|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jan 11, 2017 15:34:05 GMT
I'm not sure Mr. Trump is going to make it four years as POTUS. This "Putin hacked the election to get Trump elected" story is a great example of how effectively an entrenched bureaucracy can turn on an executive they fear and bring him down. The story is starting to get legs in the MSM, and some Republicans in Congress are running with it. The obvious goal is to de-legitimize the election. I predict you will soon start seeing reports about "evidence" that Mr. Trump knew and encouraged the Russian effort. This evidence will be used to call for impeachment, and whether that happens or not, efforts will be made to cripple his initiatives because of this. Democrats and Progressives are not pansies like our Republican friends when it comes to going all out to bring down a POTUS they find offensive. In that position I would ask those 'republicans' if interference in elections was so heinous whether they had supported similar activities by the CIA to affect elections in other countries and in view of the lack of morals they claim that shows, shouldn't they consider their positions and resign? I think that a lot now depends on the next 2 years. If Trump and his Administration actually meets the 'contract' that he announced at the end of October then 'We The People' will start steamrollering 'the establishment'. One of the most important actions here is imposition of term limits. If that passes, then the cozy puppeteer billionaire<->lobbyist<->career politician<->strategist cabals will be destroyed. This is why the ban on recycling from congress or administration back out to lobbyist, as that removes a revolving door approach. I think you are right the 'establishment' are facing an existential threat from Trump. However, do not underestimate his power to pull the rug out from under them with more information on their work with foreign powers and NWO. The Podesta's are in glass house and will not want to throw stones. I think that the rush to get the Russian interference public was to protect the political senior levels of the intelligence services. They are just as politicised or more correctly democrat leaning as the IRS and the Attorney Generals department. This means that Trump immediately removing them could be called retribution. Politicization of the civil service is the standard approach by progressives, when Tony Blair moved into power the UK civil service was politicized quite rapidly to entrench the progressive attitudes. This is continued by Common Purpose (look it up). Removing this political bias will not be easy except by gross changes of the law, and it is one of the reasons for gutting the Tax Code in the US, so the IRS ceases to have power. Watch for reorganizations for 'efficiency' to cut down the number of 'layers' of management in the intelligence agencies with coalface operatives and analysts being only say 3 management layers from the top. This would 'drain the swamp' of middle to top managers whose sole task is to 'tune' the information politically. I think the Buzzfeed publication of The Trump Kompromat memo is a perfect example of my assertion above. Pats on the back are always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 11, 2017 17:51:47 GMT
I think you are right. And the leak of sexual peccadilloes is right on the bureaucrat/political playbook. And of course the legacy media will run with it as it hits all their click-bait buttons.
However, I also think that from the very start the politicians and bureaucrats have completely underestimated Trump. How many times has it been said that 'given xxxxxxx there is no way that Trump will ever [win this primary|get selected|be elected]' ?? After the inauguration which I also expect to be disrupted, Trump will start playing hardball back.
The politicized civil service will realize that it is difficult to throw grit in the gears if your department has just been defunded. There is still a congress power to reduce the salary of any federal civil servant to $1. "Oh no not sacked - perish the thought!".
I also think that some of the 'it will take at least 2 terms to get all this done' group are going to find things happening at a business process speed rather than a bureaucrat/politician speed.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 21, 2017 19:48:02 GMT
The biggest thing to remember about the Greenhouse Effect claim, is that the CO2 (or whichever GHG you care to mention) is absorbing energy that is leaving the surface, not energy directly from the sun.
So the maximum temperature for a CO2 molecule to attain from radiation absorption from the surface is the temperature of the surface itself. To do this it must absorb all of the wavelengths the surface is emitting towards it.
Then comes the pseudoscience bit. Regardless of how much the CO2 is warmed by the surface, it can't send any heat back to the surface. The CO2 molecule is colder than the surface (because of many things but certainly one of them is that CO2 didn't absorb all of the wavelengths of the surface) and heat only travels from hot to cold. Energy travels in all directions, but only energy from hotter objects contains frequencies capable of raising the temperature of cooler ones.
It doesn't matter how much CO2 you put in the air or how warm the surface energy makes it. Heat is not trapped. It simply moves through each medium, with the most efficient method (conduction convection radiation) available, on its way to space.
Venus's surface only receives about 4% of the sun's direct energy, so the whole Greenhouse Effect idea of letting the light in but stopping the heat leaving is even more absurd.
