|
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. |
On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita?
Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 02 2017 09:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:08 Leporello wrote:On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move. Thank you. This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe. Show nested quote +Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
Yeah, there's just a slight problem with those utterly trivial numbers. Could you briefly recite what's needed to form a supercell, for example - and what feeds it?
Not sure what you're getting at here. Care to be more specific?
|
On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2.
See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population.
It's absolutely idiotic.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Care to be more specific?
A slight increase in water temperatures and more importantly the resulting vaporisation of water will increase the rate, strength and duration of hurricanes, taifuns, tornados, and pretty much all the other things "wind" that get destructive quickly. And it's not that easy to say "well it's only X, so it'd only increase by a fraction of a percent. That's not how it works.
So what i was trying to say is that even those trivial numbers in regards to water temperature carry a huge risk.
Admittedly, i don't have solid numbers for that, i'm only recalling things. But for the big picture, even trivial things can get out of control (exponentially) quickly.
|
On June 02 2017 09:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2. See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population. It's absolutely idiotic.
Well you are responding to our resident conspiracy theorist. I think he and Nuked were our two 9/11 truthers.
|
On June 02 2017 09:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. It's not like the climate refugees don't have plenty of warning already. If go are really concerned about them, then the money should be spent on dealing with the impending consequences of global warming instead engaging in the futility that is trying to stop it.
I don't think I follow your reasoning. Since something is inevitable, it shouldn't be delayed for the sake of better preparation? When you handle something as an emergency, rather than an expected, prepared event, the costs skyrocket. Hell, just look at the Syria situation. If temperatures rise as they should, climate refugees will hugely outnumber what we are seeing in the middle east right now. It will be very, very expensive and infrastructure and other technological advances will make it much better.
No matter how you slice it, the refugee crisis occurring 20 years later is much, much, much more efficient and will cost the US much, much less. Gotta keep in mind foreign countries aren't the only ones with land that will suffer. We will have some big problems on our hands that will be very expensive to deal with. There are a variety of ways that letting technology, infrastructure and everything else advance prior is enormously beneficial.
|
On June 02 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:17 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2. See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population. It's absolutely idiotic. Well you are responding to our resident conspiracy theorist. I think he and Nuked were our two 9/11 truthers.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the Iraq War was launched primarily off the lies of the Heritage Foundation. If 9/11 was an inside job, the heritage foundation would've been the director. But today you see 9/11 truthers siding with them, because reasons.
|
On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over.
Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
|
On June 02 2017 09:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:08 Leporello wrote:On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move. Thank you. This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe. Problem being, i think that it hurts the US considerably more than it hurts europe which can now claim the leadership next to china. Not that i'd care, it's just interesting to see the shortsightedness of certain americans, even trying to argue that "well spend the money to fix the impending consequences of being shitty rather than the reason for it", leaving out the fact that once those consequences hit, not a single country in the world will get away from it. Just because you won't get your feet wet doesn't mean it won't concern you or collapse your economy. Show nested quote +Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
Yeah, there's just a slight problem with those utterly trivial numbers. Could you briefly recite what's needed to form a supercell, for example - and what feeds it?
I did the math in another post. It's less than a meter per degree of ocean warming(this is much worse than atmospheric warming, and much harder to measure/change). Compare that to the dozens of meters of sea level rise that will happen if greenland/icecaps melt, and thermal expansion is really a non-issue.
|
On June 02 2017 09:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:17 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2. See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population. It's absolutely idiotic. Well you are responding to our resident conspiracy theorist. I think he and Nuked were our two 9/11 truthers. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the Iraq War was launched primarily off the lies of the Heritage Foundation. If 9/11 was an inside job, the heritage foundation would've been the director. But today you see 9/11 truthers siding with them, because reasons.
Go red! Go red! Goooooo red!
Guess that's why.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 02 2017 09:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2. See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population. It's absolutely idiotic. A slight increase in water temperatures and more importantly the resulting vaporisation of water will increase the rate, strength and duration of hurricanes, taifuns, tornados, and pretty much all the other things "wind" that get destructive quickly. And it's not that easy to say "well it's only X, so it'd only increase by a fraction of a percent. That's not how it works. So what i was trying to say is that even those trivial numbers in regards to water temperature carry a huge risk. Admittedly, i don't have solid numbers for that, i'm only recalling things. But for the big picture, even trivial things can get out of control (exponentially) quickly.
