comes from could be convinced of the need for climate action by playing to their bigotry. The issue that motivates them most is immigration and its effect on America's social and ethnic composition. If the worst consequences of climate change come to bear, huge regions of the third world will become inhabitable. When that happens, people will be streaming out of the Middle East, Africa, and Central/South America to the US and Europe looking for a place to live. So if that's something the alt-right people want to avoid, then taking active measures to fight climate change should be on their agenda.
16-11-2016 14:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
JackCapp wrote: I've been grappling with the ramifications of Trump's victory in last week's election as it relates to climate change. Obviously, it looks bleak in the first assessment.

"Bleak" is not the correct word. "Bright" is more appropriate.

JackCapp wrote: Anyway, here's my line of thought – the primary obstacle to worthwhile climate change action in the US is the partisan nature of the debate.

The primary obstacle is that there is absolutely no science involved in the Global Warming religion. Proposing "action" to address WACKY forces of a religious dogma isn't likely to gain traction, although it is very likely to generate a congregation among the gullible in the electorate.

JackCapp wrote: But if Mr. Trump can be convinced that government action on climate change is worthwhile, then the entire nature of the debate is reframed.

However, since Trump recognizes the scam, he's not likely to be convinced that it is "worthwhile."

Like I said, things are looking very positive on this front.

JackCapp wrote: Despite whatever else you think of him, one thing he CAN DO successfully is persuade traditionally conservative voters to go against Republican orthodoxy.

Yes he can. However, talking about what he WILL DO involves recognizing that the entire "Climate" family of religions is driven by a Marxist hatred for capitalism and for any and all drivers of a healthy economy. Trump WILL kick all of that to the curb and will allow the economy to flourish and for America to become great again. Yes, he will weed out as much Marxism as possible that stands in the way of a thriving economy. Many regulations will be tossed. Taxes and fees will be lowered. "Climate Change" will be relegated to its various churches to privately take responsibility for its care. The government will be getting out of the Global Warming business.

JackCapp wrote: Furthermore, I see no reason why Trump can't be swayed to take climate action.

Well, then read the above.

JackCapp wrote: Finally, and maybe most importantly, it would allow him to go to war with the Republican establishment with whom he is already hostile.

Trump is not looking to go to war with the Republican-controlled Congress. Trump is looking forward to working with them because only Congress can enact the changes he wants/promised. The Republican-controlled Congress isn't big on anything having to do with "climate."

JackCapp wrote: Republican base voters would love it for no other reason than Paul Ryan would hate it.

You are obviously NOT plugged into what Republican base voters would love or hate.

JackCapp wrote: ... but I don't think he'd lose the core Trump voters, and he'd pick up support from traditional Democrats for whom the environment is paramount.

False. There are no "core" Trump voters and he can easily lose his existing support by deviating from what his supporters want. Secondly, Democrat voters are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the Democrat Party. They will nit-pick and criticize everything Donald Trump does from here on out ... until he reverts back to being a Democrat. Donald Trump could champion sweeping "climate change," LGBT rights, national pot legalization, free college education for everyone and national welfare reform ... and Democrats will demonize him and riot in the streets over a comment he made about women decades ago. No rationalization is too petty or too lame for Democrats to use to vilify someone of a different party.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-11-2016 21:36
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
JackCapp wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Conway is a traditional conservative operative, so I agree with you that she's a dead-end, and also agree that his kids (Ivanka most of all) would be the best avenue to get his attention on this.

But I think even Bannon and the alt-right movement he comes from could be convinced of the need for climate action by playing to their bigotry. The issue that motivates them most is immigration and its effect on America's social and ethnic composition. If the worst consequences of climate change come to bear, huge regions of the third world will become inhabitable. When that happens, people will be streaming out of the Middle East, Africa, and Central/South America to the US and Europe looking for a place to live. So if that's something the alt-right people want to avoid, then taking active measures to fight climate change should be on their agenda.

