|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
In the wake of President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, former President Obama issued a pointed statement lamenting the decision, even as he expressed hopes that individual states, cities and businesses would continue to combat climate change.
“The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created,” Obama said. “I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership, even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future, I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.”
www.yahoo.com
|
|
|
Isn't pittsburgh somewhere around ohio? Would explain their reasonable thinking.
|
The perfect response. This and Obama's are so choice. Don't mock Trump, just point out that they don't care what he says.
|
as an aside if it wasn't obvious enough, the reason that's funny is because Trump saidI was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, Not Paris
Are they big into some kind of coal business or why did he choose that city instead of one that's more likely to agree with him?
|
Okay, so like, things expand when they get hot, right? And the oceans are fucking huge, right? So wouldn't a really small expansion on a large thing too?
Rhetorical questions out of the way, I'm not very good at math. Quick googling says that ΔV=Vo β ΔT is the equation for volumetric expansion in liquids. Google says the volume of the oceans is 352,670 quadrillion gallons, β for salinated water at 25C is 297⋅10^−6/oK. Could somebody figure out how much more space that water will fill?
|
On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before.
For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
|
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt wouldn’t say whether President Donald Trump still thinks climate change is a hoax.
CNN’s Jake Tapper spoke with Pruitt moments after Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
“This is not about whether climate change is occurring or not,” Pruitt said, arguing Trump backed out of the Paris agreement because it was bad for the U.S. economy.
www.yahoo.com
Takin' them coal jobs right out from under our feet.
|
On June 02 2017 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote:
Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc.
I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. No one cares dude. Do you think everyone who said they approved of Trump pulling out knew what the decision entailed? Then I agree with your new position. Nobody cares about the polls on this for that reason. Was that supposed to sound clever? When you have to intentionally misread posts to keep a leg to stand on, it's not really a good look, you know.
Why even respond again with the same thing if you didn't want to deal with the counter argument in the first place? Like I suppose I could edit out half your response and give an incomplete answer like you did earlier, but what purpose would that serve? Seriously, man.
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
Is it worth to pay thousands of dollars not to?
Because that's where this is going, and i'm sure you know that too, but because "go red", it'd look rather stupid to acknowledge the obvious flaw in your argument after defending it for so long now.
Sidenote: i'm really disappointed in your reaction, after you constantly asked you now got numbers, and you can't even be arsed to check them.
Great job.
|
Good move from the Trumpster getting out of the Paris agreement.We need to reopen the discussion on the US leaving the United Nations.
An organisation that puts Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee is clearly corrupt and compromised to the core.Time to end this relic of the 20th century.
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
Delaying by decades is immeasurably beneficial because the biggest issue with global warming is the pending refugee crisis. Allowing for decades to prepare both socially and technologically would likely be the difference between catastrophic disaster and shitty.
|
On June 02 2017 08:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good move from the Trumpster getting out of the Paris agreement.We need to reopen the discussion on the US leaving the United Nations.
An organisation that puts Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee is clearly corrupt and compromised to the core.Time to end this relic of the 20th century.
Lol.. Could you briefly recall who actually called for this vote, and who was vividly against it?
Yeah, you guessed it.
|
Do those who refute climate change actually understand the evidence that's presented to them? Or do they just not care or have vested interests (Big Oil $$$ etc.) in mind?
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
"a few decades later" might be enough to delay it even further with whatever you implement during those decades or if we get really lucky turn it around or at the least have us in a position to deal with those issues better.
In the end your question is pretty defeatist. It's like asking wether all the money spent on some arbitrary regulations you can pick that today are saving lives are really worth the money companies have to pay for them instead of just polluting the water supply (or whatever else you picked)
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
What thousands of dollars? The Paris agreement was nonbinding. This is purely a symbolic move so Trump can have his ego stroked by his supporters so that the lonely little voice in his head shouting that he's pathetic will be drowned out for another day.
|
On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:57 Amui wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one. There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy. But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine? Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth). Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before. For simplicity, let's just assume all of that is true. Is it still worth it for Americans to pay thousands of dollars per year to slow the warming by .17 degrees when the the warming will still continue all of that will happen anyway -- just a few decades later?
That's an entire generation of technological and social progress.
We don't have a solution now, but you can be damned sure that some of the smartest people alive in those extra decades will be working their asses off to find one, even if the idiocracy-like world Trump wants to perpetuate comes to life.
|
On June 02 2017 08:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:07 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote:
Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc.
I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. No one cares dude. Do you think everyone who said they approved of Trump pulling out knew what the decision entailed? Then I agree with your new position. Nobody cares about the polls on this for that reason. Was that supposed to sound clever? When you have to intentionally misread posts to keep a leg to stand on, it's not really a good look, you know. Why even respond again with the same thing if you didn't want to deal with the counter argument in the first place? Like I suppose I could edit out half your response and give an incomplete answer like you did earlier, but what purpose would that serve? Seriously, man.
My answer was complete. Whenever we ask people on anything, a percentage of them won't have a clue what we're talking about. You pretending that it suddenly matters because the answer on a specific poll doesn't fit what you want is hard to take seriously.
It's also hilarious that you argue people would agree with Trump more if they had all the facts when, what, everyone in the scientific community disagrees with him?
|
On June 02 2017 08:21 Toadesstern wrote:as an aside if it wasn't obvious enough, the reason that's funny is because Trump said Are they big into some kind of coal business or why did he choose that city instead of one that's more likely to agree with him?
Pittsburgh/western PA was once big on coal. And yes that is literally the reason Trump mentioned Pittsburgh.
|
Everything Trump does is about one thing.
It's not about money, or oil, or ideology.
Everything has one simple question to answer: Will this piss off Europe? "America First", as described by Putin himself.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBRctXJXYAAw_XJ.jpg:large)
The Steele Dossier isn't journalism. It isn't a rookie Snowden desk-jockie on the internet. It was assembled by a veteran of one of the world's most respected intelligence agencies: MI6. For starting intel, this is as credible as it gets.
EVERYTHING Trump has done and is doing is described accurately in Steele's assessment. Trump has one ultimate purpose, which he has made ABUNDANTLY clear: Piss off Europe. Go to NATO and literally shove people and talk gibberish. This is the SAME thing.
That is the only reason he withdrew from Paris Acc'd. It isn't about money, or oil. It's about NATO.
Sorry for all the caps, I'm frustrated.
You guys are arguing about science, Pittsburg, coal, and the oil industry, as if those things mattered in this decision.
I promise you, none of that mattered in this decision. At all. When are people going to stop ignoring Trump's obvious motive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
