A Tutorial For Trump Supporters On Climate Change

[federalist50]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

Care to take a stab at explaining why the following dire prophesies from the Global Warming crowd failed to occur? 1973: Unless significant environmental changes are made, both the East Coast and West Coast will be under water by 2000. 1990: The earth will burn up by the year 2000. 2004:The polar ice bergs will melt by the year 2012. These are just a few examples. Don't you think that in order for anyone to have credibility, they have to be right once in a while?

 

[Silhouette]

What if it's night?

Apparently you missed reading this post. I made the font larger and in bold so it's easier for you to read.

*******
So Mr. Trump is a businessman. Supposedly he's a real whiz at it. Let's examine the following scenario. A cheeky poster brought up math...so here's some math. I must admit, I was astonished to learn that a 1000W coal power plant burns 200lbs of coal per second, 365 days per year. And we wonder why our atmosphere is filling up with carbon compounds, damaging it..

Company #1, let's call it "Karbon King" power company. Company #2, let's call it "Flexpower".. They're both located in Laughlin NV, say. There's an average of 291 sunny days in Laughlin NV.

Karbon King if it were a 1000MW power plant typical for coal; would burn 200lbs per second or 2.8 megatons per year Coal Power Plants - Jason Munster's Energy and Environment Blog But let's say pound for pound it's a 125MW plant; one of many dotting the country. 1000 divided by 125 = 8 So Karbon King burns 1/8th a 1000 MW plant or roughly 25lbs of coal per second or .35 megatons of coal per year...or @ 86,400 seconds a day, or 2 million, 160,000 pounds of coal per day. Which is 1080 tons of coal per day. Coal costs an average of $36/ton. Quandl So Karbon King is spending $38,880 per day to buy coal per day. Or 45 tons ($1,620) of coal per hour.

"Flexpower" also burns coal at the same rate, when days are not sunny, or at night. Each hour has 3600 seconds. So for each hour Flexpower burns her coal, she is burning 90,000 lbs of coal; or 45 tons of coal; or $1620 worth of coal (and who knows what untold hidden expense if NASA is correct that carbon burning is damaging our thermosphere) per hour. But Flexpower is different. She added a solar thermal array equivalent to this: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Dhursar | Concentrating Solar Power | NREL So for every hour the sun is shining, Flexpower shuts down her carbon burners.

In Laughlin NV, remember, there are 291 sunny days per year. In other regions of the vast 100s of thousands of acres of desolate and abandoned sun soaked desert or semi-desert of the Southwest, the days of sun may likely be more. We'll leave the molten salt heat storage technology aside for now, which continues to generate electricity at night after each sunny day. We'll keep it simple, crude for comparison purposes.

Each sunny day in Laughlin NV, Karbon King churns away, burning coal round the clock at the expense indicated above. Meanwhile, Flexpower is not burning coal for at least 8 hours per day, 291 days per year. BUT, both companies charge the same rate for electricity no matter what. So Flexpower is saving each year...8 x 291= 2328 coal burning hours which she would otherwise be burning $1620 of coal per hour. So Flexpower saves $3,771360 per year on fuel costs. Over 10 years, Flexpower saves roughly $38 million in fuel costs; while charging the same rate as her sister plant Karbon King.

Which one would make America more great? And, if these plants were set up across the sun soaked Southwest & Midwest and superconducted to Canada, it would mean jobs and income for the US; where right now we're shunting it out of the country in the opposite direction.

If you were to cogenerate linear fresnel solar thermal with geothermal or hydropower, or use molten salt heat storage to generate electricity at night, you'd save even more money. And this new type of cogeneration (different types on site) power plant technology is in its infancy. We could become world producers of energy, without continuing the absurd pumping of carbons into the atmosphere.

China, France, Spain, Morocco, ME countries and so on are in a technology rush; currently constructing these plants as fast as they can. Will the US be the poor little sister who missed this new gold rush? Or will she jump out ahead of the pack and take the lead?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I support climate change so I'm not going to stop it.