Conway and Bannon and now Robert Mercer's daughter Rebekah Mercer join Trump's quagmire:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/291772-billionaire-father-and-daughter-linked-to-trump-shakeup

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer-donald-trump-donor.html?_r=0

Then there's his son-in-law Jared Kushner:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer-donald-trump-donor.html?_r=0

I've also heard that Trump is considering nominating Ted Cruz for Supreme Court justice. Cruz - who sources faked graphs from crackpot conspiracy blogger "Steve Goddard" aka Tony Heller for his "Data or Dogma" hearing:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html



Edited on 16-11-2016 21:37
16-11-2016 22:22
JackCapp
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
HEY NOW! I see I've made the resident troll anxious enough after only 2 posts to do a 2003-era style quote-and-response rebuttal.

Over 2600 posts in a little over 2 years on this forum for the troll. That means:

-it has absolutely NO LIFE WHATSOEVER, or,
-it's a paid shill from the fossil-fuel lobby.

Either way, I'm just going to ignore it's hysterical ranting ("Marxist hatred of capitalism".... holy cow, too funny!) and attempts to derail productive discussion from here on in, as I'm sure the other sane adults do.

Hey Troll - go have another plate of microwave pizza rolls and take a few deep breaths.

<MIC DROP>
17-11-2016 00:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
JackCapp wrote:Either way, I'm just going to ignore it's hysterical ranting ("Marxist hatred of capitalism".... holy cow, too funny!) and attempts to derail productive discussion from here on in, as I'm sure the other sane adults do.

It wasn't the response you needed desperately to hear. Oops. Sorry about that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2016 08:08
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
JackCapp wrote:
HEY NOW! I see I've made the resident troll anxious enough after only 2 posts to do a 2003-era style quote-and-response rebuttal.

Over 2600 posts in a little over 2 years on this forum for the troll. That means:

-it has absolutely NO LIFE WHATSOEVER, or,
-it's a paid shill from the fossil-fuel lobby.

Either way, I'm just going to ignore it's hysterical ranting ("Marxist hatred of capitalism".... holy cow, too funny!) and attempts to derail productive discussion from here on in, as I'm sure the other sane adults do.

Hey Troll - go have another plate of microwave pizza rolls and take a few deep breaths.

<MIC DROP>

Go with option 1. He's way too over the top crazy for anyone to pay him to make such a fool of himself. Unless you want to waste your time playing tedious games with an anti-science crackpot who doesn't understand or accept basic physics and exhibits sociopathic behaviour, probably a good choice to ignore him (and his little parrot buddy).

The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.



Edited on 17-11-2016 08:09
17-11-2016 20:07
JackCapp
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Ceist wrote:
The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.


Moderated or not, they're ubiquitous... half-wits trying to convince themselves of their own greatness from their mommy's basements is the hallmark of the social media age.
21-11-2016 20:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
JackCapp wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.


Moderated or not, they're ubiquitous... half-wits trying to convince themselves of their own greatness from their mommy's basements is the hallmark of the social media age.

Science bothers you that much, eh?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 00:15
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
I think Trump is a fine statistician, a supporter of the null hypothesis, if it ain't proved then it ain't true. End of story really, if you wish to claim something extraordinary then go for it. A few silly plots from wood for trees (when you don't understand the assumptions underlying the model fitting) is laughable. Those of you who support the Rev Tom Bayes who may (unlike Tommy supporters) like to allow informative priors from the likes of Travesty Trenberth or Prof Jones et al and don't quite understand what informative really implies (or contrary) really need to read up on the scientific process. I'm sorry if this sounds cruel but someone really has to tell you how science really works.
23-11-2016 10:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
KKING wrote:
... if it ain't proved then it ain't true.

You seem to be confusing science with law or math.
Edited on 23-11-2016 10:56
23-11-2016 13:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
KKING wrote:
... if it ain't proved then it ain't true.

You seem to be confusing science with law or math.

You can't really make that kind of assessment until you learn what science is, and you aren't going to be successful in that endeavor until you stop denying science that happens to reveal the bogus nature of your WACKY religious dogma.

I'm willing to work with you as soon as you make that personal decision to accept science, regardless of how hurtful it might be.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 13:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
KKING wrote: I think Trump is a fine statistician, a supporter of the null hypothesis, if it ain't proved then it ain't true. End of story really, if you wish to claim something extraordinary then go for it.

