A Tutorial For Trump Supporters On Climate Change

[BluesLegend]

.

We are going to dig coal and drill for oil, that should piss off the left.

So your goal is to piss off the left and not make money? (see the previous page of this thread). You behave like an ape.

 

[Silhouette]

So "yada yada yada". For you, how we do energy isn't that big of a deal. Maybe we should ask the kids instead?

Would you rather use this type of radiation we haven't evolved to deal with, to simply boil water to run turbines?...

Or this type of radiation we have evolved to deal with... coupled with carbon for night/cloudy continuous production? Every day the sun shines is a carbon credit. And both types of radiation merely boil water to run steam turbines. Kinda makes you mad that that's all nuclear does at the end of the day, eh?

 

[Silhouette]

Mr. Trump should check out this map. Here's a region we could be tapping to sell energy to Mexico, Canada & Russia (our three nearest super-neighbors): Interestingly, roughly the same areas but overlapping others, are vast geothermal reserves that contain waters at temperatures already at boiling or above.

You know, steam is steam. The steam turbines really aren't fussy about where the steam comes from...And when the steam comes at the lowest fuel price possible (once components of solar thermal...cheaper than any other power source fixtures..are installed), which is after installation, free, we create more jobs and make American companies with monopolies on energy transmission and permitting SUPER DUPER FILTHY RICH...instead of just filthy rich.

The areas in oranges & yellows sport some of the most sunny days in the year. Instead of thinking of that region for its fracking potential (and how we can pollute the last reserves of fresh water for agriculture (who needs that industry, right? ) FOREVER (you cannot clean up benzenes and other solvents once they're pumped deep underground), think of the area as a source of solar steam energy. Do you REALLY care how those steam turbines are fired up at the end of the day when you turn on your light switch? We can turn on our lights without our tapwater catching on fire after all!

The only people I can see really heatedly objecting to this are people with massive investments in oil extraction. If US laws placate those folks as they transition their assets here in the US, really that leaves only the countries outside the US that are getting fat on oil. They can always sell it to China. She loves carbon like no other country on earth.

 

[buckeye45_73]

As the atmosphere, which acts like a shield and blanket at the same time, begins to disappear from destructive chemical reactions caused by things men are doing on the earth's surface, you would expect colder winters as CLIMATE CHANGE continues (not "Warming" per se)

In the Winter, with a thinner "blanket" you would expect colder-colds. In the Summer, guess what we find? Warmer warms as the shield function of our atmosphere thins.

I guess Trumpees think it's fun to look at climate change like an infant. That way the pesky little details of what's actually happening can be denied. That way, industry doesn't have to encounter the hassles and expense of complying with global climate practices aimed at saving our planet. The simple minded greedy apes just want their bunches of bananas. They don't want to hear about the inconvenient details of how their greed is destroying their home.

"But for awhile there we were having much cooler Summers than normal!"..

Yes, yes we were. Again, climate change deniers will have to stretch their taxed little brains further to understand the "silly" science behind all the mystery.

Water, which is also ice, which makes up the ice caps on both poles of our planet, is a funny element. It has what is known in chemistry as a "high specific heat". What that means is, that it takes a lot of energy to change it from a solid to a liquid, a liquid to a gas, or a gas to a plasma. Many other compounds or elements do not need as much heat as water to do this. As an element or molecule, like water, approaches a phase change from solid ice to liquid water, it takes on the most energy in the form of heat to complete the phase change.

So, to put that in layman's terms, while the Summer's were cooler, the ice caps' acceleration in melting were "stealing the heat" from the atmosphere....which we all felt on our skins as "a cooler Summer". "So climate change isn't really happening!!" Except that it is. Just not the neat little way that most minds would like to box it in.

Do three experiments at home that will help you understand the full scope of how our climate is changing for the worse as far as organic life is concerned.

1. The ice cube experiment. Put an ice chunk on the counter in a warm home. Hold your hand away from it. Then hold your hand near it. As your hand comes near to it, but doesn't actually touch it, you will feel cold. That is because as the ice melts, it is stealing heat from the immediate surroundings, including your hand as it approaches. Put a fan behind the ice chunk next. Place your hand in front of the stream of air blowing past the chunk. You'll notice cold too; and this will accelerate the melting of the ice. This is how the warmer wind functions blowing across the ice caps in Summer. The size of the ice caps are their ability to make the "false cool Summers" more noticeable. As they shrink in size, these cool Summers will not be felt as widely.

2. The atmosphere "blanket" test. Now that it's Winter, you can go outside and try this simple test. Take a thick warm blanket outside and cover yourself with it as you sit for awhile in a chair. Then, take it off and replace it with a sheet. Sit for the same amount of time. Which is colder? The thinner sheet mimics the thinning atmosphere and the colder Winters showing up as the earth's climate change.

3. The atmosphere "shield" test. In Summer, go out in the middle of July on a sunny day and sit under a solid type of shelter from the sun for awhile. Then, sit under an opaque or semi-clear piece of corrugated roofing. Or just directly in the sun without any shield. Which is hotter?

