Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

What is this with dim bulbs.  That's what happens when you go from base load power to solar or wind.  

 

What??

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

OK, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but the CO2 stored in the oceans has already been produced by some other means. Rising temperatures on their own don't manufacture CO2 which is the point I was trying to make.

 

arse about face as engineers say ?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Adapt or Die.

 

 

 

OK, can I have 100,000 years please ?

40 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

           I can see both sides of the equation as it relates to humans.  Each of us has two reactions to every situation like that.  That's why it often becomes a moral dilemma, as much as anything else.  There are some people who let their compassionate side prevail, and others who let their 'adapt or die' reaction prevail.  It's such a big topic, that thick books could be written about it.    HRC and her sort of people would try to find solutions to looming problems related to GW/CC.   Trump and his fans would say, "tough it out" or "if you move to a place like Florida, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come asking for help from me, if the next hurricane wipes out your town."  "You should'a used your noggin and not moved to Florida in the first place."   .......and so on.

 

        Again, I can see both sides of it, and I'm not completely in one camp or the other.  Each situation is unique.  But generally, if there are reasonable ways to lessen extreme hardship for groups of vulnerable people, then I'm in favor.  I'm also odd, in the sense that I care as much about the survival of other species, as I do about humans surviving.   That's an alien perspective for Trumpsters, because all they seem to be concerned about is themselves, their immediate family, and perhaps others nearby who are the same ethnicity, skin color and religion.

 

There is no other solution.

 

Continue like this and migration of billions is on the cards. Let's flood Dhaka (Bangladesh) for starters...

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

For family home and using round numbers.....

 

50kW for 10 h = 500kWh at maximum demand

 

assuming "12V" 100Ah batteries you would need 400 batteries

 

assuming VRLA batteries at, say, 10,000 THB each you're looking at 4M THB in batteries alone not including inverters etc.

 

As I say, best to supply the grid!

 

What's bad with LED lamps (assuming high CRI?)

Better batteries are under development. I believe I said or implied that.

The bad stuff about LEDs are in the link I gave before.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

 

OK, can I have 100,000 years please ?

 

There is no other solution.

 

Continue like this and migration of billions is on the cards. Let's flood Dhaka (Bangladesh) for starters...

If Bangladesh floods I suggest giving them the same answer they gave the Rohinga fleeing persecution in Burma when they come a knockin'.

Perhaps they can all go to Pakistan, as they used to be part of it and they are all brothers under Islam, aren't they?

[onthesoi]

Sea ice helps remove co2 from the atmosphere, so if sea ice is melting due to rising temps that will lead to more co2 in the atmosphere.

 

Higher temps = more atmospheric co2.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Nonsense. There is a direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. There have been natural cycles of CO2 levels over periods of 100,000 years. Problem now is that it is rocketing off scale and is already higher than at any time I last million years. So what's causing it? More output from us? Less absorption by forests? Either way, we're to blame ?

5 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

Sea ice helps remove co2 from the atmosphere, so if sea ice is melting due to rising temps that will lead to more co2 in the atmosphere.

 

Higher temps = more atmospheric co2.

Sea ice reforms during winter, so why doesn't CO2 drop in the winter? More trees are a good solution.

[thaibeachlovers]

45 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

The fact that I do not support the agenda for CC has nothing to do with compassion. I have probably contributed more to the less fortunate in the world through my church than most of the do-gooders here. No one has come close to providing evidence that this very expensive solution they offer has any chance of solving the problem. I do not invest my money in anything that has such little proven result or chance of success. Furthermore, there are benefits to CC for my particular region of the country and the US on the whole...we are not in the same dire straits as other regions of the world. 

 

 HRC and her sort of people would try to find solutions to looming problems related to GW/CC.

 

My opinion is that HRC and her cronies would try to find a way to personally profit from a problem.

 

As I have stated on several occasions, I am not a Trump fan. I voted Republican. 

 

As for Florida, the environmentalists have been crying about salt-water intrusion and barrier island erosion for 40+ years. According to them the place should have become uninhabitable a couple decades ago and yet it continues to grow in population every year. There is a lesson here about imminent timelines.

 

I don't know how you can say what Trumpsters do and do not think about saving other species. Certainly they have a desire for self-survival...there is no living creature that does not. It is a biologic imperative. As for your final sentence. I find it incredibly naive and not well thought at all. Are you actually saying that you would place the safety of some stranger above that of your own offspring and family unit?

I am guessing that you do not have children.

