Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

AnomanderRake wrote:I actually don't give a shit about the Koch brothers, and didn't read the link you posted from 300 scientists because it wasn't relevant to the discussion we were having, which you seem to have abandoned after my rebuttal.

I will not take anything you say seriously until you update the score.

Thanks,

Rake

LooseGoose wrote:So far - rebuttals of the Wisconsin/Northwestern paper - 0. Yelping about CO2 and the Daily Mail - 2. Neither of which were mentioned in the post.

AnomanderRake wrote:^ Quality post X you should post more when you're drunk lol.

And to answer your question we looked like shit against Illinois.

Goose - Can you update the tally yet? I'm pretty sure I served up some knowledge in this thread a few days ago.

Thanks,

Rake

LooseGoose wrote:

Climate scientist to Congress: Increased CO2 causing 'remarkable greening of planet Earth'

Golly.....

And as WUWT also points out, the temperature was purely the product of a fohn wind.

The temperature of 63.5F was actually set in March 2015, but has only just been officially confirmed by the WMO. As the Capital Weather Gang at the Washington Post noted at the time, the previous record of 62.8F was also set at Esperanza as far back as 1961.

The implication now is that “balmy” temperatures of 63F are unheard of Antarctica, which is clearly nonsense.

And as we can see, monthly average temperatures in March 2015 were not in the least unusual. Indeed, the hottest March was in 1965.

A federal mandate to reduce emissions from vehicles purchased after 2006 could result in 14 million fewer school absences from respiratory problems—especially among kids with asthma—annually, according to a new study from the University of Michigan and the University of Washington.
In 2005, U.S. EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign required that vehicles purchased after 2006 use cleaner fuels and be subject to more stringent emissions standards. At the same time, EPA offered grants to upgrade and replace old diesel engines. Through these grants, 20,000 school buses were upgraded or replaced between 2005 and 2009.
Researchers found that these upgrades may have a significant impact on the health of the 25 million children who ride school buses every day—reducing levels of pollutants in buses by as much as 50 percent.
'Huge' health benefits from climate change measures
Their research, which focused on 275 elementary school children in Washington state, measured air quality in buses before and after EPA standards were implemented. Among children who didn't have asthma, inflammation markers in their lungs dropped by 16 percent while inflammation markers in children with asthma dropped 20 to 31 percent, depending on the severity of their condition.
"It's a success story," said Joel Kaufman, co-author of the study. "Investing in these technologies is beneficial."
Though the study focused on air quality in buses, the researchers say the effects of reduced emissions from buses and other vehicles could have cascading effects on surrounding communities and children such as Devine.
"The changes we make to avert climate change not only have benefits for climate change, but they also have huge benefits on health," Kaufman said.

AnomanderRake wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-may-speed-asthma-spread/

A federal mandate to reduce emissions from vehicles purchased after 2006 could result in 14 million fewer school absences from respiratory problems—especially among kids with asthma—annually, according to a new study from the University of Michigan and the University of Washington.
In 2005, U.S. EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign required that vehicles purchased after 2006 use cleaner fuels and be subject to more stringent emissions standards. At the same time, EPA offered grants to upgrade and replace old diesel engines. Through these grants, 20,000 school buses were upgraded or replaced between 2005 and 2009.
Researchers found that these upgrades may have a significant impact on the health of the 25 million children who ride school buses every day—reducing levels of pollutants in buses by as much as 50 percent.
'Huge' health benefits from climate change measures
Their research, which focused on 275 elementary school children in Washington state, measured air quality in buses before and after EPA standards were implemented. Among children who didn't have asthma, inflammation markers in their lungs dropped by 16 percent while inflammation markers in children with asthma dropped 20 to 31 percent, depending on the severity of their condition.
"It's a success story," said Joel Kaufman, co-author of the study. "Investing in these technologies is beneficial."
Though the study focused on air quality in buses, the researchers say the effects of reduced emissions from buses and other vehicles could have cascading effects on surrounding communities and children such as Devine.
"The changes we make to avert climate change not only have benefits for climate change, but they also have huge benefits on health," Kaufman said.

Scientists at the University of New Hampshire project that shifts in the climate caused by global warming will progressively dull the leaves throughout southern New England and New York over the next century. Maples will move north and the remaining oaks and hickories will change colors later and with less verve, they say.

“We haven’t had a really great display in the last 10 years,” said Barrett Rock, a professor in natural resources and a researcher at the Complex Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire who has studied the effects of global warming on the autumn landscape from New York to Maine.
New York Times, 16 Oct 2005

The Tree Council this week said global warming caused this season’s russet reds to deep golden yellows. The lack of moisture in autumn means that a different pigment is produced called anthocyanin, says Nick Collinson, conservation policy adviser at the Woodland Trust. This gives leaves more of a red colour.