For extra credit, the Winter solstice (shortest day) is near. On that day, should the sun be shining, take an automobile headlamp reflector, remove the bulb exposing just the bulb clip. Using a pair of welding glasses for safety, place a piece of paper or a small dry piece of wood in the clip. Aim the reflector directly at the sun, even later in the day if you like. DO NOT look directly at the center of the reflector or anywhere near it, even with welding glasses. It will be at its weakest and lowest potential of energy for the entire year. Wait several seconds until the wood or paper catches fire. Douse quickly with water you have nearby.

This extra credit is the key to solving both our energy crises AND climate change. The less we damage our atmosphere with chemicals related to the petroleum industry and relying on it to give us energy, the more we can slow down the damage to everything; not the least of which, ourselves.

This bs was done with ozone, you guys got.rid of cfcs.........thanks for helping out poor folks do.to.thos debunked.myth.

 

[Silhouette]

This bs was done with ozone, you guys got.rid of cfcs.........thanks for helping out poor folks do.to.thos debunked.myth.

NASA disagrees. They say the thermosphere is thinning because of petrochemical burning and processing releasing compounds into the outer atmosphere that react chemically with the gases there, causing them to become more dense and flatten thinner our outer "insulation" on our tar paper shack.

Models predict that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing the upper atmosphere to cool and contract, and therefore reduce the density of gases in the layer spanning from 90 to 649 km (60 to 400 miles) above the surface—known as the thermosphere. According to a study by the Naval Research Laboratory, the density of the thermosphere has decreased about 10 percent over the last 35 years. NASA Visible Earth: Thinning Upper Atmosphere

 

[buckeye45_73]

This bs was done with ozone, you guys got.rid of cfcs.........thanks for helping out poor folks do.to.thos debunked.myth.

NASA disagrees. They say the thermosphere is thinning because of petrochemical burning and processing releasing compounds into the outer atmosphere that react chemically with the gases there, causing them to become more dense and flatten thinner our outer "insulation" on our tar paper shack.

So wait, we have no cfcs since the 80s and the hole hasn't gotten smaller

 

[Silhouette]

Correct. And "CFC" stands for "chlorofluoroCARBON". NASA is saying that other petrochemicals are damaging our atmosphere. And I'm not sure all countries have banned CFCs as of this date. Wouldn't surprise me at all to learn China, for example, is using tons of them every day to produce all their propellant-style plastic bullcrap trinket manufacturing.

I guess anyone could look that up to see what's what.

 

[jc456]

Correct. And "CFC" stands for "chlorofluoroCARBON". NASA is saying that other petrochemicals are damaging our atmosphere. And I'm not sure all countries have banned CFCs as of this date. Wouldn't surprise me at all to learn China, for example, is using tons of them every day to produce all their propellant-style plastic bullcrap trinket manufacturing.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. Just post up how that happens!. You know sunlight is needed to produce ozone?

 

[12icer]

A

Mr. Trump should check out this map. >>>>><<<<<<<The areas in oranges & yellows sport assets here in the US, really that leaves only the countries outside the US that are getting fat on oil. They can always sell it to China. She loves carbon like no other country on earth.

Again you prove you have no idea the amount of Basic interaction involved in ANY type of energy production. The complex systemic effects of any geothermal tapping are subject to algebraic expansion. You have NO idea what you are doing and apparently are just looking through Popular Science and throwing a myriad of theories out to try to find one that is viable. Guess what I do Not agree with fracking myself, I think it IS a problem and threat to the deepest most pure aquifers that have water ages of tens of thousands of years of regeneration. Ground water is one thing shallow week long regeneration aquifer is another, but the deep aquifer is something I think is the MOST VALUABLE ASSET on earth much more valuable than gold. If you dumbass liberals want to save anything that should be your goal. The idea that any country or group of countries can adjust any part of our atmospheric environment by even a thousandth of a degree over one hundred years is LUDICROUS.
As for the CFC's they actually just reformulated CFC and banned a much more stable version than what they allow now. Now try the OZONE hole argument, Guess what OZONE IS AN ION it has a NATURAL charge and the hole varies with the actual flux charge of the POLE just like it does when it is confronted with an actual MAGNET and gathers at the opposing pole and leaves the like pole.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh yes...so tricky to make steam from existing steam in the ground!!!

 

[Silhouette]

Mr. Trump should check out this map. >>>>><<<<<<<The areas in oranges & yellows sport assets here in the US, really that leaves only the countries outside the US that are getting fat on oil. They can always sell it to China. She loves carbon like no other country on earth.

Again you prove you have no idea the amount of Basic interaction involved in ANY type of energy production. The complex systemic effects of any geothermal tapping are subject to algebraic expansion. You have NO idea what you are doing and apparently are just looking through Popular Science and throwing a myriad of theories out to try to find one that is viable. Guess what I do Not agree with fracking myself, I think it IS a problem and threat to the deepest most pure aquifers that have water ages of tens of thousands of years of regeneration. Ground water is one thing shallow week long regeneration aquifer is another, but the deep aquifer is something I think is the MOST VALUABLE ASSET on earth much more valuable than gold. If you dumbass liberals want to save anything that should be your goal. The idea that any country or group of countries can adjust any part of our atmospheric environment by even a thousandth of a degree over one hundred years is LUDICROUS.