 

[Silhouette]

Care to take a stab at explaining why the following dire prophesies from the Global Warming crowd failed to occur? 1973: Unless significant environmental changes are made, both the East Coast and West Coast will be under water by 2000. 1990: The earth will burn up by the year 2000. 2004:The polar ice bergs will melt by the year 2012. These are just a few examples. Don't you think that in order for anyone to have credibility, they have to be right once in a while?

Yes, because the damage to our thermosphere is an ongoing process...not a science-fiction event with a due date. Please stop being so simplistic. It's killing your credibility.

 

[bripat9643]

What if it's night?

Apparently you missed reading this post. I made the font larger and in bold so it's easier for you to read.

*******
So Mr. Trump is a businessman. Supposedly he's a real whiz at it. Let's examine the following scenario. A cheeky poster brought up math...so here's some math. I must admit, I was astonished to learn that a 1000W coal power plant burns 200lbs of coal per second, 365 days per year. And we wonder why our atmosphere is filling up with carbon compounds, damaging it..

Company #1, let's call it "Karbon King" power company. Company #2, let's call it "Flexpower".. They're both located in Laughlin NV, say. There's an average of 291 sunny days in Laughlin NV.

Karbon King if it were a 1000MW power plant typical for coal; would burn 200lbs per second or 2.8 megatons per year Coal Power Plants - Jason Munster's Energy and Environment Blog But let's say pound for pound it's a 125MW plant; one of many dotting the country. 1000 divided by 125 = 8 So Karbon King burns 1/8th a 1000 MW plant or roughly 25lbs of coal per second or .35 megatons of coal per year...or @ 86,400 seconds a day, or 2 million, 160,000 pounds of coal per day. Which is 1080 tons of coal per day. Coal costs an average of $36/ton. Quandl So Karbon King is spending $38,880 per day to buy coal per day. Or 45 tons ($1,620) of coal per hour.

"Flexpower" also burns coal at the same rate, when days are not sunny, or at night. Each hour has 3600 seconds. So for each hour Flexpower burns her coal, she is burning 90,000 lbs of coal; or 45 tons of coal; or $1620 worth of coal (and who knows what untold hidden expense if NASA is correct that carbon burning is damaging our thermosphere) per hour. But Flexpower is different. She added a solar thermal array equivalent to this: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Dhursar | Concentrating Solar Power | NREL So for every hour the sun is shining, Flexpower shuts down her carbon burners.

In Laughlin NV, remember, there are 291 sunny days per year. In other regions of the vast 100s of thousands of acres of desolate and abandoned sun soaked desert or semi-desert of the Southwest, the days of sun may likely be more. We'll leave the molten salt heat storage technology aside for now, which continues to generate electricity at night after each sunny day. We'll keep it simple, crude for comparison purposes.

Each sunny day in Laughlin NV, Karbon King churns away, burning coal round the clock at the expense indicated above. Meanwhile, Flexpower is not burning coal for at least 8 hours per day, 291 days per year. BUT, both companies charge the same rate for electricity no matter what. So Flexpower is saving each year...8 x 291= 2328 coal burning hours which she would otherwise be burning $1620 of coal per hour. So Flexpower saves $3,771360 per year on fuel costs. Over 10 years, Flexpower saves roughly $38 million in fuel costs; while charging the same rate as her sister plant Karbon King.

Which one would make America more great? And, if these plants were set up across the sun soaked Southwest & Midwest and superconducted to Canada, it would mean jobs and income for the US; where right now we're shunting it out of the country in the opposite direction.

If you were to cogenerate linear fresnel solar thermal with geothermal or hydropower, or use molten salt heat storage to generate electricity at night, you'd save even more money. And this new type of cogeneration (different types on site) power plant technology is in its infancy. We could become world producers of energy, without continuing the absurd pumping of carbons into the atmosphere.