Coal is a proven cheap, reliable and plentiful energy source.

Bring back coal with a vengeance!

Nuclear is the truth, the light and the way!

Drill, baby, drill! Drill, baby, drill!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 15:50
JackCapp
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
I see President-elect Trump is already backing down on all his core campaign positions! It might be even easier to get him committed to addressing climate change than I thought when I wrote my first post. Either way, if it's not him, it's just a matter of time. I can tell the trolls are insecure about it, which is why they bumped the tread after 4 days of inactivity. You guys must not play much poker. Betrayed by your own insecurities! Psychology 101!
23-11-2016 16:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
JackCapp wrote:
I see President-elect Trump is already backing down on all his core campaign positions! It might be even easier to get him committed to addressing climate change than I thought when I wrote my first post. Either way, if it's not him, it's just a matter of time. I can tell the trolls are insecure about it, which is why they bumped the tread after 4 days of inactivity. You guys must not play much poker. Betrayed by your own insecurities! Psychology 101!

I wish I shared your optimism. Unfortunately, Trump's appointments so far would appear to indicate that he is completely serious about defunding US research into climate change and sustainable energy sources. His approach appears to be as promised: pander to the fossil fuel industries and damn the consequences.
23-11-2016 18:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: I wish I shared your optimism. Unfortunately, Trump's appointments so far would appear to indicate that he is completely serious about defunding US research into climate change and sustainable energy sources.

That is optimism! End the waste!

Surface Detail wrote: His approach appears to be as promised: pander to the fossil fuel industries and damn the consequences.

If we go by what you have been able to express, there aren't any "consequences" whatsoever.

Give us cheap, plentiful energy!

Bring on more coal! Dig, baby, dig!

Bring on petroleum! Drill, baby, drill!

Bring on nuclear! Fission, baby, fission!

... as for funding research ... let's get serious about delving into fusion!

Bring it on, baby, bring it all on!



.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 18:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
JackCapp wrote:I see President-elect Trump is already backing down on all his core campaign positions! It might be even easier to get him committed to addressing climate change than I thought when I wrote my first post. Either way, if it's not him, it's just a matter of time. I can tell the trolls are insecure about it, which is why they bumped the tread after 4 days of inactivity. You guys must not play much poker. Betrayed by your own insecurities! Psychology 101!

I'm calling your bluff.

Global Warming is a dying religion. Our children will find other religions to occupy their time. Your desperation is obvious and you don't realize how you give yourself away. I'd love to play poker with you. I'll take whatever money you want to hand over.



Bring it on, baby, bring it on!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Surface Detail wrote:
JackCapp wrote:
I see President-elect Trump is already backing down on all his core campaign positions! It might be even easier to get him committed to addressing climate change than I thought when I wrote my first post. Either way, if it's not him, it's just a matter of time. I can tell the trolls are insecure about it, which is why they bumped the tread after 4 days of inactivity. You guys must not play much poker. Betrayed by your own insecurities! Psychology 101!

I wish I shared your optimism. Unfortunately, Trump's appointments so far would appear to indicate that he is completely serious about defunding US research into climate change and sustainable energy sources. His approach appears to be as promised: pander to the fossil fuel industries and damn the consequences.


Fossils don't burn.

I would rather use coal, oil, hydro, and nuclear.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2016 19:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:I would rather use coal, oil, hydro, and nuclear.

Yes, and hydro as well. Thank you. I keep forgetting that one. Go Hoover Dam!




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-11-2016 15:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
JackCapp wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.


Moderated or not, they're ubiquitous... half-wits trying to convince themselves of their own greatness from their mommy's basements is the hallmark of the social media age.


Hi,

As somebody who I hope you will come to understand as not a nut or attack dog please bear with me as I ask you some questions;

1; Given that Greenland has over 1m of snowfall (water equivalent) and a less than 4 week melting period oveer the central ice sheet it would need an out flow during this period of 45 Mississippis to break even. It does not have this outflow. It has maybe 1 Mississippi's worth at most. Thus it must be gaining ice not losing ice.

