How AOC Is Changing The Game

[TitanTiger 20,479]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

You are making my point. She is the left's version of Trump. You can take her Tweets and quotes and find the opposite sentiment from Trump that is equally shallow. I don't dislike her. She says things that make me laugh and is MUCH easier to look at.

She's not the left's version of Trump.  Maybe if Kathy Griffin were a politician you'd have that.  AOC isn't deliberately insulting and demeaning to her opponents.  She at least tries to offer reasons for her policy positions.  She doesn't go on bizarre rants because people oppose her.

[homersapien 11,371]

On 2/1/2019 at 9:05 AM, johnnyAU said:

And hers aren't one of those by any stretch

I disagree.  Universal healthcare is an idea whose time has come, as well as increasing marginal rates on the extremely wealthy.  And she is essentially correct about the threat of global warming.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And she is essentially correct about the threat of global warming.

No, she isn't.

[homersapien 11,371]

18 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, she isn't.

Ah, another denier, huh?

Figures.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 2/2/2019 at 11:26 AM, homersapien said:

I disagree.  Universal healthcare is an idea whose time has come, as well as increasing marginal rates on the extremely wealthy.  And she is essentially correct about the threat of global warming.

Can you tell how she is essentially correct?

[homersapien 11,371]

20 hours ago, Grumps said:

Can you tell how she is essentially correct?

Global warming is getting worse and we are already experiencing it's affects.

That's essentially correct, especially when compared to Trump's view it doesn't exist.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

On 2/4/2019 at 10:03 AM, homersapien said:

Global warming is getting worse and we are already experiencing it's affects.

That's essentially correct, especially when compared to Trump's view it doesn't exist.

No it isn't. We have cooled for the last 3 years since the Super El Nino of 2015-2016. The climate has never been simple or static, and isn't driven by CO2 levels now, or at any time in the past. 

[homersapien 11,371]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

No it isn't. We have cooled for the last 3 years since the Super El Nino of 2015-2016. The climate has never been simple or static, and isn't driven by CO2 levels now, or at any time in the past. 

That's not what the experts are telling us.  We are most certainly not cooling.  And CO2 is the primary driver.

2018 was the fourth warmest year on record.

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record

The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record

 

At long last, the government is open and the year-end climate reports from NOAA and NASA are out. As expected, 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record globally, and another near-record year for U.S. weather and climate disasters. All of the years on record that were hotter or more disaster-filled came in the past decade.

 

 

To bring context to the global goal of limiting warming to 2°C, we compare the global temperatures to an earlier, pre-industrial 1880-1910 baseline. 2018’s global temperatures were 1.90°F (1.06°C) above that baseline — more than halfway there. This made 2018 the second-warmest year on record without an El Niño event, behind only 2017. (El Niño can enhance warming, but it can’t explain all of it). Only 2016 and 2015 were warmer years, and 2014 rounds out the top five. With the five warmest years on record happening during the past five years — and the 20 warmest occurring over the past 22 — a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer. Meanwhile, monthly averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to 411 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory, thanks in part to an estimated 2.7 percent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.  

While the U.S. had its 14th-warmest year in 2018, unusual heat in Europe and the Arctic propelled the globe to higher numbers. The oceans also had their warmest year on record — a trend that intensifies sea level rise, coral bleaching, and tropical cyclones such as hurricanes.

Hurricanes hit the U.S. especially hard, leading 2018’s near-record list of 14 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Hurricanes Michael and Florence combined for at least $49 billion in damages — over half of the total from the year’s included events (cost estimates will be updated over time). In addition, the Western wildfire season was the most expensive ever, with total damages of at least $24 billion. Even the sheer number of billion-dollar events is telling — only 2011, 2016, and 2017 have had more. Unless we rapidly reduce our climate-warming emissions, these costly climate disasters will only get worse.

 

 

Methodology: Calculations of average annual global temperature are performed independently at NASA and NOAA. Small differences in their calculations arise as NASA’s calculations are extrapolated to account for polar locations with poor station coverage, while NOAA relies more heavily on the polar station data. Climate Central compares temperatures to an earlier 1880-1910 baseline to assess warming during the industrial era.

National tempe

[AUDub 11,147]

55 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No it isn't. We have cooled for the last 3 years since the Super El Nino of 2015-2016.