China, France, Spain, Morocco, ME countries and so on are in a technology rush; currently constructing these plants as fast as they can. Will the US be the poor little sister who missed this new gold rush? Or will she jump out ahead of the pack and take the lead?

I already read this piece of crap. It ignores the capital costs of building two power plants instead of one. The claim that the cost of using solar power is zero is obvious crap.

 

[LeftofLeft]

More good news on the Trump Election.......no threat of Jail Time for people who question man-made climate change.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well after wading through the trolling and ad hominems on the previous page..with zero science offered to refute my tutorial for Mr. Trump, something occurred to me. Maybe I'm coming at this all wrong. Trump isn't a scientist; that's for sure. But he is involved in business....so...

Dear Mr. Trump, what makes better financial sense for a business' bottom line?

1. Watch the videos from youtube on page 1 here.

2. Consider that solar thermal is one of any number of ways to boil water to run a steam turbine; which is all any geothermal, coal, oil or nuclear plant does.

3. Consider that a solar thermal plant installation consists of rows of concave mirrors that follow the sun and concentrate that solar radiation on an elevated tube right nearby above them. And the tube is filled with thermal oil that heats up to 300 degrees Celsius with just sunlight concentrated on it (like burning a bug with a magnifying glass.) (200 degrees above the point where water boils). It is the simplest of technologies we have to boil water besides geothermal.

4. Given the cheapness of the costs of setting up a solar thermal plant vs a coal, oil or especially a nuclear plant (gawd! ) JUST to boil water....pay attention to #5...

5. Which power plant would generate more profit over time, say 10 years? A. A power plant that 365 days a year has to buy oil that was extracted from the ME at great military costs; it and/or coal locally at great environmental costs (which the "company" will have to pay for later down the line, if you consider US citizens including yourself part of "the company") or...god forbid..extraction of uranium and all those hidden unsustainable costs.. or B. A power plant tied to the hip with solar thermal; where every single day the sun shines in a given area, no matter where or how far North, is one less day you have to pay for fuel to provide your customers with power THAT YOU CHARGE THE SAME RATE AS IF YOU WERE BURNING FUEL...? Free fuel; while charging the customer as if you had to pay for the fuel...

C'mon Mr. Trump. You're a whiz at business. Watch the youtubes and let me know what your answer to #5 is.. Surely now that you're in power you could preside over deals made with Congress where carbon pig utilities can maintain their monopolies, with current charges in place, WHILE REDUCING THEIR COSTS IMMENSELY. Mr. Trump; it's cheap power sold at the same price as expensive power. Knock knock? Helloooooooo? Remember what they taught you in college?

Silly, you have osmium in your head. Show me a solar plant-ONE SINGLE PLANT-capable of making a profit without subsidies.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here's a simple diagram for Trumpees. Just subsitute where it says "coal", virtually any other source of heat you can come up with; including concentrated sunlight or geothermal

It isn't even correct. A gas power plant (the most common new type, and the second-largest source for the power I use) doesn't use steam...it spins the generator via what is essentially a jet airliner engine burning natural gas. (Only these can power up or down quickly.)

 

[FA_Q2]

The entire thread is focused on solar power.

Interestingly enough, no one is against using solar power when it is economically sound. If everything that sil claims is takes as fact what does it matter? Those companies will build those solar arrays and no one is going to complain. It also has no bearing on AGW.

 

[9thIDdoc]

In answer to the OP's question: Yes, Trump is smarter than the alleged scientists and other chicken littles attempting to perpetrate the man caused climate change fraud which is-and always has been-nothing but a poorly disguised con job. For that matter even I am am smarter than that. No proof has been presented even after all this time. The only remaining believers are those who are unable to think on their own.

 

[bripat9643]

Care to take a stab at explaining why the following dire prophesies from the Global Warming crowd failed to occur? 1973: Unless significant environmental changes are made, both the East Coast and West Coast will be under water by 2000. 1990: The earth will burn up by the year 2000. 2004:The polar ice bergs will melt by the year 2012. These are just a few examples. Don't you think that in order for anyone to have credibility, they have to be right once in a while?