You will find lots of scientific papers which talk of it losing ice. This is based on the results of interpreting the data of the path of passing satilites. About as good a method of measuring the ice mass on Greenland as using the data from a passing police car's camera to see how fast your children are growing.

2; The Donald (who I see as an idiot) is at least able to read a balance sheet. he is at least basically numerate. How do you propose to convince him that action is needed?

I ask as my view is that there has not been any reasonably likely scientifically argued scenario which shows anything that causes me to worry.
25-11-2016 02:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
JackCapp wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.


Moderated or not, they're ubiquitous... half-wits trying to convince themselves of their own greatness from their mommy's basements is the hallmark of the social media age.


Hi,

As somebody who I hope you will come to understand as not a nut or attack dog please bear with me as I ask you some questions;

1; Given that Greenland has over 1m of snowfall (water equivalent) and a less than 4 week melting period oveer the central ice sheet it would need an out flow during this period of 45 Mississippis to break even. It does not have this outflow. It has maybe 1 Mississippi's worth at most. Thus it must be gaining ice not losing ice.

You will find lots of scientific papers which talk of it losing ice. This is based on the results of interpreting the data of the path of passing satilites. About as good a method of measuring the ice mass on Greenland as using the data from a passing police car's camera to see how fast your children are growing.

2; The Donald (who I see as an idiot) is at least able to read a balance sheet. he is at least basically numerate. How do you propose to convince him that action is needed?

I ask as my view is that there has not been any reasonably likely scientifically argued scenario which shows anything that causes me to worry.

The problem, Tim, is that your figures are entirely unsupported by any evidence. Evidence is paramount for science, so give us a reference or calculation to support your claims of 1 and 45 Mississippis. Unless you can do so, your claims are scientifically worthless.
25-11-2016 03:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Evidence is paramount for science,....

Evidence (e.g. signs, omens, artifacte, folklore, etc..) is paramount to religion, which is what you have been indoctrinated to BELIEVE is science. You have never been able to distinguish between science and religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-11-2016 12:15
spot
★★★☆☆
(939)
Evidence (e.g. signs, omens, artifacte, folklore, etc..) is paramount to religion,


Is that what you say to the judge when your being asked for child maintenance?
25-11-2016 14:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
JackCapp wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The forum is almost completely unmoderated by it's mostly absent owner and has become a haven for anti-science conspiracy nutters.


Moderated or not, they're ubiquitous... half-wits trying to convince themselves of their own greatness from their mommy's basements is the hallmark of the social media age.


Hi,

As somebody who I hope you will come to understand as not a nut or attack dog please bear with me as I ask you some questions;

1; Given that Greenland has over 1m of snowfall (water equivalent) and a less than 4 week melting period oveer the central ice sheet it would need an out flow during this period of 45 Mississippis to break even. It does not have this outflow. It has maybe 1 Mississippi's worth at most. Thus it must be gaining ice not losing ice.

You will find lots of scientific papers which talk of it losing ice. This is based on the results of interpreting the data of the path of passing satilites. About as good a method of measuring the ice mass on Greenland as using the data from a passing police car's camera to see how fast your children are growing.

2; The Donald (who I see as an idiot) is at least able to read a balance sheet. he is at least basically numerate. How do you propose to convince him that action is needed?

I ask as my view is that there has not been any reasonably likely scientifically argued scenario which shows anything that causes me to worry.

The problem, Tim, is that your figures are entirely unsupported by any evidence. Evidence is paramount for science, so give us a reference or calculation to support your claims of 1 and 45 Mississippis. Unless you can do so, your claims are scientifically worthless.


http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisCCode=GRL

This site is showing about 600mm/yr .

So that's 600mm x 1.71 million km = 1.26 thousand cubic km

Flow rate of Mississippi https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZUE4WMWBD6zA8geXmZqQDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=flow+rate+of+Mississippi

16,790 m3/s which is 46 cubic kilometers a month.

Thus in it's one month (I'm being very generous here) melting season you would have to have 27 Mississippis coming off the ice sheet to break even.

The last figure I had for the snowfall was higher but the same thing applies.