 

 

Again, for the umpteenth time, the cause is overpopulation. Because of overpopulation people are living on floodplains and other unsuitable places subject to weather events. Insanity.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice reforms during winter, so why doesn't CO2 drop in the winter? More trees are a good solution.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140922110424.htm

Not all sea ice melts in the summer. Nowadays a lot more of the arctic sea melts than formerly.

[onthesoi]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice reforms during winter, so why doesn't CO2 drop in the winter? More trees are a good solution

 

I'm talking about AGW melting not seasonal melting.

 

AGW melting is a downward spiral so there is no reforming.

 

Yes, trees are the best solution.  Removal of trees from the planets surface has probably caused more AGW than industrial air pollution.

 

Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852. It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests—between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet—have now been destroyed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Edited November 23, 2016 by onthesoi
.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

 

You are completely ignoring man's influence on this. Yes the earth's climate fluctuates, and life will evolve to deal with these changes. Industrialization is creating artificial change however, which is changing things much faster than they would be naturally. This will affect mankind in a very negative way if it continues. As I mentioned on previous pages, we are making great scientific progress in this day and age and that will continue to accelerate. We can find solutions to influence the environment, but we need to make sure we don't reach a point of no return before then. 

There are ways to clean up the CO2 levels. There are ways to decrease the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth. These are things that we can either not do right now though (in the case of deflecting or shading sun rays), or are things that are expensive and slow acting (in reducing CO2 levels). And who knows what the future will bring in regards to other solutions. Those are not viable solutions at this time, but reducing our affects in the environment is.

All the necessary solutions are known already. Reducing population, not cutting down the rainforest, banning cars in cities and mass air travel, massive investment in solar and wave power, massive investment in hydrogen powered public transport, reducing/ eliminating animals for meat, making people live where they work, nuclear power replacing fossil fuel stations and many others. However, they won't do any of the things that would work, preferring talk fests every year and increased taxes.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Actually, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases are cows. Yes, dear old Nellie produces around 120kg of methane gas a year when she farts and methane is significantly more potent than CO2. There are approximately 1.5 billion cows worldwide which along with other livestock accounts for 28% of total emissions: https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

 

But rising temperatures on their own don't produce CO2. Something has to be burnt like coal or wood so Thailand and Indonesia contribute to the amount of CO2 produced when they both burn forestry to make way for new crops.

 

But rising global temperatures will cause melting of the permafrost which will release significant amounts of methane into the upper atmosphere. The UK Guardian has an informative article on the subject which should start the alarm bells ringing for anyone who still thinks that global warming is a hoax: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

 

 

LOL. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

The largest source of animal methane in NZ is from sheep and it is BELCHING, not farting that passes most of the gas. That is from my sheep farmer friend. He should know.

Research is being done on preventative measures.

Most world methane comes from wetlands and rice paddies, so I guess LOS is a big contributor.

 

Nobody thinks G W is a hoax. Some of us dispute that it is caused by humans, and I say that it can't be reversed by the present insufficient measures.

 

If temperature rises sufficiently to release all the methane in the permafrost it's goodbye human race in the methane storms.

Edited November 23, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

The largest source of animal methane in NZ is from sheep and it is BELCHING, not farting that passes most of the gas. That is from my sheep farmer friend. He should know.

Research is being done on preventative measures.

Most world methane comes from wetlands and rice paddies, so I guess LOS is a big contributor.

Are you sure about that?

These data clearly indicate that livestock production accounts for an enormous share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Together, emissions from enteric fermentation, manure left on pastures, manure applied to soils, cropland devoted to feed production, and manure treated in management systems contribute more than 80 percent of total emissions. Meanwhile, emissions related to the direct human consumption of food crops represent less than 20 percent of the total.

http://www.worldwatch.org/agriculture-and-livestock-remain-major-sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions-0

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

         CC only matters for humans in the context of now and near future.  It matters not when compared to earlier geologic times (past ice ages, etc).  Because our one species has so overpopulated every habitable niche, just slight temp trends can have big effects.  We're already seeing some of the effects of more profound damage from storms; The bottom bulge of Burma from Nargis, the east coast of Luzon, New Orleans from Katrina, and so on in the past few years.  Increasing desertification is just as big a problem of a different sort.   Again, because groups of people are so finely-tuned adapted to particular niches, even slight changes in temps/sea levels/deserts spreading can have profound effects.  

 

        We're talking mostly about people with no disposable income; about half the people of the world.  It's not about T.Visa members, nearly all of whom are able to pick up and move to higher ground or greener pastures if need be.   Not so for most people living in deserts or in river deltas at 1 meter above sea level.