Yes, because the damage to our thermosphere is an ongoing process...not a science-fiction event with a due date. Please stop being so simplistic. It's killing your credibility.

That doesn't explain why the predictions of the AGW cult are always wrong.

 

[miketx]

I think there was only one guy at one time who thought the world was NOT flat. I guess that dumb fuck fell off the edge.

 

[bripat9643]

I think there was only one guy at one time who thought the world was NOT flat. I guess that dumb fuck fell off the edge.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

 

[owebo]

I support climate change so I'm not going to stop it.

We'd be dead without climate change....

 

[Little-Acorn]

The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty-five years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it.....

...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.

Not one. In forty-plus years.

Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:

1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.

2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).

3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.

No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.

And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.

FORTY-PLUS YEARS. And not a single actual proof.

There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.

And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.

Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from other peoples' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.

Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.

 

[12icer]

Mr. Trump should check out this map. >>>>><<<<<<<The areas in oranges & yellows sport assets here in the US, really that leaves only the countries outside the US that are getting fat on oil. They can always sell it to China. She loves carbon like no other country on earth.

Again you prove you have no idea the amount of Basic interaction involved in ANY type of energy production. The complex systemic effects of any geothermal tapping are subject to algebraic expansion. You have NO idea what you are doing and apparently are just looking through Popular Science and throwing a myriad of theories out to try to find one that is viable. Guess what I do Not agree with fracking myself, I think it IS a problem and threat to the deepest most pure aquifers that have water ages of tens of thousands of years of regeneration. Ground water is one thing shallow week long regeneration aquifer is another, but the deep aquifer is something I think is the MOST VALUABLE ASSET on earth much more valuable than gold. If you dumbass liberals want to save anything that should be your goal. The idea that any country or group of countries can adjust any part of our atmospheric environment by even a thousandth of a degree over one hundred years is LUDICROUS.

Algebraic expansion? ....lol... sounds very complex. Does that even exist? Yes, steam expands if that's what you mean...lol.. Geothermal plants sit right next to existing superheated rock or actual water resources. Again....steam turbines...using math (egads!) take steam FROM ANY SOURCE and spin a magnetized surface next to copper windings (or vice versa) in order to produce a stream of electrons. It's the same thing hydro dams do, nuclear plants do, oil plants, coal plants...they all move a set of fins that spin a generator to make electricity. (Hydro uses the pure force & pressures of vast moving water instead of steam...but also to turn fins) That's not some new revelation. That's ancient knowledge. A car's alternator and in the old days, generator, did the same thing with gasoline.

Yes yes...for many decades now those keen on keeping others from starting up competing power supply plants have been very eager to impart the myth that boiling water to run steam turbines is "tricky...very very tricky!!".

Spin spin spin spin spin goes the BigCarbon/BigNuke blogger machine. Like I said, lobby Congress to get your monopolies on easy-steam...then switch over your assets and make bank that way. BIG bank. Much bigger than you would with carbon extraction & combustion which, all costs considered, doesn't come close to the profits you'd get using free solar steam for "x" days a year (number of days the sun shines) in conjunction with carbon or other sources. Get Trump to broker a deal between y'all and Congress. I don't mind paying the same price for your stream of steam-turbine electrons even if you are not having to use fuel to produce them 300 days a year....

Have you seen how much sun the hundreds of thousands of sun-soaked wastelands of the Southwest get each year?

Trumpees say "oh it's terribly tricky...you have to use some MATH to set up a solar thermal or geothermal plant"....you know, unlike a carbon burning plant or nuclear plant...

Yes, here's the terrifyingly complex setup of rows of parabolic mirrors shining on a tube of oil in the desert....EGADS! The MATH!! I guess if you voted for Trump, the "math" behind this setup would seem daunting...lol..