Edited on 25-11-2016 14:57
25-11-2016 16:19
spot
★★★☆☆
(939)
Tim I know your not addressing me if that were true you wouldn't you need at least 27 the amount of precipitation in Greenland then the Mississippi basin.

Much more in fact because the Mississippi basin is larger and the area is warmer so more of the water that falls in that area evaporates.

Have a look at the precipitation rates for the Mississippi basin on the site you linked they aren't different enough to justify your conclusions.

I see what your trying to do, bypass possibly biased reports and get to the truth of the matter but think if what your saying makes sense before you post.
25-11-2016 17:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
spot wrote:
Tim I know your not addressing me if that were true you wouldn't you need at least 27 the amount of precipitation in Greenland then the Mississippi basin.

Much more in fact because the Mississippi basin is larger and the area is warmer so more of the water that falls in that area evaporates.

Have a look at the precipitation rates for the Mississippi basin on the site you linked they aren't different enough to justify your conclusions.

I see what your trying to do, bypass possibly biased reports and get to the truth of the matter but think if what your saying makes sense before you post.


The Mississippi drains a very large area of mostly dry-ish land.

The much more important factor is the continious nature of the flow of the Mississippi as opposed to the brief window in which the rivers of Greenland get to flow or any ice to melt.

How about you do your numbers?

Bear in mind that by doing your own sums you will srtand the chance of realising that this AGW stuff is bogus.
25-11-2016 19:53
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber bluffed: Given that Greenland has over 1m of snowfall (water equivalent) and a less than 4 week melting period oveer the central ice sheet it would need an out flow during this period of 45 Mississippis to break even.


Study from early 2016:
Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses. "toxic AGW denier liar whiners have seen this data many times.....
//////////
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.
/////
New studies now indicate that Greenland landmass rebound due to TOTAL land ice losses increased to ~ 410 to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Here's some of Greenland icemass off-loading from the land:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
////////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
Edited on 25-11-2016 20:07
25-11-2016 19:57
spot
★★★☆☆
(939)
Tim,

According to Wikipedia which is not always right but for facts like these probably good enough the Mississippi basin is 3220000 square kilometers, all of Greenland being generous and including area not on the the icecap 2,166,086 square kilometers so about a third less so the precipitation to get one Mississippi needs to be a third more.

Now I can't find a figure for the average yearly precipitation for the Mississippi basin, I'm sure I could find it out should I chose to devote the time to it But on viewing your site it seems many states in that region to be greater then the amount for Greenland.

I cant show you my math because I don't have exact figures but off the top of my head I estimate at least 4 times as much water falls on the Mississippi basin as Greenland.

Now your point that the Mississippi drains all year while the ice only melts during warm periods is a good one but surly that period is at least four months of the year not a brief window, and a window that is extending anyway because temperatures are getting warmer.

I'm not good at sums, if I was I might have gone to university got a degree and did something that interested me. Its good that your questioning things but are you saying that the scientists who are actually in Greenland about to be sacked by Trump can't do basic sums and need you to put them right?
25-11-2016 20:10
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]spot wrote:I'm not good at sums....


Don't worry. The researchers in Greenland have good science & mathematics to beat any toxic AGW denier liar whiner into the ground.... whether the ground is covered with ice.... or thawing permafrost.... or bare ground.
Please refer to my post above yours.
Edited on 25-11-2016 20:15
26-11-2016 01:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Thanks for your figures. I do appreciate that you are making an effort to justify your claims. Anyway...

Tim the plumber wrote:

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisCCode=GRL

This site is showing about 600mm/yr .

That looks like a reliable source, though I'd say the graph shows an average of not more than about 40mm/month, so 480mm/yr. A minor quibble though.

Tim the plumber wrote:

So that's 600mm x 1.71 million km = 1.26 thousand cubic km

Actually it makes 1.026 thousand cubic km - you misread your calculator. Another minor quibble though.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Flow rate of Mississippi https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZUE4WMWBD6zA8geXmZqQDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=flow+rate+of+Mississippi

16,790 m3/s which is 46 cubic kilometers a month.