We're talking about thermal expansion specifically though. The rest of the results are a different matter.
I linked a NASA article a few pages back that talked about the other issues.
|
On June 02 2017 09:22 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:11 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:08 Leporello wrote:On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move. Thank you. This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe. Problem being, i think that it hurts the US considerably more than it hurts europe which can now claim the leadership next to china. Not that i'd care, it's just interesting to see the shortsightedness of certain americans, even trying to argue that "well spend the money to fix the impending consequences of being shitty rather than the reason for it", leaving out the fact that once those consequences hit, not a single country in the world will get away from it. Just because you won't get your feet wet doesn't mean it won't concern you or collapse your economy. Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
Yeah, there's just a slight problem with those utterly trivial numbers. Could you briefly recite what's needed to form a supercell, for example - and what feeds it? I did the math in another post. It's less than a meter per degree of ocean warming(this is much worse than atmospheric warming, and much harder to measure/change). Compare that to the dozens of meters of sea level rise that will happen if greenland/icecaps melt, and thermal expansion is really a non-issue.
I never referred to your numbers nor did i dispute them. In fact i wasn't even talking about rising sea levels, there's other things that get impacted by increased water temperatures. I'm talking about the fact that even slight increases in water temperature have a big impact on how devastating natural disasters become.
We're talking about thermal expansion specifically though. The rest of the results are a different matter.
Fair enough, missed my queue then. My bad. 
|
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.
“There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several “panicky” calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?”
www.yahoo.com
|
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
My point was that Trump has already undone all the features of it that would've cost money via overturning Obama's executive orders. The rest of the world was staying pretty silent about it until he just decided to rub their faces in it by actually withdrawing from the meaningless parts.
|
On June 02 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:17 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:15 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 09:13 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 09:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
.
Do People who actually still believe in the MMGW theory realise China emits nearly 40% more CO2 than the US nowdays? Do people like you realise that china has more than five times the population of the US and with that has inherently a higher carbon footprint? Are you dense? What's the carbon footprint per capita? Per person the US produces 4 times more CO2. See my edit, but yeah. I just don't get it. If you scale the US population to chinese levels, you'd blow out four times what they do now. Like, how can you even try and make an argument around "well they blow out a bit more than us" while neglecting the fact that china is considerably bigger than the US with five times the population. It's absolutely idiotic. Well you are responding to our resident conspiracy theorist. I think he and Nuked were our two 9/11 truthers.
I and thousands of engineers and architects also don't believe the report from NIST regarding building 7. But yeah, we've known for more than a decade that the earth can't even sustain China living like Americans, let alone India and the rest of the developing world.
I'm sure those in the know have known much longer that Americans were going to have to change their way of life or demand the rest of the world never imitate our way of life or watch the world burn (or die before it does), those were the options since Carter at least.
|
The White House and a Russian state-owned bank have very different explanations for why the bank’s chief executive and Jared Kushner held a secret meeting during the presidential transition in December.
The bank maintained this week that the session was held as part of a new business strategy and was conducted with Kushner in his role as the head of his family’s real estate business. The White House says the meeting was unrelated to business and was one of many diplomatic encounters the soon-to-be presidential adviser was holding ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration.
...
The Kushner-Gorkov meeting came after Kushner met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in early December. At the meeting, Kushner suggested establishing a secure communications line between Trump officials and the Kremlin at a Russian diplomatic facility, according to U.S. officials who reviewed intelligence reports describing Kislyak’s account.
...
Flight data reviewed by The Washington Post suggests the meeting may have taken place on Dec. 13 or 14, about two weeks after Kushner’s encounter with Kislyak.
A 19-seat twin-engine jet owned by a company linked to VEB flew from Moscow to the United States on Dec. 13 and departed from the Newark airport, outside New York City, at 5:01 p.m. Dec. 14, according to positional flight information provided by FlightAware, a company that tracks airplanes.
The Post could not confirm whether Gorkov was on the flight, but the plane’s previous flights closely mirror Gorkov’s publicly known travels in recent months, including his trip to St. Petersburg this week.
After leaving Newark on Dec. 14, the jet headed to Japan, where Putin was visiting on Dec. 15 and 16. The news media had reported that Gorkov would join the Russian president there.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On June 02 2017 09:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:08 Leporello wrote:On June 02 2017 09:07 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. he's saying that Trump could have just shut up, not said a word and never implemented anything in the first place and gotten away with it. Instead he made that statement as a symbolic move. Thank you. This has nothing to do with domestic policy. Trump doesn't care about any of that. This is about Europe. Problem being, i think that it hurts the US considerably more than it hurts europe which can now claim the leadership next to china. Not that i'd care, it's just interesting to see the shortsightedness of certain americans, even trying to argue that "well spend the money to fix the impending consequences of being shitty rather than the reason for it", leaving out the fact that once those consequences hit, not a single country in the world will get away from it. Just because you won't get your feet wet doesn't mean it won't concern you or collapse your economy. Show nested quote +Even by those standards the difference is going to be utterly trivial. And that also doesn't factor in that as water gets hotter, more of it will evaporate (i.e. Higher vapor pressure).
Yeah, there's just a slight problem with those utterly trivial numbers. Could you briefly recite what's needed to form a supercell, for example - and what feeds it?
That's not the problem. That's the point.
That's why he made it a big announcement.
He is purposefully removing America from the Atlantic. In yet ANOTHER brazen display.
Just like Putin wants him to.
I'll paste this paragraph written by a veteran of the world's arguably most-respected intelligence agency one last time.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBRctXJXYAAw_XJ.jpg:large)
This isn't about coal, pollution, or anything to actually do with energy policy.
|
United States42673 Posts
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
Does that sound remotely realistic to you? I mean really? You can actually read that number and go "that sounds plausible". Let's assume low single digit thousands, maybe $3,000. There are 310,000,000 Americans. So we take the first number and multiply it by the second number and that gets us $930,000,000,000 per year. You're telling me you look at that number and go "yeah, seems legit"? Really? That's the hill you're going to die on?
Also energy saving measures generally are free, or even revenue creators. Installing modern insulation in old houses, for example, pays for itself quite quickly, reduces carbon emissions and creates a fair number of jobs. The UK has been running insulation and boiler upgrade loan schemes for a while now with a lot of success.
|
On June 02 2017 09:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 08:30 Nevuk wrote:On June 02 2017 08:22 xDaunt wrote: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. Why do people keep advancing this stupid argument? Regardless of how binding it is, it is indisputable that adherence to the Paris Accords carries costs. Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. Does that sound remotely realistic to you? I mean really? You can actually read that number and go "that sounds plausible". Let's assume low single digit thousands, maybe $3,000. There are 310,000,000 Americans. So we take the first number and multiply it by the second number and that gets us $930,000,000,000 per year. You're telling me you look at that number and go "yeah, seems legit"? Really? That's the hill you're going to die on? Also energy saving measures generally are free, or even revenue creators. Installing modern insulation in old houses, for example, pays for itself quite quickly, reduces carbon emissions and creates a fair number of jobs. The UK has been running insulation and boiler upgrade loan schemes for a while now with a lot of success.
Oh no, they were quoting $20.000 for a family of four in the next 20 years. Altogether. As far as i can tell, they didn't give an annual number whatsoever.
Sidenote: i need to wash my eyes now, that Heritage bullshit can't be serious.
|
Ignoring that Wind and solar energy has survived maturaization in a free market and is rapidly going past the need for subsidies. Ignoring its disproportionate benifit to rual and suburban users of electricity over urban users of electricity.
Theres the argument that its government bloat but it only holds water until it starts being a cost negative proposition for people. The less government mandated energy monopolies the less waste and more free market the energy industry is. If thats not conservative bread and butter then I don't know what could be.
|
On June 02 2017 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
Ignoring that Wind and solar energy has survived maturaization in a free market and is rapidly going past the need for subsidies. Ignoring its disproportionate benifit to rual and suburban users of electricity over urban users of electricity.
Theres the argument that its government bloat but it only holds water until it starts being a cost negative proposition for people. The less government mandated energy monopolies the less waste and more free market the energy industry is. If thats not conservative bread and butter then I don't know what could be.
Does coal/fracking/fossil fuels in general get subsidised in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
