Trump

[wufan]

They don't know the cause of the Great Dying as far as I am aware, but the most commonly attributed cause is the number and types of volcanoes erupting.

I don't know much about oceanic calcification, but will try to learn more. That said, how does one come up with "25% more acidic"? I'm not even sure what that means.

[pinstripers]

It's gonna get hot. I should prolly write a check.

[CBB_Fan]

They don't know the cause of the Great Dying as far as I am aware, but the most commonly attributed cause is the number and types of volcanoes erupting.

I don't know much about oceanic calcification, but will try to learn more. That said, how does one come up with "25% more acidic"? I'm not even sure what that means.

When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid (H2C03). This carbonic acid is actually what helps form carbonate rocks, as it turns into calcium carbonate when it reacts with silicates (CaCO3), and calcium carbonate is present in minerals like calcite and aragonite (most known in limestone) . But the process of reacting to silicates and forming CaCO3 takes time, leaving some amount of H2CO3 in the ocean. This has caused a measured drop from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. That may not sound like much, but pH is "powers of Hydrogen" and is a logarithmic scale. A drop from 8.2 to 8.1 represents a ~25% increase in acidity, while a drop from 8.2 to 7.2 would be a 10X increase in acidity. This change in pH is the major factor in coral reef bleaching, among other negative impacts.

[wufan]

When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid (H2C03). This carbonic acid is actually what helps form carbonate rocks, as it turns into calcium carbonate when it reacts with silicates (CaCO3), and calcium carbonate is present in minerals like calcite and aragonite (most known in limestone) . But the process of reacting to silicates and forming CaCO3 takes time, leaving some amount of H2CO3 in the ocean. This has caused a measured drop from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. That may not sound like much, but pH is "powers of Hydrogen" and is a logarithmic scale. A drop from 8.2 to 8.1 represents a ~25% increase in acidity, while a drop from 8.2 to 7.2 would be a 10X increase in acidity. This change in pH is the major factor in coral reef bleaching, among other negative impacts.

Thanks. I actually understood the mechanism but not the stated impact of the CO2. Also, thanks for the clarification on the pH change. The hydrogen ions makes sense.

[jdshock]

I think 0.2-0.5 C less growth by 2100 is what the accord would achieve per MIT. NASA believes that if we act now that the temp will only increase 1.5 C by 2100 and if we do nothing it will increase up to 4 C. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...l-consistency/ IPCC says 6 C might be the change. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/. If the fear is that Climate change will grossly impact our world, then the Paris Accord fails.

Why are the predictions so radical? Climatologists believe we are nearing a tipping point in which an increase of 2 C will supercharge the positive feedback loops and they will overcome the negative feedback. This is similar to anti-bodies fighting a virus in the body. Once a threshold is reached the numbers proliferate. I don't know why they believe this since it's never been observed, but 2 C seems to be the magic number.

I've read a lot about how healthy and prosperous people were 150 years ago when the temperature was 0.9 C cooler. I hope we can return to hat golden era!

You're right. I misread the sentence about decrease in temperature.

Every time climate stuff gets brought up on this forum, it's the same conversation. I say "the vast majority of scientists think we need to be acting." And everyone else is really adamant that we shouldn't be. I don't know where the line is, but let's assume there is a line at some point. If there is a threshold where the "numbers proliferate" and we have catastrophic warming, then it's important to do everything we can to avoid hitting that threshold. A 0.5C reduction in additional warming might be the amount that prevents us from passing over the threshold. And more importantly, it's not as if these types of agreements prevent us from exceeding the requirements, right? It just sets a floor. That floor might not be good enough, but that's not a reason to get rid of the floor. That's a reason to set the floor and then set an even better one.

The reason I responded was that Trump and these other sites are saying "EVEN MIT AGREES WITH ME" as if MIT is the ultimate supplier of environmental knowledge, but MIT is saying Trump misinterpreted their research and asking the government to not withdraw from the accord. I don't really understand Doc's post where he put the word "you've" in quotation marks. I don't think I've ever manipulated temperature fluctuation personally, but I certainly try my best to not take someone's research to support my argument when the person's research actually reaches the opposite conclusion of what I'm trying to say.

[jdshock]

In other news, the "covfefe" fiasco is maybe the perfect metaphor for this administration.

1. Trump makes a relatively minor mistake (typo in Tweet)
2. People make fun of Trump for minor mistake
3. Trump hates being a laughing-stock, so he doubles down and sends his press secretary out there to say it was intentional.

