Which president candidate fits you?

[ryan772]

There's a lot here that is kind of neither here nor there. Yes, climate modeling is complicated but the underlying science behind it isn't. Greenhouse gases in a closed system cause temperatures in that system to rise faster than in one without it. There's significantly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than during the pre-Industrial period. There's more of the stuff that causes the Earth to get warmer and we're adding more constantly. It's straightforward on that level. How that will impact the world is beyond my ken, but there's a clear causal relationship.

Significantly more carbon? I guess you can say that but again thats in large part due to how many trees have been chopped down over the last 150 years. I dont need to explain photosynthesis. But compared to the rest of the atmosphere carbons larger amount is highly insignificant. Crichton. Put it like this. If the entire atmosphere was the size of a football field, the amount of carbon has gone from half an inch to an inch. Maybe that is significant in terms of carbon but highly insignificant in terms of the atmosphere.

[dkolo]

Significantly more carbon? I guess you can say that but again thats in large part due to how many trees have been chopped down over the last 150 years. I dont need to explain photosynthesis. But compared to the rest of the atmosphere carbons larger amount is highly insignificant. Crichton. Put it like this. If the entire atmosphere was the size of a football field, the amount of carbon has gone from half an inch to an inch. Maybe that is significant in terms of carbon but highly insignificant in terms of the atmosphere.

I don't know what to say to that. Yes, there's relatively little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some things in small amounts make a big difference. If you doubled the amount of blood in your body, you'd be worse for the wear. Ozone is about one part per million relative to the atmosphere and it's all that's keeping us alive from solar radiation.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="ryan772" url="/t/83054/which-president-candidate-fits-you/72#post_1169221"] you realize that temperatures are much higher in large part due to roads being made of blacktops and all the appliances that are being used? If you measure the temperature in a major city then outside the city temperatures are going to be 3-4 degrees cooler. Another issue they talk about is icebergs. Only 10% of all ice bergs are documented and tracked. While many of them are melting, many are growing colder. The biggest reason for many of the global warming issues are caused by chopping down trees. A perfect example of trying to control the enviornment is yellowstone park. We kicked out the indians cause they hunted and made controlled fires. Turns out when. The indians werent there to regulate animal population and tree growth( many trees need fire to cause their seeds to grow) many of the animal populations went out of control. Wolves began to grow too plentiful so we started killing off wolves. Then the small animal population went of control like rabbits so we started killing them. So on and so forth to where there is almost no animals left in yellowstone park. Scientist dont have all the answers.[/QUOTE] There's a lot here that is kind of neither here nor there. Yes, climate modeling is complicated but the underlying science behind it isn't. Greenhouse gases in a closed system cause temperatures in that system to rise faster than in one without it. There's significantly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than during the pre-Industrial period. There's more of the stuff that causes the Earth to get warmer and we're adding more constantly. It's straightforward on that level. How that will impact the world is beyond my ken, but there's a clear causal relationship.

Not that simple at all. . . I will agree there is strong correlation, but far from scientific proof as with all these types of science. If you want to discuss more concrete things, talk about simpler models like FEM with linear differential equations with reasonable boundary conditions. Weather modeling is neither Newtonian, nor linear in any manner. There are too many variables to make a reasonably conditioned model. Some models are based on simple thermodynamic relationships that don't necessarily hold true with all the unbounded conditions. The results can be ambiguous at best.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmac20

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

There is simply too much evidence of rising temperature that's causing havoc globally.   You may insist that is not a man made problem but you can't deny the global temperature has gone up enough to cause many issues globally.   Many lives are forever changed whether it's fishermen who can no longer fish for the same fishes or people living in Marshall Islands.

This. I trust the evidence presented by scientists with PhD's in climate studies more so than the opinion of an engineer.

It's not a deniable fact, but one that we probably can't really do a lot about at this point. We'll more than likely need to adapt to the climate changes rather than try to reverse 100 years of polluting. . .

Shame on us for ruining the environment.  Apologies to our future generations.

[Abu3baid]

You guys are all so off topic that I don't know where to start.. Other than recommending a change of thread title maybe? ;)

[boogielicious]

Please get back on topic.

[jimmyc]

Rick Santorum here

[imsys0042]

I got Bernie Sanders, which doesn't match up for me in real life.   I'm not thrilled with any candidate so far.  I am center left and Bernie Sanders would, IMO, advocate some things too far.   Other things he has a good point.

[Kp5512]

Hopefully there will be some one that's close to a true conservative to vote for. Progressives from both parties have been in control long enough.

[mvmac]

I got Lincoln Chafee. He started as a Replication, then became an independent, now he's a Democrat.

[jbishop15]

I got Lincoln Chafee. He started as a Replication, then became an independent, now he's a Democrat.

I didnt really know much about him, but I looked him up; I like a lot of what he says.

[RJH999]

I didnt really know much about him, but I looked him up; I like a lot of what he says.

Yeah, but his presidential aspirations can best be described as...quixotic.

[jbishop15]

Yeah, but his presidential aspirations can best be described as...quixotic.

Yeah he's got no shot. It'll most likely be Hillary or (if we're lucky) Bernie.

[mvmac]

I didnt really know much about him, but I looked him up; I like a lot of what he says.

Yeah same here.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbishop15

I didnt really know much about him, but I looked him up; I like a lot of what he says.

Yeah same here.

He was Governor of Rhode Island. I saw him on the beach one day during "Governor's Day" where the state beaches are free. They liked him in RI regardless of party.

[jamo]

Chafee's stance on the metric system is much too firm for me.

[jimmyc]

Lincoln Chaffee?

Might as well vote for Gov. Brown from Kalifornia

[RJH999]

Chafee's stance on the metric system is much too firm for me.

Yeah that's annoying. AMERICA DOESN'T USE THE METRIC SYSTEM AND WE'RE DAMN PROUD OF IT.