I've no dispute with that.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Thus in it's one month (I'm being very generous here) melting season you would have to have 27 Mississippis coming off the ice sheet to break even.

Actually, the melt season lasts for about 5 months, but generally covers only a small proportion of the ice surface - generally reaching a maximum coverage of about 30%.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today

However, the main problem with your analysis is that you have completely ignored glacier flow and calving. I'm pretty sure that this is how most of the ice is removed from the ice sheet. There are numerous glaciers all around the coast of Greenland, and they flow all the time - winter and summer - which is where icebergs come from. You need to quantify this flow to complete your calculation.

Sublimation also accounts for some ice loss, but I doubt that it's very significant. Worth checking though.
26-11-2016 10:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
spot wrote:
Tim,

According to Wikipedia which is not always right but for facts like these probably good enough the Mississippi basin is 3220000 square kilometers, all of Greenland being generous and including area not on the the icecap 2,166,086 square kilometers so about a third less so the precipitation to get one Mississippi needs to be a third more.

Now I can't find a figure for the average yearly precipitation for the Mississippi basin, I'm sure I could find it out should I chose to devote the time to it But on viewing your site it seems many states in that region to be greater then the amount for Greenland.

I cant show you my math because I don't have exact figures but off the top of my head I estimate at least 4 times as much water falls on the Mississippi basin as Greenland.

Now your point that the Mississippi drains all year while the ice only melts during warm periods is a good one but surly that period is at least four months of the year not a brief window, and a window that is extending anyway because temperatures are getting warmer.

I'm not good at sums, if I was I might have gone to university got a degree and did something that interested me. Its good that your questioning things but are you saying that the scientists who are actually in Greenland about to be sacked by Trump can't do basic sums and need you to put them right?


You are right. The amount of water dropping on the Greenland ice sheet is surprisingly high. I don't know if its' higher or lower than the Missisippi basin. But there the rainfall does not all go down the river. Lots of it evaporates away.

The reason I use the Mississippi as a comarison is that it is a big river we are sort of familure with and can look at on Google earth. It is big and wide with a reasonably fast flow rate.

I get the numbers from typing in "flow rate of Mississippi river" and area of Greenland's ice sheet and precipitation in Greenland.

The thing of me doing this stuff and it being abundantly obvious that the Grace satalite numbers are thus wrong no matter how much money they have thrown at making it pompus does not make me clever. It makes them clever for getting away with such a blatant fraud for so long. They continue to get away with it.
26-11-2016 10:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
litesong wrote:
[b]spot wrote:I'm not good at sums....


Don't worry. The researchers in Greenland have good science & mathematics to beat any toxic AGW denier liar whiner into the ground.... whether the ground is covered with ice.... or thawing permafrost.... or bare ground.
Please refer to my post above yours.


How about you do the sums then.

Just for one try doing the thinking for yourself.
26-11-2016 10:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks for your figures. I do appreciate that you are making an effort to justify your claims. Anyway...

Tim the plumber wrote:

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisCCode=GRL

This site is showing about 600mm/yr .

That looks like a reliable source, though I'd say the graph shows an average of not more than about 40mm/month, so 480mm/yr. A minor quibble though.

Tim the plumber wrote:

So that's 600mm x 1.71 million km = 1.26 thousand cubic km

Actually it makes 1.026 thousand cubic km - you misread your calculator. Another minor quibble though.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Flow rate of Mississippi https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZUE4WMWBD6zA8geXmZqQDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=flow+rate+of+Mississippi

16,790 m3/s which is 46 cubic kilometers a month.

I've no dispute with that.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Thus in it's one month (I'm being very generous here) melting season you would have to have 27 Mississippis coming off the ice sheet to break even.

Actually, the melt season lasts for about 5 months, but generally covers only a small proportion of the ice surface - generally reaching a maximum coverage of about 30%.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today

However, the main problem with your analysis is that you have completely ignored glacier flow and calving. I'm pretty sure that this is how most of the ice is removed from the ice sheet. There are numerous glaciers all around the coast of Greenland, and they flow all the time - winter and summer - which is where icebergs come from. You need to quantify this flow to complete your calculation.

