Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[PKT_VOL]

If your point is that that there's no penalty (there's not, it's not binding - clearly), why would trump risk further alienating and thumbing his nose at EVERYONE (except Nicaragua and Syria)?

Since the agreement has no teeth, why risk the continued bad press and terrible international optics?

Political fodder for his base.

 

[MercyPercy]

When it comes to God, you disagree with well educated, independent thinkers who have faith in God and God's word, right?

Same for me with climate "science".

One of these is not like the other.

Scientists aren't proposing we believe their assertions on faith alone. Evidence is presented. You can argue what the evidence suggests, but at least that is something tangible to discuss.

 

[hog88]

No, the bozo in chief has already alienated us with our allies, this was just the frosting on the turd cake of his geopolitical ineptitude.

As long as Western Europe continues to suckle at our teet they won't be alienated.

 

[Grand Vol]

lol wat? No bearing?

Trump is reportedly making the decision to pull "us" out of a Agreement we entered into by the former president, I'd say his unilateral decision is directly relevant.

The papers aren't waiting for "America's" decision, they're waiting on Donny.

Trump also made the decision to withdraw from the TPP. And funny thing? Before some were for it, they were against it. It was eerily like the ACA. "Have to pass it to understand what's in it." No thanks.

Anyway, why edit out the pressing questions I asked? Why immediately jump to the Trump card and rant on about that instead of what I posted? Here are the questions just in case you missed it:

Now, if said agreement has no teeth and no penalties, what's the point in signing it just to agree with everyone? This is a long term thing that can (will) affect the US economy for decades to come. And will be in force well after Trump is out of office. You don't think another President wouldn't savagely enforce the terms on the US regardless of other nation's non-compliance? You aren't that naive.

Who gives a flying hootie darn whether the "optics" are bad? We are talking about entering into an agreement with nations that may or may not be compliant with said agreement. And could end up hurting our economy in the long run because we are doing "the right thing" by enforcing the Agreement while they choose to thumb their nose at it.

I emphasized the questions (though the last paragraph isn't a question, but worthy of discussion) that could/should be asked. Bush 43 got blasted in his Presidency about not pushing the Kyoto Protocols by "world leaders" even though places like the PRC, Japan and India had no reduction targets but were blatant polluters of GHGs. Japan even increased their emissions during that time... I haven't seen anyone screeching about that.

 

[McDad]

One of these is not like the other.

Scientists aren't proposing we believe their assertions on faith alone. Evidence is presented. You can argue what the evidence suggests, but at least that is something tangible to discuss.

In a pure science (math, geometry, physics, chemistry et al), yes. Climate science is not like those.

furthermore, you missed the point. I was not comparing religion to science. I was compared educated, thinking people of different disciplines and our response to those folk.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Now, if said agreement has no teeth and no penalties, what's the point in signing it just to agree with everyone? This is a long term thing that can (will) affect the US economy for decades to come. And will be in force well after Trump is out of office. You don't think another President wouldn't savagely enforce the terms on the US regardless of other nation's non-compliance? You aren't that naive.

Who gives a flying hootie darn whether the "optics" are bad? We are talking about entering into an agreement with nations that may or may not be compliant with said agreement. And could end up hurting our economy in the long run because we are doing "the right thing" by enforcing the Agreement while they choose to thumb their nose at it.

Your argument works against itself.

You have already established that the Paris Accord has no teeth and is not binding. Now, you add the acknowledgement that a future POTUS can come in a enforce climate change initiatives, savagely with respect to our economy, regardless of what other nations do (Paris Accord being worthless).

If you put both of those concepts together, the Paris Accord is worthless symbolic agreement. The next POTUS can do whatever he wants regardless of other nations to fight climate change to the detriment of our economy.

It leaves Trump's action as clearly a worthless symbolic message, and notjing more, to the global community that he doesn't care about theie concerns or interests. It's what he ran on. That's fine. Just call a spade a spade.