All atmosphere's have mass and gravity acts upon mass to perform work. Thus once atmospheric pressure increases enough for molecules to regularly exchange kinetic energy, a temperature gradient forms alongside the pressure gradient. Every upward motion hindered by gravity, every downward motion accelerated by it. The result, all planets with thick atmospheres are cooler near the top and increase their temperature the deeper you descend into them. Venus has 96 times more atmosphere than Earth. That is why the surface is so much hotter. Its CO2 concentration is irrelevant. Mars has virtually no enhancement from its atmosphere, yet it also has 97% CO2 and 28 times more of it than Earth per square meter of surface area. Saturns moon Titan has roughly 1.5 times the atmospheric density of earth but 6% Methane concentration. It's surface temp is around -175C
....pulled this from an fb post, makes alot of sense??
Joined an Aussie climate sceptic group Ratty ๐ค
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2017 4:04:42 GMT
The biggest thing to remember about the Greenhouse Effect claim, is that the CO2 (or whichever GHG you care to mention) is absorbing energy that is leaving the surface, not energy directly from the sun. So the maximum temperature for a CO2 molecule to attain from radiation absorption from the surface is the temperature of the surface itself. To do this it must absorb all of the wavelengths the surface is emitting towards it. Then comes the pseudoscience bit. Regardless of how much the CO2 is warmed by the surface, it can't send any heat back to the surface. The CO2 molecule is colder than the surface (because of many things but certainly one of them is that CO2 didn't absorb all of the wavelengths of the surface) and heat only travels from hot to cold. Energy travels in all directions, but only energy from hotter objects contains frequencies capable of raising the temperature of cooler ones. It doesn't matter how much CO2 you put in the air or how warm the surface energy makes it. Heat is not trapped. It simply moves through each medium, with the most efficient method (conduction convection radiation) available, on its way to space. Venus's surface only receives about 4% of the sun's direct energy, so the whole Greenhouse Effect idea of letting the light in but stopping the heat leaving is even more absurd. All atmosphere's have mass and gravity acts upon mass to perform work. Thus once atmospheric pressure increases enough for molecules to regularly exchange kinetic energy, a temperature gradient forms alongside the pressure gradient. Every upward motion hindered by gravity, every downward motion accelerated by it. The result, all planets with thick atmospheres are cooler near the top and increase their temperature the deeper you descend into them. Venus has 96 times more atmosphere than Earth. That is why the surface is so much hotter. Its CO2 concentration is irrelevant. Mars has virtually no enhancement from its atmosphere, yet it also has 97% CO2 and 28 times more of it than Earth per square meter of surface area. Saturns moon Titan has roughly 1.5 times the atmospheric density of earth but 6% Methane concentration. It's surface temp is around -175C ....pulled this from an fb post, makes alot of sense?? Joined an Aussie climate sceptic group Ratty ๐ค Some of it does. The photon emitted by CO2 does not go in a specific direction. When a CO2 photon is released at 10,000 feet, its chance of hitting Earth is greatly reduced. A photon is energy, it is not heat. In order for it to become heat, it must strike a solid. Water sends to photon induced heat up as evaporation. A tremendous amount of heat is latent heat taken to high levels via wind currents. And the chances of that heat hitting Earth at 10-75000' is small.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 22, 2017 4:51:23 GMT
Does a photon "expire" at high altitudes?
LATER: If it doesn't hit anything in <x> seconds/minutes/hours.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 22, 2017 12:31:42 GMT
Does a photon "expire" at high altitudes? LATER: If it doesn't hit anything in <x> seconds/minutes/hours. A photon going away from Earth will travel across space at the speed of light. The speed of the infrared photons is often forgotten, let us assume that it bounces around like bagatelle 20 times before finally going out of the Earth's atmosphere. The CO2 molecule does not hold onto the energy for a long time - some papers I have read refer to the absorption and release as scattering infrared. An infrared photon travels at 186,000 miles per second up and down say 5 miles a time for 20 times will be less than a thousandth of second before it escapes the Earth. The claim is that an 'excited' CO2 molecule passes on its vibrational energy to Nitrogen or Oxygen molecules by collision in the very very short time before it re-radiates the infrared. So where have we seen this claim that vibrational energy becomes kinetic energy of another molecule before?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 22, 2017 12:40:45 GMT
I knew it was a good question.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 22, 2017 14:22:55 GMT
I knew it was a good question. Give Ratty a Fox News microphone. Ratty's World.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2017 18:02:54 GMT
Great perspective Naut ๐๐
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on Sept 22, 2017 18:16:00 GMT
I didn't go through all the posts, I'm on my lunch break, but has anyone brought up Beer's Law?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2017 18:49:33 GMT
Not yet. Pabst Blue Ribbon or a hearty lager?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 22, 2017 21:13:35 GMT
I didn't go through all the posts, I'm on my lunch break, but has anyone brought up Beer's Law? Not yet and no mention of Nazis yet either.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Sept 22, 2017 21:49:17 GMT
Isnโt โBeerโs Lawโ the more you drink, the better they look?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2017 1:45:41 GMT
CO2 photons or latent heat?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 10, 2017 20:29:20 GMT
|
|