Storms, flooding, sea level rise, and erosion have been occurring forever. The temperature of the earth has been higher and lower than it is currently,   and these changes occurred before man started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What caused these changes? The more profound damage from storms is because the coastal regions are more developed and populated than before (New Orleans, Florida, etc.), the number of severe storms has not increased even a little bit (in the Atlantic, and I doubt it is any different in the Pacific outside of El Nino). These are natural processes that are being hyped to support the religion of global warming. In my humble opinion.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Are you sure about that?

These data clearly indicate that livestock production accounts for an enormous share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Together, emissions from enteric fermentation, manure left on pastures, manure applied to soils, cropland devoted to feed production, and manure treated in management systems contribute more than 80 percent of total emissions. Meanwhile, emissions related to the direct human consumption of food crops represent less than 20 percent of the total.

http://www.worldwatch.org/agriculture-and-livestock-remain-major-sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions-0

The release of methane gas from ruminant livestock (sheep and cattle) amounts to almost 1/3 of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, and it is the largest contributor................

................The methane comes primarily from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock, and sheep are the greatest single source.

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

If you disagree take it up with Landcare Research in NZ

[ClutchClark]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Again, for the umpteenth time, the cause is overpopulation. Because of overpopulation people are living on floodplains and other unsuitable places subject to weather events. Insanity.

 

TBL,

 

I heard and agreed with you "umpteenth times minus one" times ago...overpopulation.  .

 

Too many critters in the barnyard and all breeding like rabbits never has a good outcome. Well atleast not until there is a big die-off.

 

Even when they are living in poverty without enough food and dying of disease they can't stop breeding. Never a thought to the suffering they are bringing their offspring into.

 

The biolical imperative to reproduce is the strongest impulse living organisms have.

[puukao]

Do you

 

1.  smoke

2.  drive

3.  fly

4.  visit bars with bad girls

5.  take the bus

6.  give money to a place with bad emission standards

7.  type all day but in reality have never done anything to stop it

8.  quit eating meat

9.  leave lights on

10.  use plastic

11.  waste paper.......................etc...........................to #94793847384907384932748394

 

nobody tells someone to, "not fly a plane, drive, smoke, etc...." to save the planet!!!!!!

 

now go buy some chang beer and ponder your next post as the world burns!!!!!

 

your kids will blame you!!!!!   deep down, nobody really cares.......nobody........not 1 person.  

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The release of methane gas from ruminant livestock (sheep and cattle) amounts to almost 1/3 of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, and it is the largest contributor................

................The methane comes primarily from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock, and sheep are the greatest single source.

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

If you disagree take it up with Landcare Research in NZ

Here's what I was replying tol These are your words: " Most world methane comes from wetlands and rice paddies, so I guess LOS is a big contributor. "

[onthesoi]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Storms, flooding, sea level rise, and erosion have been occurring forever. The temperature of the earth has been higher and lower than it is currently,   and these changes occurred before man started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What caused these changes? The more profound damage from storms is because the coastal regions are more developed and populated than before (New Orleans, Florida, etc.), the number of severe storms has not increased even a little bit (in the Atlantic, and I doubt it is any different in the Pacific outside of El Nino). These are natural processes that are being hyped to support the religion of global warming. In my humble opinion.

AGW is backed by scientific evidence, unlike what you wrote above.  

 

Unless you have a link to a raft of peer reviewed studies that support what you are saying...then the religion is all you.

 

Humble opinions are not science. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by onthesoi

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

TBL,

 

I heard and agreed with you "umpteenth times minus one" times ago...overpopulation.  .

 

Too many critters in the barnyard and all breeding like rabbits never has a good outcome. Well atleast not until there is a big die-off.

 

Even when they are living in poverty without enough food and dying of disease they can't stop breeding. Never a thought to the suffering they are bringing their offspring into.

 

The biolical imperative to reproduce is the strongest impulse living organisms have.

The difference between man and animals is that humans can decide what they do. I'm amazed that people that have nothing decide it's OK to bring children into the world.

Even when societies have been years in trouble tv news is always showing us refugees that have children younger than the length of the conflict that they are fleeing.

 

The aborigines of old in Australia knew the danger of overpopulation and did something to prevent it. As they had no technology the method was quite horrific, but they were wise people not to exceed the carrying capacity of the land they inhabited. Now people are turning up at aid stations with 8 or more children and expecting other people to save them all.