“Climate change models for the UK suggest we are likely to have hotter and drier summers, which will encourage the kind of colours you normally see in a New England fall.”
The Guardian 18 Nov 2004

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-may-speed-asthma-spread/

so how do you propose to stop the climate from ever changing?   Let's hear your god like plan to freeze it in place.

Oh....and if you read enough then you should know "climate change" can do anything.
Less color in trees....

Scientists at the University of New Hampshire project that shifts in the climate caused by global warming will progressively dull the leaves throughout southern New England and New York over the next century. Maples will move north and the remaining oaks and hickories will change colors later and with less verve, they say.

“We haven’t had a really great display in the last 10 years,” said Barrett Rock, a professor in natural resources and a researcher at the Complex Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire who has studied the effects of global warming on the autumn landscape from New York to Maine.
New York Times, 16 Oct 2005

And More color in trees..........

The Tree Council this week said global warming caused this season’s russet reds to deep golden yellows. The lack of moisture in autumn means that a different pigment is produced called anthocyanin, says Nick Collinson, conservation policy adviser at the Woodland Trust. This gives leaves more of a red colour.

“Climate change models for the UK suggest we are likely to have hotter and drier summers, which will encourage the kind of colours you normally see in a New England fall.”
The Guardian 18 Nov 2004

AnomanderRake wrote:^ I have no fucking idea what the point of Goose's post was lol.

We don't need a master plan to freeze the climate in place, we just need to slow down our influence of completely fucking up the environment. We have the means to do it so....why not?

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:^ I have no fucking idea what the point of Goose's post was lol.

We don't need a master plan to freeze the climate in place, we just need to slow down our influence of completely fucking up the environment. We have the means to do it so....why not?

We already have.  Fracking has accomplished what Trillions of $$'s in government waste wouldnt be able to do.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

We already have.  Fracking has accomplished what Trillions of $$'s in government waste wouldnt be able to do.

You think fracking is helping the environment? Seriously Goose, how much is ExxonMobil paying you? Because holy fucking shitballs, if you really think this... I don't know. This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

You think fracking is helping the environment? Seriously Goose, how much is ExxonMobil paying you? Because holy fucking shitballs, if you really think this... I don't know. This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

1st you changed what I said. We were talking warming. I said fracking had helped. Now you're saying that I made a claim that fracking helped the environment. And yet you call me the dishonest, subject jumping person? Look in the mirror man.

Now if you want to discuss my statement, drop the hyperbole and tell me how fracking is causing warming? Or were you too busy jumping to conclusions to think that one through first?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

1st you changed what I said. We were talking warming. I said fracking had helped. Now you're saying that I made a claim that fracking helped the environment. And yet you call me the dishonest, subject jumping person? Look in the mirror man.

Now if you want to discuss my statement, drop the hyperbole and tell me how fracking is causing warming? Or were you too busy jumping to conclusions to think that one through first?

No one knows what you're talking about Goose. No one ever does. You change the conversation constantly. We need an interpreter half of the time with you.

If you would stop with the constant bait and switching we could have honest conversations. That would be great.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

No one knows what you're talking about Goose. No one ever does. You change the conversation constantly. We need an interpreter half of the time with you.

If you would stop with the constant bait and switching we could have honest conversations. That would be great.

So you don't dispute that fracking has helped with warming?

AnomanderRake wrote:Goose you just inadvertently admitted that Global Warming is real and impacted by air pollution...

Fracking does help with reducing CO2 emissions and I'm all for burning less coal. There are probably ways to improve fracking to reduce its negative impact on the environment and we should pursue those, but I believe there are better long term solutions for the environment when it comes to energy production, so we need to simultaneously invest in those technologies to position ourselves for success in the future.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Goose you just inadvertently admitted that Global Warming is real and impacted by air pollution...

Fracking does help with reducing CO2 emissions and I'm all for burning less coal. There are probably ways to improve fracking to reduce its negative impact on the environment and we should pursue those, but I believe there are better long term solutions for the environment when it comes to energy production, so we need to simultaneously invest in those technologies to position ourselves for success in the future.

Inadvertent?  You're jumping to conclusions based on false assumptions.   As I've patiently explained multiple times in this thread I've never denied the climate it changing.  So again, where's the gotcha?

Mr Trump has in the past said climate change had been "created by and for the Chinese".

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Goose you just inadvertently admitted that Global Warming is real and impacted by air pollution...