Climate is chaotic, so there will be noise, but the trend over the last 30 years (the minimum time frame for defining climate) is still obviously going up.

Periods where the temperature falls appear all the time. Example:

55 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The climate has never been simple or static,

A strawman.

55 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

and isn't driven by CO2 levels now, or at any time in the past. 

The nature of CO2 as a heat trapping GHG has been well known for a century and a half. You're arguing against physics at this point.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The nature of CO2 as a heat trapping GHG

CO2 does not trap heat. It absorbs IR in a very narrow band, and only by about 4.1 molecules/10,000 in the atmosphere. Besides,  the oceans (which cover over 70% of the planet) do not only transfer heat via radiation, but also by convection, conduction and evaporation.  I argue against speculation and unverifiable claims, not physics. 

[AUDub 11,147]

6 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

CO2 does not trap heat.

It traps thermal radiation, which we commonly refer to as "heat", so yes it kind of does. From the thermodynamics framework, which is appropriate here, the longwave IR is a form of heat transfer that increases the internal energy of the atmosphere.

EM radiation, mostly visible light, which CO2 doesn't do much with, hits us from the sun. Surface absorbs some, warms and "glows" in the longwave IR area of the spectrum (among others), a band where CO2 and other GHGs are very active. CO2 absorbs and re-emits this LWIR, some of which is reflected back to earth. Repeat ad nauseam. This is the Greenhouse effect. If it's a phenomenon you're unfamiliar with or can't properly define, then you're out of your depth arguing AGW.

Quote

It absorbs IR in a very narrow band,

More CO2 blocks more radiation. Substantial increase in CO2’s effect on the atmosphere for increasing concentrations is well understood. If you are are asserting that CO2 is not a potent GHG or further emissions are of little consequence, then that's an odd and frankly wrongheaded assertion. The increase in absorption is logarithmic. You are mixing up the effect of a single frequency with the effect on the whole spectrum.

The major effect of increasing concentrations of a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs thermal radiation like CO2, for instance, is to increase absorption in the shoulders or wings of the main absorption band. This is a basic detail of the transmission of light in a gas which should be covered in any decent text on the matter. CO2 absorbs strongly in that narrow band, so pretty much all of that frequency is absorbed, and further increases of CO2 have negligible further effect on the absorption in the middle of that band. However, the width of the saturated band increases as more and more frequencies shift from being marginally absorbed to mostly absorbed.

Quote

and only by about 4.1 molecules/10,000 in the atmosphere.

I know that doesn't sound like much to you, but it's more than enough to have a substantial effect.

Hell, there are things out there that will flat out kill you if inhaled at concentrations way lower than that.

Quote

Besides,  the oceans (which cover over 70% of the planet) do not only transfer heat via radiation, but also by convection, conduction and evaporation.

What's the point of this sentence?

But hey, if you want to delve into AGW or CO2’s effect on the ocean, I’m game.

Quote

I argue against speculation and unverifiable claims, not physics. 

Physics doesn't seem to be your forte.

[channonc 466]

On 2/1/2019 at 6:01 PM, Grumps said:

You are making my point. She is the left's version of Trump. You can take her Tweets and quotes and find the opposite sentiment from Trump that is equally shallow. I don't dislike her. She says things that make me laugh and is MUCH easier to look at.

I wouldn't go quite this far YET, but I definitely see your point and agree with it in the larger sense. I think the difference between her and Trump is she seems to have well intentions, but I don't think that can be used as an excuse to misstate facts or even get issues out right wrong. She would do better to think before tweeting.

[Mid Atlantic Tiger 150]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:55 PM, johnnyAU said:

 Idiots have been elected to congress long before her.  

Well, you haven't made it yet...I guess there is still hope for you.

[autigeremt 6,608]

Global warming is real. Pollution is real (walk a shoreline or see how many groundwater resources are contaminated). Regardless of who did it or how it came to be we need to react accordingly.

Until then Democrats and Republicans will continue to care more for themselves than the public at large. Nothing new there.

[tomcat 569]

In the exuberance of her youth, AOC does not get everything right. In the experience of an aged one...neither do I ... nor do any of her critics. However, she does challenge the status quo. She recently blasted campaign finance in the most succinct manner I’ve seen....and by God that needs to be challenged and reformed. 