Apparently you don't understand even the simplest of equations so why should I waste the time trying to explain complex action and reactions in a multiplanic event to a monoplanic thinker with no capacity to follow them? go read your little golden book of liberal talking points and forget the facts. OH algebraic expansion means it is subject to an expansion rate that is not linear it is like the rate of decay of some radio isotopes It increases at a rate that increases in a curve that is not constant and increases its curvature until at some point the amount of material has decayed to an amount that the increase cannot be sustained and then it starts to decrease in curvature until it is completely spent.. Go back to a league you can be a bench warmer in.

 

[healthmyths]

Mr. Trump should check out this map. >>>>><<<<<<<The areas in oranges & yellows sport assets here in the US, really that leaves only the countries outside the US that are getting fat on oil. They can always sell it to China. She loves carbon like no other country on earth.

Again you prove you have no idea the amount of Basic interaction involved in ANY type of energy production. The complex systemic effects of any geothermal tapping are subject to algebraic expansion. You have NO idea what you are doing and apparently are just looking through Popular Science and throwing a myriad of theories out to try to find one that is viable. Guess what I do Not agree with fracking myself, I think it IS a problem and threat to the deepest most pure aquifers that have water ages of tens of thousands of years of regeneration. Ground water is one thing shallow week long regeneration aquifer is another, but the deep aquifer is something I think is the MOST VALUABLE ASSET on earth much more valuable than gold. If you dumbass liberals want to save anything that should be your goal. The idea that any country or group of countries can adjust any part of our atmospheric environment by even a thousandth of a degree over one hundred years is LUDICROUS.

Algebraic expansion? ....lol... sounds very complex. Does that even exist? Yes, steam expands if that's what you mean...lol.. Geothermal plants sit right next to existing superheated rock or actual water resources. Again....steam turbines...using math (egads!) take steam FROM ANY SOURCE and spin a magnetized surface next to copper windings (or vice versa) in order to produce a stream of electrons. It's the same thing hydro dams do, nuclear plants do, oil plants, coal plants...they all move a set of fins that spin a generator to make electricity. (Hydro uses the pure force & pressures of vast moving water instead of steam...but also to turn fins) That's not some new revelation. That's ancient knowledge. A car's alternator and in the old days, generator, did the same thing with gasoline.

Yes yes...for many decades now those keen on keeping others from starting up competing power supply plants have been very eager to impart the myth that boiling water to run steam turbines is "tricky...very very tricky!!".

Spin spin spin spin spin goes the BigCarbon/BigNuke blogger machine. Like I said, lobby Congress to get your monopolies on easy-steam...then switch over your assets and make bank that way. BIG bank. Much bigger than you would with carbon extraction & combustion which, all costs considered, doesn't come close to the profits you'd get using free solar steam for "x" days a year (number of days the sun shines) in conjunction with carbon or other sources. Get Trump to broker a deal between y'all and Congress. I don't mind paying the same price for your stream of steam-turbine electrons even if you are not having to use fuel to produce them 300 days a year....

Have you seen how much sun the hundreds of thousands of sun-soaked wastelands of the Southwest get each year?

Trumpees say "oh it's terribly tricky...you have to use some MATH to set up a solar thermal or geothermal plant"....you know, unlike a carbon burning plant or nuclear plant...

Yes, here's the terrifyingly complex setup of rows of parabolic mirrors shining on a tube of oil in the desert....EGADS! The MATH!! I guess if you voted for Trump, the "math" behind this setup would seem daunting...lol..

Apparently you don't understand even the simplest of equations so why should I waste the time trying to explain complex action and reactions in a multiplanic event to a monoplanic thinker with no capacity to follow them? go read your little golden book of liberal talking points and forget the facts. OH algebraic expansion means it is subject to an expansion rate that is not linear it is like the rate of decay of some radio isotopes It increases at a rate that increases in a curve that is not constant and increases its curvature until at some point the amount of material has decayed to an amount that the increase cannot be sustained and then it starts to decrease in curvature until it is completely spent.. Go back to a league you can be a bench warmer in.