Fracking does help with reducing CO2 emissions and I'm all for burning less coal. There are probably ways to improve fracking to reduce its negative impact on the environment and we should pursue those, but I believe there are better long term solutions for the environment when it comes to energy production, so we need to simultaneously invest in those technologies to position ourselves for success in the future.

Inadvertent? You're jumping to conclusions based on false assumptions. As I've patiently explained multiple times in this thread I've never denied the climate it changing. So again, where's the gotcha?

steveschneider wrote:Both China and India are going to jump out in the lead for the solar power industry. Meanwhile we are trying to figure out how to keep the coal industry alive.

Sad.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Both China and India are going to jump out in the lead for the solar power industry. Meanwhile we are trying to figure out how to keep the coal industry alive.

Sad.

Yep. We're going to get dicked in a A-hole on this one. Even if you believe that man doesn't do shit to the climate we're going to run out of fossil fuels someday. Why not invest in the future? Fucking dumb.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/asia/trump-climate-change-paris-china.html?_r=0

xsanguine wrote:A little devil's advocate, I've already shown my hand in this thread... but something I've had to square within my own pro-green energy opinion;

How much coal is needed to mine the materials used in solar energy production (panels, batteries, conduit, wiring, etc), though? What country(s) are the primary sources of these materials and what is their track record for pollution?

It's the same type of thing with vegan/vegetarianism... you still gotta kill animals to accomplish your lifestyle.

xsanguine wrote:I was confronted with this very point, which is why I presented the question here. Their point was that it takes a lot of coal power to mine the materials needed to manufacture solar panels and the batteries to store that energy.

National Geographic: How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?

I'm a fan of 'green' energy as it is and think despite these findings (if true) it should be a primary vision for the future of energy, but was hoping it was a bit more karma free than it appears it is.

The salt equation taught to doctors for more than 200 years is not hard to understand.

The body relies on this essential mineral for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. Sodium levels in the blood must be carefully maintained.

If you eat a lot of salt — sodium chloride — you will become thirsty and drink water, diluting your blood enough to maintain the proper concentration of sodium. Ultimately you will excrete much of the excess salt and water in urine.

The theory is intuitive and simple. And it may be completely wrong.

New studies of Russian cosmonauts, held in isolation to simulate space travel, show that eating more salt made them less thirsty but somehow hungrier. Subsequent experiments found that mice burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight.

The research, published recently in two dense papers in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, contradicts much of the conventional wisdom about how the body handles salt and suggests that high levels may play a role in weight loss.

LooseGoose wrote:Like everything we know about salt - it's all settled science.

Why Everything We Know About Salt May Be Wrong

The salt equation taught to doctors for more than 200 years is not hard to understand.

The body relies on this essential mineral for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. Sodium levels in the blood must be carefully maintained.

If you eat a lot of salt — sodium chloride — you will become thirsty and drink water, diluting your blood enough to maintain the proper concentration of sodium. Ultimately you will excrete much of the excess salt and water in urine.

The theory is intuitive and simple. And it may be completely wrong.

New studies of Russian cosmonauts, held in isolation to simulate space travel, show that eating more salt made them less thirsty but somehow hungrier. Subsequent experiments found that mice burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight.

The research, published recently in two dense papers in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, contradicts much of the conventional wisdom about how the body handles salt and suggests that high levels may play a role in weight loss.

GRR Spartan wrote:Its May 9 and its very cold in Mio, MI.

How much more proof do you need to show climate change is nothing more than a political ploy?

Former President Barack Obama told those gathered at an agricultural conference that man-made global warming was already impacting agriculture on a global scale, shrinking crop yields and raising food prices.

“Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food,” Obama said at the Seeds & Chips conference in Milan, Italy Tuesday, according to The New York Times.

“We’ve already seen shrinking yields and rising food prices,” the former president said in his first speech outside the U.S. since leaving office in January.

But is global warming already hurting agriculture? There’s not a lot of evidence for that claim.

In fact, 2016 was a record year for crop yields, which have basically doubled since 2007.

Production of wheat, coarse grains and rice hit record levels in 2016, according to United Nations data. Cereal production is set to shrink 0.4 percent in 2017 “from the 2016 record high,” but “supplies are likely to remain large with next season’s cereal ending stocks remaining close to their record high opening levels,” the UN reports.

As for food prices, they’re well below recent highs hit in 2010. UN data shows the inflation-adjusted food index — the average of five commodity price indices — is just below where it was in 1965. the food price index peaked around 1975

Obama pocketed more than $2.7 million for Tuesday’s speech on how agriculture is contributing to global warming.

Ironically, the former president flew a private jet to Milan where a 14-car convoy and 300-strong police escort awaited him. Obama’s entourage included a helicopter and took up two floors of the more than $9,000 a night Park Hyatt hotel.