superwizbang (Ken Schmidt)

Follow

Comment history

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

Choosing a relatively neutral source to say, actually, they have cancelled the plans or construction of over 104 plants this year, or over 120GW of production. That cancellation is a little more than 1/3 of our country's total annual production. To be clear, they use more than 3X the number of coal-fired plants than the US. Yes, they are the largest polluter. *We are second, not India. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-...

I actually agree that the president would best leave this issue to the general consensus of the elected officials in congress to get a better representation of public opinion--although they seem incapable in the last few years on any issue.

June 1, 2017 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

You also notice he was forced to resign?

June 1, 2017 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

David, science is a bit like chess. Someone makes a move and the other side does it's best to find flaws and disprove the other. The rules in this game are that you have to use data which are reliably reproduced to solidify your stance and make claims only the data can prove. You never enjoy being proven wrong but it also furthers the discipline as a whole. As a standard, very few folks get mad when your theory is disproved. Your hope is only that your research was still good enough to spur further discovery when the others were working to refute your findings. Your quotes come from bloggers and politically tied and motivated websites. Instead of choosing a moving target, how about you define a neutral, peer-reviewed resource and lets discuss on equal terms. I can imagine no scientist who would use the term "religion" and "science" when referring to their work. The two are not incompatible nor mutually exclusive throughout history. Likewise, history has proven that when religion and science are equally mixed, unsavory results seem to follow.

June 1, 2017 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

Armen, a valid question. I think we both have to honestly answer, "no." There has been no accord and something the alt-right likes to point to often. The difference is we now see a global consortium willing to work together in some fashion. I have climbed mountains in Appalachia and seen the direct effects of deforestation from prevailing winds an arm's reach from coal-fired plants. The folks living within a mud-slide's distance have a very strong opinion of sulfuric and nitric acid. Likewise, I am an avid diver and experienced the bleaching of corals in some of the most pristine reefs. Ammonium has a large effect here. These animals have been alive, many for hundreds of years, and have changed in form little for millennia. The pace in which our world changes today has far exceeded their ability to adapt. Much like us, their tissue is susceptible to burns. Their contained algal symbiotes long since dead which provide photosynthetic sugar compounds for food. If we think of the environment as an economy, we continue to flood the market with currency that can't be spent. Sooner or later, the environment will no longer be able to adapt. What then happens?

June 1, 2017 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

*boggle* I am honestly baffled. Snarky comments aside. Agreed, we may never find common ground. Yet, I still remain amazed for your thinking is not alone. Indeed "trace" gasses, as you call them and as found on the first returned Google result which hails from a middle-school lecture, can be found in most natural causes. Volcanic activity most folks like to point out first. Those introductions, however, are part of the earth's natural equilibrium. The earth has evolved to handle the ebb and flow of these movements and indeed causes our weather to cycle. Most folks like to point to these cycles as reason to deny climate change yet never acknowledge the megatons of carbon we place unnaturally in the air. That tire spins so it must be a car, right? Uh, no, that's a truck...but it's got tires, so it must be a car.

I am baffled, however, by your statement regarding vapor and clouds. How is that making the global temperature rise? That is a weather element which has persisted long before our coming. Are you suggesting there are fewer (or more?) clouds today which is the explanation for weather cycles? Maybe some type of 20 year El Nino which causes the ocean and atmosphere temps to rise and global ice caps to shrink to all-time lows? You also state you "know" where your data comes from and it's reliability. I would ask you cite it as I have please.

My degree is in biology. I have followed the scientific process, written and been accepted in scientific publication. I have never mentioned that anywhere outside a resume before and feel it is only relevant for one reason here. I know what it's like to have your work mercilessly scrutinized for flaw or logic error. I wonder who in the scientific community you point to might have successfully refuted the stats which NASA, to return to my previous example, has published? I have seen some works from authors whose research was funded by the fossil fuel industry. Their biggest problem was they failed to divulge their ethical dilemma and the taint it had on skewed stats. Do, please, continue the conversation as I am interested in the mentioned sources.