Question for you...
From the http://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/earth-getting-heavier
But the planet as a whole, does that get heavier over time?
The answer is yes, it can. Every year, Earth gains about the weight of two aircraft carriers landing on it - two HMS Ark Royals, or about 40,000 tonnes-worth of debris, which lands on Earth from space.

So as the Earth gets heavier is it not slowing down in the rotating speed? Hence the need to adjust the world's clock.
When the difference between UTC and UT1 approaches 0.9 seconds, a leap second is added to UTC and to clocks worldwide. By adding an additional second to the time count, our clocks are effectively stopped for that second to give Earth the opportunity to catch up with atomic time. What's a Leap Second?

So does the Earth getting heavier mean the rotation is slowing day i.e. (adding a leap second) mean that the revolution around
the Sun is slowing down and at some point Climate change will be meaningless?

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently you don't understand even the simplest of equations so why should I waste the time trying to explain complex action and reactions in a multiplanic event to a monoplanic thinker with no capacity to follow them? go read your little golden book of liberal talking points and forget the facts. OH algebraic expansion means it is subject to an expansion rate that is not linear it is like the rate of decay of some radio isotopes It increases at a rate that increases in a curve that is not constant and increases its curvature until at some point the amount of material has decayed to an amount that the increase cannot be sustained and then it starts to decrease in curvature until it is completely spent.. Go back to a league you can be a bench warmer in.

Obfuscation is a known diversion technique...lol..

You mean how STEAM or MOVING WATER turns the FINS of TURBINES to produce A FLOW OF ELECTRICITY which the common reader experiences at his house or business as "the light switch working"..? Those turbines are not fussy about where the steam comes from. So why not free from the sun? China, Spain, Morocco & the ME are already building these linear solar thermal arrays as fast as their little fingers can fly. Will we be the sad "last century Amish" nation yet again, relying on the horse and buggy to power our homes? Or will we upgrade to the "automobile"?

I was suggesting that Mr. Trump, being a business whiz, might find that not having to pay $3 million a year in coal or oil fuel for a power plant, where your competitors still do, might put one ahead of the pack in energy production and profiting. See post #82 for details.

 

[Silhouette]

Care to take a stab at explaining why the following dire prophesies from the Global Warming crowd failed to occur? 1973: Unless significant environmental changes are made, both the East Coast and West Coast will be under water by 2000. 1990: The earth will burn up by the year 2000. 2004:The polar ice bergs will melt by the year 2012. These are just a few examples. Don't you think that in order for anyone to have credibility, they have to be right once in a while?

Yes, because the damage to our thermosphere is an ongoing process...not a science-fiction event with a due date. Please stop being so simplistic. It's killing your credibility.

That doesn't explain why the predictions of the AGW cult are always wrong.

That's because nobody is pitching the climate change (calling it "warming" is only half correct) thing as a band of thinning insulation in our atmosphere. We would not expect a gradual process of thinning due to man's activities with carbon on the surface to happen "on a given date and time". It's a process.

This is why I posted this thread. Whoever is in charge of the public relations arm of climate change supporters is pitching the monikers to convey an incomplete story. Almost makes you wonder if some moles are doing that on purpose. BigOil has "scientists" ensconced in every place they can. They are industry yes-men with a degree in name only. So I posted this thread to explain why "global warming" includes colder Winters and at least in the beginning phase of the disappearing Northern ice sheet, cooler Summers as well. My explanation fits nicely.

And, it fits nicely in a way that even someone with almost no science in his educational background (Trump and his supporters) can understand. "Oh yeah! Tar paper shacks with thinning insulation ARE hotter in Summer and colder in Winter!" ....."Oh yeah, ice melting does feed cold air into a fan blowing across it...even when it's hot outside, wherever that wind blows would feel cooler locally until the ice chunk got too small to affect much area!"

 

[jasonnfree]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

It's colder now than it's been in years. Where are you hiding the heat? C'mon, where's the heat?