Sean Spicer saying Trump actually knows what the word means and that it was intentional is beyond crazy.

[ShockingButTrue]

In other news, the "covfefe" fiasco is maybe the perfect metaphor for this administration.

1. Trump makes a relatively minor mistake (typo in Tweet)
2. People make fun of Trump for minor mistake
3. Trump hates being a laughing-stock, so he doubles down and sends his press secretary out there to say it was intentional.

Sean Spicer saying Trump actually knows what the word means and that it was intentional is beyond crazy.

It's contagious isn't it...

[MoValley John]

In other news, the "covfefe" fiasco is maybe the perfect metaphor for this administration.

1. Trump makes a relatively minor mistake (typo in Tweet)
2. People make fun of Trump for minor mistake
3. Trump hates being a laughing-stock, so he doubles down and sends his press secretary out there to say it was intentional.

Sean Spicer saying Trump actually knows what the word means and that it was intentional is beyond crazy.

It was a typo. Nowhere did Spicer say it was intentional. Spicer said, "The President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." Nothing more. Nothing less. What Spicer could have, and probably meant was that it was a typo, but the President and his inner circle know what the word was supposed to mean. We all have a really good idea of what the word is supposed to mean. I would lay odds that Trump intended to type "coverage."

Trumps inability to laugh at himself is saddening. A little self deprecation is a good thing. But Spicer never said it was intentional at all. The fact that people make that leap is equally sad.

[jdshock]

It was a typo. Nowhere did Spicer say it was intentional. Spicer said, "The President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." Nothing more. Nothing less. What Spicer could have, and probably meant was that it was a typo, but the President and his inner circle know what the word was supposed to mean. We all have a really good idea of what the word is supposed to mean. I would lay odds that Trump intended to type "cov

erage."

Trumps inability to laugh at himself is saddening. A little self deprecation is a good thing. But Spicer never said it was intentional at all. The fact that people make that leap is equally sad.

Why do you still give him the benefit of the doubt? He could have just called it a typo! He deleted the tweet. It was no big deal. Instead he says "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

But for some reason, you read between the lines as Spicy saying "The president accidentally tweeted a typo. He ultimately chose not to elaborate on the meaning of his tweet. He, along with several other people in his circle, know what he meant to type, even though he never clarified publicly."

Maybe he didn't say it was intentional, but he failed to say it was a typo because Trump refuses to admit mistakes. I imagine if he accidentally took a left turn he'd travel around the world just to get to his destination and say "exactly the way I intended to get here."

[wufan]

You're right. I misread the sentence about decrease in temperature.

Every time climate stuff gets brought up on this forum, it's the same conversation. I say "the vast majority of scientists think we need to be acting." And everyone else is really adamant that we shouldn't be. I don't know where the line is, but let's assume there is a line at some point. If there is a threshold where the "numbers proliferate" and we have catastrophic warming, then it's important to do everything we can to avoid hitting that threshold. A 0.5C reduction in additional warming might be the amount that prevents us from passing over the threshold. And more importantly, it's not as if these types of agreements prevent us from exceeding the requirements, right? It just sets a floor. That floor might not be good enough, but that's not a reason to get rid of the floor. That's a reason to set the floor and then set an even better one.

The reason I responded was that Trump and these other sites are saying "EVEN MIT AGREES WITH ME" as if MIT is the ultimate supplier of environmental knowledge, but MIT is saying Trump misinterpreted their research and asking the government to not withdraw from the accord. I don't really understand Doc's post where he put the word "you've" in quotation marks. I don't think I've ever manipulated temperature fluctuation personally, but I certainly try my best to not take someone's research to support my argument when the person's research actually reaches the opposite conclusion of what I'm trying to say.

Even if we disagree, it's still a good conversation to have. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong (or maybe even a little bit of both), and the net effects are a huge negative if we jump on the wrong side with guns blazing. The science (IMO) has become tainted due to the polarizing politics which is why I am a climate skeptic. The argument that "climate change must be addressed" is so loud that the unanswered questions are often ignored. Again, this doesn't mean that the climatologists are wrong, just that an apolitical skeptic review is long past overdue.

[MoValley John]

Why do you still give him the benefit of the doubt? He could have just called it a typo! He deleted the tweet. It was no big deal. Instead he says "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

But for some reason, you read between the lines as Spicy saying "The president accidentally tweeted a typo. He ultimately chose not to elaborate on the meaning of his tweet. He, along with several other people in his circle, know what he meant to type, even though he never clarified publicly."