June 1, 2017 at 12:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

Is your point that the magic fairy is making the carbon we place in the atmosphere go poof? I don't even believe I pointed to CO2 in my writings. The most significant factor contributing to change is methane, although the efforts of CO2 cannot be deducted as well. So let's go with the gas less likely to be found in the atmosphere and use your example. Do you believe we placed a man on the moon? Some people don't. If you are one of them, I shall close here. If so, and you believe NASA as a credible source of information, how about we start simple. According to NASA research, 1950 was the last time we reached the highest recorded CO2 levels in the last 400,000 years. How do they know that? They can measure radioactive isotopes, carbon 14 which is created in the atmosphere, and part of respiration of all creatures on this earth...or to use your words, "required for life the planet [sic]" and describe the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time of life. Furthermore, *TODAY* our carbon levels, as observed by NASA is nearly *TWICE* the level of 1950. There has been no magical dip, dive or rollercoaster ride. Like NASA, those levels have skyrocketed. If we discuss global temperatures as a function of CO2 levels (I know, facts are sticky and you don't like those I can surmise from your lack of source defended writings), we see the correlation of CO2 levels observed with the coinciding hypotenuse showing global temperature rise. It's no wonder that 16 or the 17 warmest years we have ever seen have happened since 1950. You can't fake that data. It's there. There is nobody falsifying those numbers. Which numbers are *YOU* referring to...those "alternate facts?" https://climate.nasa.com for fact checking.

May 31, 2017 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

Bob & David et. al: Lavoisier, in the 17th century, explained the law of conservation of mass energy. I'll save you the heavy reading and summarize, "mass is neither created nor destroyed." When we pull carbon atoms out of the ground, burn them, split them into smaller atoms or elements and place them in the air, there is no air fairy who comes and says, "poof, begone." They go somewhere. Generally they react with unstable ions to create light-bending molecules. If we can scientifically measure the number of carbon atoms existing in the atmosphere in compounds such as methane (CH4-- C stands for Carbon if you have forgotten your high school freshman chemistry coarse), and use spectrometry to measure how these aerial compounds interact with light, we can get a strong hypothesis, with much probability, for how they affect our land masses below. You can't see your heart, but somehow, you still believe the science which tells you that it keeps you alive. Stop the nonsense and arguing for the sake. I wish the president, Trump or whomever, were more interested in stimulating the economy while continuing to fund jobs and industries which ween our dependence on oil from the middle east and dirty fuels such as coal. Take the subsidies you give to those industries and fund college funds for workers and their children so they can go learn new trades which help us get ahead and not simply continue the cycle. *Strop trolling unless you have more than one outlying datum to prove your point. I can give you many and happy to take a day off and visit the labs at KU with you to start.* Unless you are afraid of inconvenience.

May 31, 2017 at 7:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New owners to close longtime cable news channel this summer; one of city's largest employers gets new boss

I talked to a MidCo rep yesterday about my business account and was told that it would be later in 2018 before gigabit service would be offered in Lawrence. FYI.

May 17, 2017 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How’d a Jayhawk sweatshirt get in that Coke commercial, and how much money is KU making off it?

Yeah, I'm sure most of us were thinking--'a 6-pack of Coke? No way!' Sorry UK fans, tell you what. I'll turn up the volume and you can listen on the sidewalk.

March 22, 2017 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Large portion of East Lawrence set to be rezoned to protect it from dense development

In my experience, there is no lack of interest for folks wanting to buy a home in East Lawrence. The area serves a meaningful purpose, whether it be owning a home in a specific price range, location to downtown, a sense of history, or merely for the simple reason that the prospective buyer is not interesting in owning a home way larger than they need. Whatever one's reason for owning property in the area, I have trouble understanding a counter-argument for this request. Personally, I wonder if this town needs a larger influx of multi-family dwellings? East Lawrence serves a valuable market in town, no matter one's personal interests. I love the revitalization efforts for specific areas. I wonder if there is a reason hostilities always must prevail, yet I also realize the history. I just wish our town fostered a larger sense of community development, with an emphasis on community, and less stress on profit. Alas, it is possible those days are gone, however. It's always funny to review the development plan for 2020 and see how Lawrence reacts anytime someone yells, "squirrel!"

February 28, 2017 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous

loading...