Scott Pruitt to head the EPA

[Red Arrow]

So man cannot manipulate weather??  B...but I thought man-made climate change was manipulating the weather!

(Sorry, you know I had to.)

No, man-made climate change is changing the climate.  Weather is something else.  From what I've read on this forum, weather is unrelated to climate change.

[rebound]

No, man-made climate change is changing the climate.  Weather is something else.  From what I've read on this forum, weather is unrelated to climate change.

Related, but not the same.  Best simple example I ever heard is to imagine a pot of water that is right on the edge of boiling.  It's got all those little current swirls going on, and there is the occasional small bubble.  Now, put a clear lid on it to trap more of the heat.  (Similar to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere)  The pot may or may not boil, but the specific swirls and stuff change a lot due to that small increase in trapped energy.  Similar to climate.  The overall pot (earth) may not boil, but the specific patterns will change dramatically.

But I don't see this China thing as directly related to any of this.  All they are doing is cloud seeding with Silver Iodide, albeit on a massive scale.  It probably won't work as well as they want, but it isn't related to climate change at all.

 

[Conan71]

Related, but not the same.  Best simple example I ever heard is to imagine a pot of water that is right on the edge of boiling.  It's got all those little current swirls going on, and there is the occasional small bubble.  Now, put a clear lid on it to trap more of the heat.  (Similar to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere)  The pot may or may not boil, but the specific swirls and stuff change a lot due to that small increase in trapped energy.  Similar to climate.  The overall pot (earth) may not boil, but the specific patterns will change dramatically.

But I don't see this China thing as directly related to any of this.  All they are doing is cloud seeding with Silver Iodide, albeit on a massive scale.  It probably won't work as well as they want, but it isn't related to climate change at all.

 

Seems like burning a bunch of solid fuel for this project would increase CO2 levels at the scale proposed.

[TeeDub]

Seems like burning a bunch of solid fuel for this project would increase CO2 levels at the scale proposed.

I guess you can read it how you want...   I would have thought the "enormous network of fuel-burning chambers" would have sent some people over the edge.   You know it would have if it had been proposed in the US.  I guess as long as it's a foreign country, the environment over there doesn't matter (as it is on a separate level of the flat earth.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, man-made climate change is changing the climate.  Weather is something else.  From what I've read on this forum, weather is unrelated to climate change.

Weather is derivative of climate change, similar to how velocity is derivative of velocity.  We were at a point in climate history (position), with climate change moving at some rate (velocity).  We applied trillions of tons of CO2 and derived weather (acceleration).

And the third derivative,... well that is Trump.   If you remember from calculus and engineering school, that would be a Jerk.

[Conan71]

Weather is derivative of climate change, similar to how velocity is derivative of velocity.  We were at a point in climate history (position), with climate change moving at some rate (velocity).  We applied trillions of tons of CO2 and derived weather (acceleration).

And the third derivative,... well that is Trump.   If you remember from calculus and engineering school, that would be a Jerk.

Nope, nope, nope.  Listen to the narrative, Heir.  Weather and climate are different, neither affects the other.  It's liberal logic at its finest.

[cannon_fodder]

Nope, nope, nope.  Listen to the narrative, Heir.  Weather and climate are different, neither affects the other.  It's liberal logic at its finest.

Who says that?  If anyone said that, they would not be using any form of logic.  Let alone paying attention to science.

Weather and climate are different. Weather is for short term observations - it was hot out today (weeks, months, years).  Climate is longer term observations - it is hot in Saudi Arabia (years, decades, centuries). But climate definitely affects the weather - E.g., a blizzard is not likely in Miami and it is not likely there will be a hurricane in Chicago. The respective climates are not conducive to those weather events.  However, if the climate around lake Michigan was as warm parts of the Gulf of Mexico - perhaps Chicago could have hurricanes (ignoring the geography of the Lake making that very unlikely for other reasons).  If the climate around the Gulf of Mexico saw much less energy, the weather event we call a blizzard would be much more likely in Miami.  Those are made up examples, but...

if the climate around the Gulf of Mexico is consistently warmer it is more likely that there will be more hurricanes, that more water will evaporate, that coastal winds will increase.  If the climate over Greenland is warmer, it is likely that the weather will be above freezing more days and the ice sheet will melt, which will likely affect the salinity of water, which may change the gulf stream, which may lead to colder weather in England (even to the extent it could affect the climate in England).   A warmer climate means more energy, more energy means more evaporation... which can mean more rainfall for areas if they are downwind from large bodies of warming water, or it can mean drier conditions for other areas (if prevailing winds shift or there is no more rainfall but increased evaporation in the area). 