 

[Septic]

Trump also made the decision to withdraw from the TPP. And funny thing? Before some were for it, they were against it. It was eerily like the ACA. "Have to pass it to understand what's in it." No thanks.

Anyway, why edit out the pressing questions I asked? Why immediately jump to the Trump card and rant on about that instead of what I posted? Here are the questions just in case you missed it:



I emphasized the questions (though the last paragraph isn't a question, but worthy of discussion) that could/should be asked. Bush 43 got blasted in his Presidency about not pushing the Kyoto Protocols by "world leaders" even though places like the PRC, Japan and India had no reduction targets but were blatant polluters of GHGs. Japan even increased their emissions during that time... I haven't seen anyone screeching about that.

I answered your questions when I pointed out you were creating arguments to positions on which I never opposed.

 

[McDad]

So over the last 650,000 years Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. 7 periods of cooling, heating, cooling, etc. Within these past 650k years, never has the Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels been above 300ppm. We know this by studying mineral deposits and fossils, but in particular pockets of ancient air stored in glacial ice. The amount of any given element can be determined using what is known as mass spectrometry, a very well documented and used characterization method.

Today, atmospheric CO2 levels are above 400 ppm.

That is very strong evidence for the current change in our climate being abnormal.

An increase of 100 parts per million. You swim in pools with higher concentrations of urine.

And, no one knows if Earth has had higher numbers in it's history.

 

[Grand Vol]

Your argument works against itself.

You have already established that the Paris Accord has no teeth and is not binding. Now, you add the acknowledgement that a future POTUS can come in a enforce climate change initiatives, savagely with respect to our economy, regardless of what other nations do (Paris Accord being worthless).

If you put both of those concepts together, the Paris Accord is worthless symbolic agreement. The next POTUS can do whatever he wants regardless of other nations to fight climate change to the detriment of our economy.

It leaves Trump's action as clearly a worthless symbolic message, and notjing more, to the global community that he doesn't care about theie concerns or interests. It's what he ran on. That's fine. Just call a spade a spade.

No, my argument works for any future President that could implement said Treaty provisions legally and binding. If (and never will with the current make up) it passed the Senate, the President or any future President could use the Treaty to fall back on if a future Congress prohibited them from implementing tougher environmental measures. Same thing, more or less, was what was going on with the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It would have allowed a backdoor legality for a national gun registry if it passed the Senate.

You are correct any President can implement stricter controls regardless, however, the Treaty just gives them somewhat legal backing.

 

[InVOLuntary]

They said on one if the news channels that it will cost the US taxpayer $100 billion. Wonder what the other countries are forking over. Typically in these deals the US tends to pick up most of the bill.

 

[McDad]

They said on one if the news channels that it will cost the US taxpayer $100 billion. Wonder what the other countries are forking over. Typically in these deals the US tends to pick up most of the bill.

1. Dont ever trust a government "projection".

2. Only the wealthy countries need to be punished, because we're evil (or some nonsense).

 

[ShowSomePride]

An increase of 100 parts per million. You swim in pools with higher concentrations of urine.

And, no one knows if Earth has had higher numbers in it's history.

You have to look at these numbers as relative. A 100ppm difference happens to be a 33.3% increase .

I think looking a relatively recent, but also large, timescale of the Earth is a great window of reference. You've made the argument in the past that we have gone under heating and cooling cycles before and this is no different. The large percent increase in C02 ppm shows that is not the case.

 

[Rifleman]

An increase of 100 parts per million. You swim in pools with higher concentrations of urine.

And, no one knows if Earth has had higher numbers in it's history.

Urine is 91 to 96 % water and is virtually sterile when it leaves your body. Any chemical byproducts from peeing in a pool would exist at a few micrograms per liter, so that is a few parts per billion with a B.

And certainly the Earth had higher CO2 levels back in its highly-vulcanized youth, but any life was confined to the deep seas at that juncture so your point is utterly vapid.