[thaibeachlovers]

58 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Here's what I was replying tol These are your words: " Most world methane comes from wetlands and rice paddies, so I guess LOS is a big contributor. "

Not my words. That's what the article I linked says. Did you read it?

Edited November 23, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[Xircal]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The largest source of animal methane in NZ is from sheep and it is BELCHING, not farting that passes most of the gas.

 

Sheep spending too much time in the pub then.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, onthesoi said:

AGW is backed by scientific evidence, unlike what you wrote above.  

 

Unless you have a link to a raft of peer reviewed studies that support what you are saying...then the religion is all you.

 

Humble opinions are not science. 

I agree, humble opinions are not science, and neither is stating that there are more storms (false), or that the storms are any stronger than they ever have been (also false). AGW is supported by computer model predictions that have not matched observed increases in temperature for the last twenty or so years (measured temperature data is nearly outside or possibly outside the lower end of temperature increases predicted by the UN IPCC). CO2 increases have not slowed, but temperature increases have slowed. When the "theory" does not correlate with observed data there may be something amiss with the "theory".

 

AGW (or climate change as it is now known), is a religion for many. The religion is about money wrapped in a cloak of

"saving the planet".  It is about redistributing money from rich countries to poorer countries without affecting the average temperature of this planet one bit.

[Si Thea01]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

What??

 

it was a tongue and cheek comment directed at a couple of others. I didn't expect a question from someone to whom it was not directed. 

[Ahab]

For those believers in climate models, maybe if you understood the errors associated with them you would not be quoting them as a source (reliable source) in support of AGW. Most will not watch the attached video, but you should.

 

 

 

[Linzz]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The difference between man and animals is that humans can decide what they do. I'm amazed that people that have nothing decide it's OK to bring children into the world.

Even when societies have been years in trouble tv news is always showing us refugees that have children younger than the length of the conflict that they are fleeing.

 

The aborigines of old in Australia knew the danger of overpopulation and did something to prevent it. As they had no technology the method was quite horrific, but they were wise people not to exceed the carrying capacity of the land they inhabited. Now people are turning up at aid stations with 8 or more children and expecting other people to save them all.

 

Problem is that children of the poor are their currency as well as a liability. In many poor societies the more hands for labour the greater ability for group survival, thus children are often form part of their legacy. The other factor is ignorance and/or lack of birth control. The move towards small families requires a cultural shift towards Western lifestyle and values, but I hadn't heard of the Aboriginal solution before. Interesting. 

[NumbNut]

21 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Problem is that children of the poor are their currency as well as a liability. In many poor societies the more hands for labour the greater ability for group survival, thus children are often form part of their legacy. The other factor is ignorance and/or lack of birth control. The move towards small families requires a cultural shift towards Western lifestyle and values, but I hadn't heard of the Aboriginal solution before. Interesting. 

 

And another major factor in high third world birth rates used to be the high infant mortality rate, which has abated greatly following WWII. Never in the history of this planet have so many children (and their mums too) survived into early childhood as they do now.

 

It's interesting, and hopeful too, to see the birthrate in nations like Thailand drop dramatically as living standards have improved, even if very slightly. Poor families are having fewer children as the prospect of their children surviving has risen. Check the page below:-

 

Thai Birth Rate 1960-2014

 

Now we just got to get the Catholics onboard eh!

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The difference between man and animals is that humans can decide what they do. I'm amazed that people that have nothing decide it's OK to bring children into the world.

Even when societies have been years in trouble tv news is always showing us refugees that have children younger than the length of the conflict that they are fleeing.

 

The aborigines of old in Australia knew the danger of overpopulation and did something to prevent it. As they had no technology the method was quite horrific, but they were wise people not to exceed the carrying capacity of the land they inhabited. Now people are turning up at aid stations with 8 or more children and expecting other people to save them all.

And how do you think family planning is going to fare under Trump?  He campaigned against Planned Parenthood. 

[Linzz]

 

20 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

Poor families are having fewer children as the prospect of their children surviving has risen.

 

Yes that is a good point I alluded to but you explained it better. The survival rate of children determining the replenishment rate, but cultural values are slow to change.

[ClutchClark]

59 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And how do you think family planning is going to fare under Trump?  He campaigned against Planned Parenthood. 

 

Well I don't think the US population is exploding so its probably not going to have much of an impact. 

 

Too bad Planned Parenthood has such a Liberal agenda since it positions itself to suffer under a Republican Admin.

 

And before I fall under attack, I am not a pro-lifer. Its a nice thought but it doesn't really apply to the real world, IMO.

 

I don't consider the point of conception to be a baby. Its just a couple of cells.