Weather is a derivative of climate, geography, and mathematics we do not fully understand. Weather is definitely affected by climate.

Here's NASA's & NOAA's "liberal logic" on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html

[patric]

Scott Pruitt used an obscure provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase the salaries of two close aides at the agency last month after the White House refused to boost their pay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/03/epas-pruitt-gave-big-raises-to-two-close-aides-after-being-rebuffed-by-the-white-house

Supposedly both Trump and Kelly called Pruitt to congratulate him on circumventing the White House.

[Conan71]

Scott Pruitt used an obscure provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase the salaries of two close aides at the agency last month after the White House refused to boost their pay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/03/epas-pruitt-gave-big-raises-to-two-close-aides-after-being-rebuffed-by-the-white-house

Supposedly both Trump and Kelly called Pruitt to congratulate him on circumventing the White House.

Both young females he has sitting on his, um, staff.  Is it just me or does Pruitt have the most punchable face in an administration since, Steve Bannon?  Maybe it's that hayseed gap tooth look that reminds me of Alfred E. Neumann.

[Hoss]

Both young females he has sitting on his, um, staff.  Is it just me or does Pruitt have the most punchable face in an administration since, Steve Bannon?  Maybe it's that hayseed gap tooth look that reminds me of Alfred E. Neumann.

You forget about Stephen Miller?

[patric]

Both young females he has sitting on his, um, staff.  Is it just me or does Pruitt have the most punchable face in an administration since, Steve Bannon?  Maybe it's that hayseed gap tooth look that reminds me of Alfred E. Neumann.

Sabotaging the EPA was a Trump goal, so the headline pretty much sums it up:


On one hand, Pruitt is a huge ethical headache. On the other, he's doing exactly what Trump wants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/03/on-the-one-hand-pruitt-is-a-huge-ethical-headache-on-the-other-hes-doing-exactly-what-trump-wants

[Conan71]

You forget about Stephen Miller?

That's mighty punchable.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Who says that?  If anyone said that, they would not be using any form of logic.  Let alone paying attention to science.

Weather and climate are different. Weather is for short term observations - it was hot out today (weeks, months, years).  Climate is longer term observations - it is hot in Saudi Arabia (years, decades, centuries). But climate definitely affects the weather - E.g., a blizzard is not likely in Miami and it is not likely there will be a hurricane in Chicago. The respective climates are not conducive to those weather events.  However, if the climate around lake Michigan was as warm parts of the Gulf of Mexico - perhaps Chicago could have hurricanes (ignoring the geography of the Lake making that very unlikely for other reasons).  If the climate around the Gulf of Mexico saw much less energy, the weather event we call a blizzard would be much more likely in Miami.  Those are made up examples, but...

if the climate around the Gulf of Mexico is consistently warmer it is more likely that there will be more hurricanes, that more water will evaporate, that coastal winds will increase.  If the climate over Greenland is warmer, it is likely that the weather will be above freezing more days and the ice sheet will melt, which will likely affect the salinity of water, which may change the gulf stream, which may lead to colder weather in England (even to the extent it could affect the climate in England).   A warmer climate means more energy, more energy means more evaporation... which can mean more rainfall for areas if they are downwind from large bodies of warming water, or it can mean drier conditions for other areas (if prevailing winds shift or there is no more rainfall but increased evaporation in the area).  

Weather is a derivative of climate, geography, and mathematics we do not fully understand. Weather is definitely affected by climate.

Here's NASA's & NOAA's "liberal logic" on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html

He was being sarcastic/satirical...


It quite literally is a mathematical relationship - weather derives from climate.  They are different, but interconnected.  Much like peanut butter and jelly on a sandwich!!   Mmm...PB&J !  Time for breakfast!!

[joiei]

Please, send him to jail.  Do not let him come back to Oklahoma to run for governor.  We are screwed enough without his screwing you and I. 

[patric]

Please, send him to jail.  Do not let him come back to Oklahoma to run for governor.  We are screwed enough without his screwing you and I. 

He still thinks hes going to replace Sessions as A.G.   Can you imagine what a disaster that would be for the justice system?