Sublimation also accounts for some ice loss, but I doubt that it's very significant. Worth checking though.



Thank you for thinking about it. Good response.

I understand that ice calving is a factor but all of those little ice burgs go down the rivers out of Greenland.

As you say only 30% of the area of the ice sheet is subject to any significant melting.

Even when the rivers run for 5 months they are tiny little streams compared to the amount of snowfall. The area we habve not considered, that of Greenland outside the ice sheet, is more than enough to justify the flow rate of these rivers. Even for 5 or even 12 months.

You can measure your child's height with a tape measure against a door frame or use data from the camera of a passing police car. One will have massive amounts of impressive and impeniterable maths in it. Need high security clearance and be pompus. The other will simply get a good figure that you can't easily fix.
26-11-2016 12:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Tim. If you are sceptical, then I suggest you refer to the IPCC's chapter on the cryosphere from the latest report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf

Lots of data, references to the actual scientific studies and plots to dig in to there.
26-11-2016 12:54
spot
★★★☆☆
(939)
Tim,

I think I did not get your point, your saying that the fact that far more water is coming from Greenland than is falling on it is unrealistic.
But obviously the ice cap acts as a store, so if it gets warmer more water will come from Greenland then it receives in a year, if it got colder the opposite would happen. To me this is further proof that average temperatures have increased as standard physics predict and temperature records show.

You think that modern methods of tracking the ice mass balance of are unreliable and whats more you accuse The team releasing the Grace satellite figures of fraud, me and others have been over your figures and have come to differing conclusions, Surface detail has pointed out that your not accounting for everything anyway, accusing people based on the evidence that you present is wrong, it puts you in tin foil hat territory.

You seem a nice guy and If you met one of them I'm sure you wouldn't say that to their face you would ask questions and I'm sure someone more knowledgeable and patient could explain about ice mass balance to your satifaction.
26-11-2016 14:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote:
Evidence (e.g. signs, omens, artifacte, folklore, etc..) is paramount to religion,


Is that what you say to the judge when your being asked for child maintenance?

The court of law is unfalsifiable as well. Thank you for raising this point. You won't find any legal ruling in any science textbook.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2016 14:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:Hi Tim. If you are sceptical, then I suggest you refer to the IPCC's chapter on the cryosphere from the latest report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf

Lots of data, references to the actual scientific studies and plots to dig in to there.

Recommending the IPCC for science is like recommending the Vatican for atheism.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-11-2016 15:11
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Recommending the IPCC for science is like recommending the Vatican for atheism.


Well, this is your opinion.

But the fact is that the IPCC reports are written by climate scientists who are at the forefront of their respective fields. Their names are written at the beginning of each chapter, so anyone here can look them up to check for themselves. Many of them work at the same institution as I do. All of the data on which the reports are based come from the published scientific literature, which is also clearly cited, and therefore people can look up the original article to check whether the science has been portrayed correctly in the report.

If anyone is genuinely interested in the status of the Greenland ice sheet, then chapter 4 of the IPCC report is a very good place to start.
26-11-2016 15:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim. If you are sceptical, then I suggest you refer to the IPCC's chapter on the cryosphere from the latest report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf

Lots of data, references to the actual scientific studies and plots to dig in to there.


Glad to see you here again.

As a scientist how do you explain the numbers I have used?

Can you say why it is that the obviously small rivers coming out of Greenland appear not to be big enough to account for the total snowfall let alone any reduction in ice mass?

If so I would be delighted to hear that.

Refering me to a vast body of scripture is exactly a street preachers trick when the questions get tough.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate President Trump and climate change policy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump - Michael Mann127-05-2018 07:29
Chris Hedges "Fascism in the Age of Trump"202-04-2018 15:47
The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here's What Scientists Think About It 1506-03-2018 22:53
White House approves report - humans are causing global warming - starkly contradicts Trump - Nov 2017419-01-2018 22:14
Shale cowboys: fracking under Trump - (VPRO documentary - 2017)418-12-2017 22:56
Articles
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
John McCain: Remarks on Climate Change Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact