Trump’s own government’s study shows him to be a mendacious moron. Click on the screenshot below to go to the CNN story, and you can find the government report it mentions at this site. (Note: the report is very long.)
An excerpt from CNN:
The report’s findings run counter to President Donald Trump’s consistent message that climate change is a hoax.
On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century.
But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it’s demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
Without significant reductions in greenhouse emissions, the annual average global temperature could increase 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 Celsius) or more by the end of this century, compared with preindustrial temperatures, the report says.
Dunno if I’ve ever mentioned it here before, but I’m starting to have some slight doubts about that fella’s fitness myself.
Doubts are good.
Sub
We are doomed. Earth will be no place for humans (at least, never mind the tardigrades) in 200 years, maybe in 300, most definitely in 500. I see no reason, as of this typing, for optimism. Yes, we are cooked (sorry for the pun).
There is a long road between now and 200 years. A lot can change. Technology is bound to provide more leverage over CO2. Politics will certainly change. Don’t give up yet.
I fear too many take the attitude après nous, le déluge, Barry.
So it seems. Even many parents, whose children will have to try to find some way to survive the consequences. (And may not be able to.)
Sub
It’s a good thing that Trump missed squelching this report. He’s bound to lash out at it.
The report is mandated by law. He can’t squelch it.
The Trump admin did what they could by releasing it on a day when most people are busy elsewhere, Black Friday. My guess is that they could have done more but they were busy elsewhere as well.
Perhaps it will remain in our memories as the “Black Friday Report”.
And later becoming the Black Century Report if the world doesn’t do something.
I’m expecting hear about resignations of those involved in the near future, maybe promotions.
World isn’t gonna end. FFS.
It is a disgusting reality to realize that the earth will essentially be destroyed by human greed. Even if we get to zero immisions in 10 years (not gonna happen) the long term damage will continue to worsen, many more species will die, fiercer storms, fires, droughts and if it really gets bad (I don’t see why it won’t get this bad) climate change will fuel frequent wars, famine, pestilence, ecological and economic collapse; the future is pretty bleak imo…
Exactly Mark. I dont like being the pessimist. but there are just too many of us on the planet.
This is Drake’s equation, it includes an interesting variable, L:
N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L
N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space
The sun is expected to inflate beyond the Earth’s orbit in about 5 billion years. L is expected to be a tiny fraction of that.
Source:
https://www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html
The astronomer Martin Rees says that there is a chance that this century is the last one… Perhaps the variable L should include a Trump factor.
In discussion of the “Fermi Paradox” (aka, “Where is everybody?”), this parameter is often referred as “the great filter”. The implication is that as a civilisation reaches the level of technology that allows it’s electromagnetic emissions to be seen from afar, it also develops technologies that greatly reduce death rates. That leads to a mismatch of birth rate and death rate and a large increase in population, resource consumption and pollution. Which kills the civilisation off.
We certainly seem to be following the script.
As a geologist, I’ll add – most of the easily-found resources (metals, stored energy, fertilizers) have been exploited already, leaving only low grade resources to be exploited by a civilisation trying to re-emerge. We’ll probably only get one chance, as a species. By the time the resources have renewed, this species won’t be around.
Quite plausibly, the “faint young sun” problem (about 5% increase in Solar output per gigayear) will boil the oceans before the planet generates another civilisation.
So pessimistic! Yes the resources are going away as mined by current technologies but, not withstanding fusion and fission, the atoms are still with us. Surely nanotechnology and the like will find a way to use them in the future. We will probably find a way to make atoms sometime in the future though it will require energy.
The Earth will not be destroyed by us. Whatever damage we do to the environment, the Earth will carry on, with or without us. The ecosystem will probably recover once we are gone like it did after all the previous mass extinctions.
All the handwringing and gnashing of teeth is based on the premise that the World is better off with as many of us in it as possible. I am beginning to entertain the idea that Trump is right: the World is better off without any of us in it.
As so often, Pterry put it succinctly.
Well, maybe the last bit is a little iffy.
Ha! Very good. I also didn’t know of the Pterry nickname til now.
Trump should go first in order to make the most progress in the least amount of time.
The good thing for first moron is he will not be here to experience the worst effects of this. His kids however, are a different matter and they can remember his ignorant comments.
I probably won’t be too adversely affected either and I don’t have kids, so don’t have to worry about that. But I do feel dread for children being born right now. Humanity just can’t get its act together until a crisis is in their front yard…and sometimes not even then.
I was thinking much the same thoughts 30-odd years ago.
I realize that PCC(E) is a bit down on the New Yorker these days, but it seems well worth looking at Bill McKibben’s (longish) article in this week’s issue, Nov 26, on climate change, based, I guess, in part in the UN’s IPCC report from last October, as well as his own work. Gloomy reading.
Sub
I read in one of Donald Protheros books that sometime in the ancient past there were CO2 concentrations as high as 900 ppm.Heres one thing I’ve wondered about.Thermal power plants(coal and nuclear) emit waste heat simple Wouldn’t that waste heat be trapped and contribute to overall temperature increases?Generally though it’s thought that solar radiation is the main culprit right?
Also can anyone this El Niño phenomenon?What exactly is that?
Also magnets, please.
If I read the sentiment behind your reply correctly I can see why common people feel resentful towards the scientific “elite” I’m sure I can just go to Wikipedia and find out I was just sorta seeing how my question was treated Thanks for the clarification
Richard benton, I am not a scientist either. If you or I start discussing complicated scientific things we should accept that our views and opinions are worthless. In fact, neither of us being a climate scientist, we’re shouldn’t have an opinion at all, when debating the science. It doesn’t mean we’re worthless as people, so it shouldn’t be taken as an offense. This typically American way of using the word “elite” as a derogatory remark in this context is just wrong. The “scientific elite” is elite, because they are more educated, more knowledgable and have toiled for years to train their minds to understand these complicated things. You or I haven’t. They haven’t been born into nobility or inherited riches, like the word “elite” would imply. The scientific specialists are not above a layman as citizens or human beings, but their views and opinions certainly are.
Science is not a democracy, where every vote counts and every opinion weighs the same. Being respectful is nice, but many scientists are understandably frustrated, after decades of talking to ignorant people about serious threats like climate change. And some of these ignoramuses are politicians running the world. So we laymen should just develop a thicker skin, when we’re facing knowlegde and expertise we don’t have. While doing our best to learn as much as we can before entering the voting booth, where our opinions do count.
+1
Where I was being snarky in passing, your comment is thoughtful, considerate and well said. +1 and apologies for being short.
Science is not a democracy?Really?First let’s define what a democracy is You think voting guarantees democracy?Have you ever heard of Dunbar’s number?Voting once and then letting that bunch of criminal lawyers run everything is an renunciation of civic responsibility What is a citizen scientist?
Or come to groups like the Center for Inquiry, where people *can* do talks, discussions, etc. for the layperson. I have given some myself and learned much from those of others. A website does not lend itself to details, for better or for worse.
Global thermohaline circulation is a very good place to start. I recommend watching the beautiful video from beginning to end embedded in THIS LINK
El Niño is a relatively smaller cog partly driven by the above machine in ways we aren’t quite grasping yet. The complexity of Earth air & ocean circulations is rather daunting & multi-dimensional – a playground for supercomputers rather than mere people.
richard benton:
It has been as high as 4,000 ppm in the Cambrian 500,000,000 years ago [no land life to speak of back then]. Possibly you are getting 900 ppm as one of his estimates for the end of this century, but I haven’t checked. richard benton:
Some shill bloggers for the power industry have been trying to push industrial waste heat as a large influence on climate – their objective is to play down the effect of CO2 & to point out areas where the effects of the various ‘fluxes’ is not yet pinned down nor modelled. They are in the business of sowing doubt & confusion, basically troll tactics disguised as ‘climate scepticism’.
I mention the above, because I’m wondering why your questions on human caused warming are part of the ‘climate sceptic’ menu. Where did you come across your points? The Watts Up With That? [WUWT] climate denial site is the most popular & Anthony Watts writes very well – he can drag you in! 🙂
Here’s an old example of Waste Heat bollocks in action at WUWT by a guest blogger: CONGENITAL CLIMATE ABNORMALITIES
POWER PLANT WASTE HEAT
This is usually called “anthropogenic heat flux” [AHF]. Because the energy we derive from non-renewable sources [coal, petroleum, natural gas & nuclear] would not otherwise have been introduced to the Earth System as heat AHF can be considered a climate forcing term. In a global, big picture sense AHF is thought to be only about 1% of the energy flux being added to Earth because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This 1% figure as large error bars – maybe it’s nearly 1.5% or it’s 0.8% – at this time it’s up in the air so to speak 🙂
BUT on a smaller scale than ‘global’, AHF has a greater effect than the 1% figure might suggest – you can imagine that AHF is concentrated in cities & mega-cities e.g. east & west coast of the USA are effectively strips of thousand mile mega-city as is very clear if you watch YouTube videos from the ISS [flying down the west coast from Canada at night you can see human lighting is a continuous spider web tracery]. AHF, it is suggested, is sufficient to effect local climate – the timing of the Monsoons for example. richard benton:
Solar is the main culprit of global warming? Why use the term culprit? The way to think about it generally [the same reasoning can be applied to Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Venus etc climates] is in terms of RADIATIVE FORCING [PLEASE READ] to quote from the link:
Please check out the diagrams richard benton:
Stolen from the met office, “El Niño and La Niña are terms which describe the biggest fluctuation in the Earth’s climate system and can have consequences across the globe. The fluctuation sees changes in the sea-surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean which occur every few years.” This is also a denier talking point! El Niño & La Niña do not contribute to global warming they are fluctuations WITHIN the climate system only – like night & day, but at a different time scale. There a very good Wiki you can read on this.
Well thank you for your reply.My question about tpp’s was entirely my own thought The paranoia about deniers was completely unexpected Your explanation was confusing to me I’ll read it again You should respect the “deniers “ as fellow travelers on spaceship earth They May be wrong but it’s possible they are sincere in their belief (some of them anyway) Remember Carl Sagan’s respectful debate with Immanuel Velikovsky
I put a lot of effort into that post & I don’t expect you to tell me by return to treat ‘climate sceptics’ with respect because they are fellow travellers on this blue ball! Not your job to moderate my views.
Respect me by reading the links I discovered & watching the video. That way we’ll both learn something.
Paranoia? I have no paranoia about you as you’ve been here as many years as me & I’m familiar with your overall views. I am also not paranoid about the ‘climate sceptics’ – they are a menace & don’t deserve to be treated as if they are informed by facts – you yourself wrote in comment 13:
They are a menace only in the amount of CO2 they generate All their other contributions are just hot air
You don’t know what you’re talking about – the USA has a climate change denier in chief now & his base don’t care – because they also are deniers or they are uninformed/don’t care.
This level of denial [among powerful individuals & fossil fuel vested interests & political disrupters such as Putin’s trolls] & the broader dismissal of science-based policy making [land management, teaching of evolution, vaccination, water chlorination, immigration causes & many more topics] is having an effect that ripples out to all over the world.
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL:
From 2015 to 2017 the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe, who had previously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people” and claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor.
He was succeeded in 2017 by John Barrasso, who similarly said: “The climate is constantly changing. The role human activity plays is not known.”
Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.
More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks. The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million. Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation. SOURCE
I think just about anyone above room temperature IQ knows this, but the hush money is so handy they’ve developed chronic denialism. Fiddling while Rome burns.
Yes, exactly. It reminds me of BREXIT in a way where certain pols have done 180 degree turns to advance their careers at some cost to our nation. A handful of unprincipled bastards who have lied repeatedly in stunningly open ways & yet they are not suffering any personal consequences. Also the conservative party aligning with the DUP [a bunch of creationist, anti-evolutionist, anti-LGBQXYZ rights, anti-abortion yokels] for realpolitik reasons. No honour. The win is all.
(For DUP, substitute fundamentalists, white supremacists, poor rural whites, etc.)
Sadly, I recall there’s been brain scan research that found that one’s basic political philosophy may be hardwired to some extent.
@Diane G
Your substitutions work perfectly LOL
Do you remember if the research meant “hardwired” in the sense of born-with-it/inherited or more loosely perhaps hardwired culturally while growing up?
Midwich Cuckoos? Stepford Wives?
There’s a rural community [pop. 4,000] 20 miles from me where I estimate perhaps 500 people haven’t been diluted much via outside genetic mixing for generations & they’re weirdly similarly resistant to ‘outsiders’, education & innovative ideas. Very unwise to make comments about a bad experience with a local plumber etc, cos ten people nearby will be his cousins. Similar gestures, facial expressions, body build & pretty dull conversationally.
They’d make great film extras any time a muttering crowd scene with flaming torches is required – with people shouting “burn the witch!”, “build that wall!” or “lock her up!”.
Grabbing the first Google result, because I’m lazy, this article refers to the research I remember–brain scans correlating with political leanings.
http://thescienceexplorer.com/humanity/neuroscience-reveals-differences-between-republican-and-democrat-brains
IF there were indeed some sort of hardwiring influencing such philosophical leanings (I always say that politics is just “applied philosophy”–small “p”, not “P” philosophy) it’s not too difficult to imagine selection favoring a certain amount of such variety, given the tendencies of both persuasions to devolve into lunacy if unchecked. Or simply that some conditions respond best to conservatism, and others, vice versa.
Your rural community sounds like what one hears exists in certain areas of Appalachia, to name but one example. I wonder if there’s anything adaptive about such enclaves or if they’re just a phenomenon that emerges now and then in a species like ours.
While considering “born-with-it/inherited” hardwiring, look into – if you haven’t already – Authoritarian Personality Syndrome. There are various articles on the web linking this syndrome to being a “hard-core” (off the cliff we go, following Trump, Hooray!) Trump supporter.
When the master speaks, they listen, they believe, they follow.
Trump collected 46% of the 2016 election vote. In Mar. 1933, the last free pre-war German election, the Nazis got 44%. Only a sample of two, of course. But other authoritarians have recently won national elections; it would be interesting to look at their vote numbers. One might find that 40-50% of any population are innately primed to buy into a properly phrased authoritarian message.
As I recall, the research on conservative vs liberal brain structures has to do with personality traits such as openness to experience, neuroticism, extroversion, etc. So party affiliation and political alignment are secondary to particular clusters of traits.
Some of them might be your next door neighbors or your blood relatives
I hear some climate change deniers are good people.
Mostly, though, they bring disease and crime.
I respect them as much as I respect the drunk trying to fight with the driver of the bus which we are both travelling on.
No the 900 numbers was in the time period of the dinosaurs Accusing me of quoting shill by using the word culprit is just plain wrong sir Why would send me to watts up and encourage me to get brainwashed that’s a terribly irresponsible way to answer my question
You are giving me instructions on how to behave? For the second time in one thread? LOL you are a self-important prig.
The Mesozoic “dinosaur era” carbon dioxide levels are estimated [large error bars] to be between 230 [Late Cretaceous] & 2130 ppm [Late Triassic] compared to the present [~400 ppm] so 900 ppm is reasonable, but nowhere near the maximum Earth has experienced.
I’m glad you’re not “quoting shill”
If you don’t have the judgement yet to visit conspiracy/shill sites without risking infection, then the entire internet is probably best avoided. You have been commenting here [on & off] for at least eight years so you shouldn’t need hand holding.
I’m giving you instructions on anything at all I’m responding in the manner in which I see fit agree to disagree What’s a prig? Wow I have no control over anything that you do I believe it should be obvious you’re the heavy hand
Me self important?If you knew anything about my life you would be ashamed of the cruelty of that remark I like handholding tough guy we could use more of it!!!!
No content. Yes let’s talk about the cruelty of your life – if that’s a problem such as you’re on a hair trigger then the internet definitely isn’t a smart option for you.
No content. Just a whinge.
Such plants emit a trivial amount of waste heat relative to the sun’s input to the earth or the energy generated by the plants themselves.
Actually, there isn’t a power plant in the world approaching 50% efficiency. All of them dump more heat into the environment than they put out on their distribution lines. Unless you’re talking about a CHP system, in which case the use of the low-grade heat from the plant for regional heating can change the accounting to move the efficiency up to approaching 70%.
Gas-fired power plants, trash- and wood- fired plants and geothermal plants are also significant thermal emitters. Even Combined Heat and Power systems (where the waste heat from a power station is piped through an adjacent city to provide low cost or free heating) also emit considerable amounts of heat, though more of that has been used at least once more than in a conventional power plant.
Explain this excuse me
Mendacious is a good term for Trump. Psychopath is better. As such, he has no concern for the welfare or survival of anyone or anything other than himself and – maybe – his own progeny.
He has the psychopath’s lack of concern and empathy for everyone and everything. All life on earth could vanish utterly after he is gone, and he could not care less. In fact, he would probably enjoy the idea that by denying any danger from changing climate and by calling everyone a liar who contradicted him a liar, and otherwise foot-dragging in every way, he helped to bring about the coming disaster.
Know him for what he is – a psychopath without conscience.
I’m not sure it’s possible to be a mendacious moron. Seems to me that to be mendacious requires crafting a lie and understanding what the truth is, something a moron can’t manage.
If he has concern for his progeny, my guess is that he finds it strange and hard to explain.
In my work as a carpenter I regularly encountered tradesmen who would,out of nowhere make really emotional change condemnations of global warming issues I mean really indignant stuff.You can bet that sentiment is as widespread as the refusal to accept the facts of evolution,and that in fact the two are fellow travelers
Is there a chemist reading this who can calculate how much CO2 would be released into the atmosphere if the deep water in the oceans (4 degrees C.) were to warm to 15 degrees C. I just did a quick Google search and found that the Earth’s oceans contain 60 times more inorganic carbon (in the form of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate) than the atmosphere, and much of this would be expelled into the atmosphere if the deep ocean were to warm.
Not to mention the ‘frozen’ methane hydrate mats on large swats of ocean floor… Scary stuff.
I believe this is one of the unknowns in climate science. Another is the reflectivity of clouds. Warmer temps make for more clouds but more clouds reflect heat back to space which tends to cool the planet. Hard to run experiments on these things but it looks like we are going to, like it or not.
I’m sure reflectivity of clouds is included in climate modeling software, so we are not in the dark, so to speak, as we begin our long term experiment. There has been talk of seeding the atmosphere to cool the earth, but unintended side effects are a worry.
I didn’t mean to imply that clouds weren’t part of the models, just that they are subject to greater uncertainty than other parts of the model. This also partially explains the trepidation with respect to seeding clouds as a potential solution.
The exact number isn’t known, but the time scale is – if we maintain the current thermohaline circulation of the oceans, it’ll take around 40,000 years for the thermal overturn of the oceans.
BUT, complicating matters one way – there is some evidence that the thermohaline circulation is weakening. Measured flows across the Greenland-Iceland shelf – a major channel of the circulation – appear to be slowing. But the data is quite noisy, and has only been collected for a couple of decades, so the jury is very much out on that one.
Complicating the matter further, the deep sea temperature measurements I’ve made have been closer to 2C than 4C. Which does raise the prospect of a rain of warm water into the depths, mucking up calculations of what is going to happen.
You seem to know a lot about this stuff for a person who inspects gravel. Either that or gravel can tell us more than I thought. 😉 Good to have you here!
One of a stack of talented and expert commentators. Topping it all off: yourself. 😎
Thanks. You too! We have a good group of smartie pants here. I enjoy it all.
I, for one, was deeply moved by the Donald’s humility and honesty yesterday in response to a question from the press regarding what he was giving thanks for on Thanksgiving Day:
He said that, really, no shit.
At least he’s consistent. I hate to think what it is he’s consistent with, but…
Consistency of pure bs?
And constant self-promotion. He really never misses an opportunity. It tells us a lot of what is going on in his head and it isn’t ever pretty.
🤬
Such a narcissistic moron.
+1
Narcissus was practically self-effacing by comparison.
❗️
Is there some confusion?
SAY WHAT?
“I would give myself an A-Plus. Is that enough? Can I go higher than that?”
— Trump, asked where he would rank himself in the pantheon of great presidents
Interchangeable Fox News Host: “Some people have said you lack humility…”
Trump: “No no, that’s not true, I’m the most humble person there’s ever been…”
No filter between brain and mouth.
If there’s anything one ought not to brag about, it is humility. Yeesh.
There are some statements that one would say even Mr Trump would be ashamed of making, and then he does it!
But he’s right, he did make a tremendous difference for the US, albeit not altogether positive.
I’m always surprised how much climate change denialists ascribe ulterior motives to the climate scientists (eg. the IPCC). The whole denialist stance is pushed by ‘special interests’ from eg. the petroleum industry.
It is btw. the no 1 tactic of Mr Trump: accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of yourself (not specifically in this context, it is a Trump tactic in general, Lying Ted, Crooked Hillary, etc., etc.)
Apart from Trump tactics, there is a striking resemblance to the battles by the tobacco industry denying the devastating health effects of smoking.
Don’t forget the ozone layer
sub
Steven Pinker carefully documents the improvement in the condition of humans over the past centuries and projects improvement in the future. In the next few centuries, his feeling of optimism (that’s all it is) seems ridiculous. Global warming and the lack of a significant human response, as well as explosive population growth in the poorer parts of the world, rapid topsoil depletion (less than 100 years left) and other problems lacking solutions suggest a far more dire future for humans.
Pinker shows that we have every reason to use Enlightenment values and methods to solve these and many other problems.
Right, but his mistake is in not showing how to proceed. He’s popularizing a lot of other things, why not approaches to the future?
Even if Pinker had some thoughts on how to proceed on one or more of our various current problems, they aren’t in his scientific field of expertise. Also, to do so would detract from his book’s thesis, an encouragement to others to keep working on these problems using the Enlightenment methods that have worked in the past.
Does he really project improvement in the future? First, what’s really wrong with that? Second, his main thesis is that, if we want improvement in the future, our best bet is to continue doing those things that improved things in the past. He identifies those things as driven by Enlightenment values and gives details of how they work and the improvements they have brought.
Predictions are difficult,especially about the future-Yogi Berra
Trump is a little behind the curve here: one of our local right-wing radio pundits has a regular segment he has been using for a number of years, whenever the temperature falls below the usual seasonal value: “How do you like your global warming now, moonbats?” (I think a moonbat is a libtard with a trust fund.)
Another instance of the Deep State revealing inconvenient truths to the public (ie doing their job) despite the best efforts of the self-serving moron-in-chief to suppress public exposure of such information.
We all know what to do, but how many in the wealthy ‘west’ will do it? Not many…