In short, a completely nonsensical comment all around.

Good work.

 

[hog88]

You have to look at these numbers as relative. A 100ppm difference happens to be a 33.3% increase .

I think looking a relatively recent, but also large, timescale of the Earth is a great window of reference. You've made the argument in the past that we have gone under heating and cooling cycles before and this is no different. The large percent increase in C02 ppm shows that is not the case.

Considering the earth is billions of years old 650,000 years is a tiny sample size.

 

[Grand Vol]

And certainly the Earth had higher CO2 levels back in its highly-vulcanized youth, but any life was confined to the deep seas at that juncture so your point is utterly vapid.

Was said life peeing in those seas?

 

[McDad]

You have to look at these numbers as relative. A 100ppm difference happens to be a 33.3% increase .

I think looking a relatively recent, but also large, timescale of the Earth is a great window of reference. You've made the argument in the past that we have gone under heating and cooling cycles before and this is no different. The large percent increase in C02 ppm shows that is not the case.

I understand the relativity in data. And, i agree with the observation and your percentage increase. I am not alarmed because of the size of the denominator. 300 or 400 diluted into a million isn't that large. In terms of Tennessee's popultion (7 million) the increase is from 2100 to 2800.

The increase could have happened 100,000 times in Earth's history and we may never know.

 

[McDad]

Urine is 91 to 96 % water and is virtually sterile when it leaves your body. Any chemical byproducts from peeing in a pool would exist at a few micrograms per liter, so that is a few parts per billion with a B.

And certainly the Earth had higher CO2 levels back in its highly-vulcanized youth, but any life was confined to the deep seas at that juncture so your point is utterly vapid.

In short, a completely nonsensical comment all around.

Good work.

Urine as a whole; what comes out your bladder (as in a medical urine sample). Not the chemical components. I feel certain if i whip it out and pee in 79's pool, he aint gonna be ok with it.

 

[hog88]

Urine as a whole; what comes out your bladder (as in a medical urine sample). Not the chemical components. I feel certain if i whip it out and pee in 79's pool, he aint gonna be ok with it.

Had several people over this weekend in the pool, after an hour or so I began to notice that even with all the beer being swilled nobody was getting out to use the bathroom.

 

[gcbvol]

Beware pools which have what folks call the 'chlorine smell'.

 

[ShowSomePride]

I understand the relativity in data. And, i agree with the observation and your percentage increase. I am not alarmed because of the size of the denominator. 300 or 400 diluted into a million isn't that large. In terms of Tennessee's popultion (7 million) the increase is from 2100 to 2800.

The increase could have happened 100,000 times in Earth's history and we may never know.

You cannot possibly compare population vs. C02 atmospheric concentration.

The last 650k years would be a much closer representation to today's climate than say, 1 billion years ago? We are barely into the current Holocene epoch; not even 12k years. The Pleistocene (previous epoch) gives us the best insight into a similar climate.

 

[golfballs]

Anyone tuned into the live covfefe? opcorn:

 

[FLVOL_79]

Anyone tuned into the live covfefe? opcorn:

I'm just here to watch the libtard meltdown. Should be a good one!

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm not an environmental zealot like most liberals and really couldn't care less about this except that this decision has the fingerprints of Steve Bannon all over it. If Trump is valuing the opinion of that loon over all others then that is very unsettling. Most CEO's came out against leaving the Paris accord, as did Elon Musk and Rex Tillerson (former Exxon CEO). I doubt Trump cares about this either. This is just a transparent attempt to once again pander to the far right base while maintaining that he has kept a campaign promise.

 

[luthervol]

Trump is exploding the image of the US as a respected world leader. What an embarrassment. This will be looked back on as a day of shame for the US. Absolutely mind boggling.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Trump is exploding the image of the US as a respected world leader. What an embarrassment. This will be looked back on as a day of shame for the US. Absolutely mind boggling.

Lol. That was already done by his cuck predecessor.