President Trump

[brianscharp]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 9ca589fc5d
Trump’s Russia problems are getting worse

The more details emerge, the harder it is to maintain that these are isolated, innocuous events. It is even harder to justify allowing Kushner to remain in office without a full accounting of his meetings with Russians and subsequent failure to report them. In any normal administration, Kushner would have been fired for, at the very least, atrocious judgment. He, however, is the president’s son-in-law, which should spur passage of more stringent rules against nepotism. With the intelligence committees of both houses sending out batches of subpoenas and new revelations each day, Republicans are soon to be confronted with a dilemma: At what point do they defend American national security and turn against the president and the princeling? If not before 2018, the voters will have the chance to take away their majority in one or both houses and give the Democrats a green light to move toward impeachment.

[Bob Kuczewski]

It was hinted several times in that short clip that global warming is irreversible. But you haven't answered my very simple question: Where was all the carbon before it became fossilized?

Riding around inside dinosaurs before they died and turned into trillions of barrels of crude oil?

You're on the right track Free!!

Take it a few steps further. Where did the dinosaurs get the carbon that went into their bodies? And what was the ultimate source of even that carbon?

But my question was originally directed at Brian (in response to the video claiming that Trump would "melt the planet" and before Brian switched topics yet again). Brian, can you tell us where all the carbon in our fossil fuels originally came from? I asked that question several posts ago. Thanks.

[brianscharp]

Brian, can you tell us where all the carbon in our fossil fuels originally came from?

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic ... eum_origin

[Bob Kuczewski]

Brian, can you tell us where all the carbon in our fossil fuels originally came from?

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic ... eum_origin

From your own reference above:

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically reviewed without confirmation. Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels and are, therefore, biogenic.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the article you reference contradicts your position.

The answer to my question is that most (if not all) of that carbon was in the atmosphere BEFORE various forms of life (bacteria and plant life) converted that atmospheric carbon dioxide into fossil fuels. So the earth has sustained - and recovered from - periods of much higher CO2 than mankind is ever likely to produce.

Here's the big picture of CO2 in the Earth's history (from Wikipedia at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... atmosphere ). Note that this graph shows present time on the left.

380px-Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png (73.5 KiB) Viewed 5185 times

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left side of the plot.

So according to that plot (remember that present time is on the LEFT), we are in a period of relatively low CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Now that's not to say that we're not contributing to CO2 increases by burning fossil fuels. I believe we are. But the historic evidence indicates that this is not an irreversible run-away train wreck as portrayed by the anti-Trump crowd. History shows that CO2 levels are elastic. As we burn more fossil fuels, we're likely to see consequences. At some point - as we have been doing - we'll make tradeoffs that balance the benefits of fossil fuel consumption with its drawbacks. But to characterize Trump's actions as "melting the planet" is just plain dishonest.

I started this topic with the single line "Make America Great Again". I remain hopeful that President Trump will move us in that direction. I don't want to (and don't intend to) slog through the constant media onslaught, and I'm going to try (better) to stay out of this topic. But please don't take my silence as a lack of wherewithal to reply. I just don't see it to be a productive use of my time when the sport of hang gliding is in such a desperate and perilous situation.

History - not this forum - will be the judge of Trump's Presidency, and I can wait for that judgement. Until then, please enjoy the US Hawks Free Speech Zone. That's why we provide it for our members.

[brianscharp]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the article you reference contradicts your position.

I don't see how it could, I never stated it.

So the earth has sustained - and recoverded from - periods of much higher CO2 than mankind is ever likely to produce.

But can mankind?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... atmosphere

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century,[4] to 399 ppm as of 2015.[5] The present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years[6] and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[7] The increase has been caused by anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[8] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013.[9] It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[10][11] An estimated 30–40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes,[12][13] which contributes to ocean acidification.

History - not this forum - will be the judge of Trump's Presidency, and I can wait for that judgement.

Not me. I'll hope for the best, but won't turn a blind eye.

[Bill Cummings]

Brian, can you tell us where all the carbon in our fossil fuels originally came from?

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic ... eum_origin

Would genetic testing be a waste of time?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Would genetic testing be a waste of time?

That's an interesting question Bill.

In the cases of natural gas and oil, I suspect the breadown of cellular structure would also have obliterated any traces of DNA structure. But that's just my layman's guess.

DNA is a mind-numbingly long series of GCAT components:

     G is Guanine C5H5N5O
     C is Cytosine C4H5N3O
     A is Adenine C5H5N5
     T is Thymine C5H6N2O2

You'll notice carbon (C) in each one. But I don' t know how much of the DNA structure would be preserved if it's rearranged to become oil, natural gas or coal. I suspect very little or none.

On the other hand, I have spent some childhood time in the Pennsylvania coal regions, and we found lots and lots of fossils embedded in the rocks and coal fragments left over from mining activities. But even in those cases, I suspect we were observing more of a "shadow" of the organism than the organism itself.

As a side note, the plot in "Jurassic Park" required a mosquito in amber as the source of dinosaur DNA. That was a very creative idea ... and a great movie.

[brianscharp]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... n-he-stoop
TRUMP’S LONDON TWEETS: HOW LOW CAN HE STOOP?

[brianscharp]

Tick-Tock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_Lt2havjA
Senate Judiciary Committee Poised To Probe Donald Trump Obstruction

[Bob Kuczewski]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the article you reference contradicts your position.

I don't see how it could, I never stated it.

But back on May 16, 2017 (post 6 on page 6 of this topic) you started your post with this:

Trump must be impeached.

I think your position on everything regarding President Trump is quite obvious to anyone who reads this topic, and it's stated very clearly right there in your own words. You do your credibilty an extreme disservice by pretending to not have a position .... when it's quite obvious that you do.

We have this Free Speech Zone for those who want to openly and honestly debate their views on non-hang gliding issues. So don't be afraid to actually speak your own thoughts rather than hiding (with fake objectivity) behind the obviously biased opinions and words of others.

Thanks.