Maybe he didn't say it was intentional, but he failed to say it was a typo because Trump refuses to admit mistakes. I imagine if he accidentally took a left turn he'd travel around the world just to get to his destination and say "exactly the way I intended to get here."

Who is trying to put words in who's mouth? Not me. Go back and reread what you just originally typed, my reply and your subsequent post. You are the one makinv huge leaps regarding a simple reply from Spicer.

And yes, Trump is disappointing me, but at the same time, you, and everyone else putting words in Spicers mouth helps nothing and just makes politics that much more of a pathetic wasteland. Trump doesn't need your help mischaracterizing things. He does a pretty good job all on his own.

[shocka khan]

And the twitter idiot has wandered into the villiage

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/trump-travel-ban-courts/index.html

Seriously, I don't agree with the ban, but doesn't he understand he undermines his own case when he does stupid stuff like this?

[jdshock]

the net effects are a huge negative if we jump on the wrong side with guns blazing.

I obviously appreciate the different viewpoint you bring, but I just want to clarify that there's only a huge negative of the government combating global warming (and global warming is a hoax) if you also believe government spending on infrastructure and research cannot benefit the economy. I get that most people who think global warming isn't a concern also tend to be vehemently opposed to government spending of any kind, but I think it's important to note that many liberals don't agree that there's a big downside to immediately acting even if global warming isn't really a problem.

To many of us, if global warming is concerning and we avert catastrophe, any amount of resources would've been worth the effort. If global warming ultimately isn't a problem, we have massively invested in new technologies, created jobs, increased our resource independence, and likely prolonged our place as one of the world leaders in innovation. That's all without even considering the other problems that might need to be avoided like air pollution, economic problems of fossil fuel price spikes, and the economic problems of an aging powergrid.

[wufan]

I obviously appreciate the different viewpoint you bring, but I just want to clarify that there's only a huge negative of the government combating global warming (and global warming is a hoax) if you also believe government spending on infrastructure and research cannot benefit the economy. I get that most people who think global warming isn't a concern also tend to be vehemently opposed to government spending of any kind, but I think it's important to note that many liberals don't agree that there's a big downside to immediately acting even if global warming isn't really a problem.

To many of us, if global warming is concerning and we avert catastrophe, any amount of resources would've been worth the effort. If global warming ultimately isn't a problem, we have massively invested in new technologies, created jobs, increased our resource independence, and likely prolonged our place as one of the world leaders in innovation. That's all without even considering the other problems that might need to be avoided like air pollution, economic problems of fossil fuel price spikes, and the economic problems of an aging powergrid.

I do agree that research and infrastructure spending is a good investment. I'm not sold on the thought that this infrastructure is economically solid, nor that the research grants are well used. Certainly some is good and some is not so good. I am concerned that some of the regulations on industry are misplaced and harmful to industry. In many cases it's easier to move on to a new site than to retrofit existing sites. I probably need to check the numbers on that, but it's certainly my fear.

[CBB_Fan]

Somebody is right and somebody is wrong (or maybe even a little bit of both), and the net effects are a huge negative if we jump on the wrong side with guns blazing.

I think in general the primary complaint against global warming is economical, not practical or scientific. The idea being even if global warming exists, is caused by humans, and can be stopping by human means it will cost trillions and bankrupt the USA. So maybe the "real" discussion we need to have is about economics, not science or politics.

The basic points for combating global warming would go something like this:

• The costs of not addressing climate change could exceed the cost of fixing it (e.g. a study showing a potential loss of 20% of global GDP)
• Addressing global warming is an investment that will spur the creation of new jobs, new industries, and new supporting industries
• There are substantial side benefits to combating global warming; the worst that could happen is creating a better world "for nothing"

Addressing global warming now is a planning for the future, moving to a economy that can handle long-term economic growth rather than sticking with one reliant on limited, consumable resources and obsolete industries.

And it isn't even a foregone conclusion that investments in our infrastructure and populace will be a net negative in the short term. The simplest, easiest solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax which would not cost taxpayers a dime while still producing new technologies and industries. This would raise GDP in every region of the country but the Oil Basin (Texas/Oklahoma/Louisiana/Arkansas).

If there is a cheap or even net-positive method of fighting climate change that also future-proofs our economy, why shouldn't we use it?