No , we need these voices of reform. We need new ideas. The current path is not sustainable for the majority of the populace.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, tomcat said:

In the exuberance of her youth, AOC does not get everything right. In the experience of an aged one...neither do I ... nor do any of her critics. However, she does challenge the status quo. She recently blasted campaign finance in the most succinct manner I’ve seen....and by God that needs to be challenged and reformed. 

No , we need these voices of reform. We need new ideas. The current path is not sustainable for the majority of the populace.

I saw her on campaign finance and was very impressed. That’s all I’ve been impressed with so far. 

[homersapien 11,371]

16 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Global warming is real. Pollution is real (walk a shoreline or see how many groundwater resources are contaminated). Regardless of who did it or how it came to be we need to react accordingly.

Until then Democrats and Republicans will continue to care more for themselves than the public at large. Nothing new there.

Nevertheless, there is a big difference between Democratic and Republicans on the subject of global warming.

[autigeremt 6,608]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

Nevertheless, there is a big difference between Democratic and Republicans on the subject of global warming.

The end result has been the same! Who cares what is spewing from their mouth. Actions speak louder than words. 

[homersapien 11,371]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

The end result has been the same! Who cares what is spewing from their mouth. Actions speak louder than words. 

It has most certainly not been the same. 

You can make an argument that neither parties have been particularly effective in instituting the changes we need, but there has been a clear difference between Obama's policies and those of Trump, particularly in the regulatory arena.  (Of course, Trump has done his best to rescind these efforts.)

Hell, this administration denies the problem even exists!

[autigeremt 6,608]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It has most certainly not been the same. 

You can make an argument that neither parties have been particularly effective in instituting the changes we need, but there has been a clear difference between Obama's policies and those of Trump, particularly in the regulatory arena.  (Of course, Trump has done his best to rescind these efforts.)

Hell, this administration denies the problem even exists!

Deepwater Horizon and the turning of the head by the Obama Administration proved otherswise. His administration was mostly bluster with little bite outside of a few regulations that really didn’t do a lot to create a more sustainable future. 

[homersapien 11,371]

3 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Deepwater Horizon and the turning of the head by the Obama Administration proved otherswise. His administration was mostly bluster with little bite outside of a few regulations that really didn’t do a lot to create a more sustainable future. 

Again, you can make an argument Democratic administrations haven't been as aggressive as they should have been, but that's a far cry from refusing to recognizing there's a problem in the first place.

Trump has tried to roll back every environmental issue possible, including those for water quality standards.  To imply there is anything like equivalence between the two major parties concerning environmental protection is nonsense.

Trump Republicans have completely abandoned the once proud history of their party - and conservatism in general - when it comes to environmentalism and conservation.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2342301/how-gop-turned-its-back-conservation

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2018/11/05/the-republican-reversal/

 

[shabby 1,958]

Back to AOC. she represents the worst aspects of millenialism. This all or nothing approach to goals accomplishes nothing. it's a pipe dream.  it's not policy. it's just petulent attention seeking. Climate change is real and needs real plans to address it. AOC and her ilk ensure that those that genuinely care about environmental issues are seen as wacky AOCers. 

[autigeremt 6,608]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Again, you can make an argument Democratic administrations haven't been as aggressive as they should have been, but that's a far cry from refusing to recognizing there's a problem in the first place.

Trump has tried to roll back every environmental issue possible, including those for water quality standards.  To imply there is anything like equivalence between the two major parties concerning environmental protection is nonsense.

Trump Republicans have completely abandoned the once proud history of their party - and conservatism in general - when it comes to environmentalism and conservation.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2342301/how-gop-turned-its-back-conservation

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2018/11/05/the-republican-reversal/

 

I personally was involved with DWH. I know what happened and you can read and believe whatever you want. Corporations wag the dog no matter WHICH party is in charge. One (GOP) openly rails against regulation and the other (Democrats) secretly shake hands and use the pulpit to spew BS for political gain. 

We need a much better option. 

[homersapien 11,371]

Fine, if you really think there is no difference between the parties regarding the environment, you are certainly free to do so. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/epa-air-pollution-regulations-wehrum-1191258

Documents detail multimillion-dollar ties involving EPA official, secretive industry group

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Interesting commentary on AOC. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/21/a_larger-than-life_rebuke_to_aocs_anti-business_politics_139534.html