Algebraic expansion? ....lol... sounds very complex. Does that even exist? Yes, steam expands if that's what you mean...lol.. Geothermal plants sit right next to existing superheated rock or actual water resources. Again....steam turbines...using math (egads!) take steam FROM ANY SOURCE and spin a magnetized surface next to copper windings (or vice versa) in order to produce a stream of electrons. It's the same thing hydro dams do, nuclear plants do, oil plants, coal plants...they all move a set of fins that spin a generator to make electricity. (Hydro uses the pure force & pressures of vast moving water instead of steam...but also to turn fins) That's not some new revelation. That's ancient knowledge. A car's alternator and in the old days, generator, did the same thing with gasoline.

Yes yes...for many decades now those keen on keeping others from starting up competing power supply plants have been very eager to impart the myth that boiling water to run steam turbines is "tricky...very very tricky!!".

Spin spin spin spin spin goes the BigCarbon/BigNuke blogger machine. Like I said, lobby Congress to get your monopolies on easy-steam...then switch over your assets and make bank that way. BIG bank. Much bigger than you would with carbon extraction & combustion which, all costs considered, doesn't come close to the profits you'd get using free solar steam for "x" days a year (number of days the sun shines) in conjunction with carbon or other sources. Get Trump to broker a deal between y'all and Congress. I don't mind paying the same price for your stream of steam-turbine electrons even if you are not having to use fuel to produce them 300 days a year....

Have you seen how much sun the hundreds of thousands of sun-soaked wastelands of the Southwest get each year?

Trumpees say "oh it's terribly tricky...you have to use some MATH to set up a solar thermal or geothermal plant"....you know, unlike a carbon burning plant or nuclear plant...

Yes, here's the terrifyingly complex setup of rows of parabolic mirrors shining on a tube of oil in the desert....EGADS! The MATH!! I guess if you voted for Trump, the "math" behind this setup would seem daunting...lol..

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a simple diagram for Trumpees. Just subsitute where it says "coal", virtually any other source of heat you can come up with; including concentrated sunlight or geothermal

 

[Silhouette]

So Mr. Trump is a businessman. Supposedly he's a real whiz at it. Let's examine the following scenario. A cheeky poster brought up math...so here's some math. I must admit, I was astonished to learn that a 1000W coal power plant burns 200lbs of coal per second, 365 days per year. And we wonder why our atmosphere is filling up with carbon compounds, damaging it..

Company #1, let's call it "Karbon King" power company. Company #2, let's call it "Flexpower".. They're both located in Laughlin NV, say. There's an average of 291 sunny days in Laughlin NV.

Karbon King if it were a 1000MW power plant typical for coal; would burn 200lbs per second or 2.8 megatons per year Coal Power Plants - Jason Munster's Energy and Environment Blog But let's say pound for pound it's a 125MW plant; one of many dotting the country. 1000 divided by 125 = 8 So Karbon King burns 1/8th a 1000 MW plant or roughly 25lbs of coal per second or .35 megatons of coal per year...or @ 86,400 seconds a day, or 2 million, 160,000 pounds of coal per day. Which is 1080 tons of coal per day. Coal costs an average of $36/ton. Quandl So Karbon King is spending $38,880 per day to buy coal per day. Or 45 tons ($1,620) of coal per hour.

"Flexpower" also burns coal at the same rate, when days are not sunny, or at night. Each hour has 3600 seconds. So for each hour Flexpower burns her coal, she is burning 90,000 lbs of coal; or 45 tons of coal; or $1620 worth of coal (and who knows what untold hidden expense if NASA is correct that carbon burning is damaging our thermosphere) per hour. But Flexpower is different. She added a solar thermal array equivalent to this: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Dhursar | Concentrating Solar Power | NREL So for every hour the sun is shining, Flexpower shuts down her carbon burners.

In Laughlin NV, remember, there are 291 sunny days per year. In other regions of the vast 100s of thousands of acres of desolate and abandoned sun soaked desert or semi-desert of the Southwest, the days of sun may likely be more. We'll leave the molten salt heat storage technology aside for now, which continues to generate electricity at night after each sunny day. We'll keep it simple, crude for comparison purposes.

Each sunny day in Laughlin NV, Karbon King churns away, burning coal round the clock at the expense indicated above. Meanwhile, Flexpower is not burning coal for at least 8 hours per day, 291 days per year. BUT, both companies charge the same rate for electricity no matter what. So Flexpower is saving each year...8 x 291= 2328 coal burning hours which she would otherwise be burning $1620 of coal per hour. So Flexpower saves $3,771360 per year on fuel costs. Over 10 years, Flexpower saves roughly $38 million in fuel costs; while charging the same rate as her sister plant Karbon King.

Which one would make America more great? And, if these plants were set up across the sun soaked Southwest & Midwest and superconducted to Canada, it would mean jobs and income for the US; where right now we're shunting it out of the country in the opposite direction.

If you were to cogenerate linear fresnel solar thermal with geothermal or hydropower, or use molten salt heat storage to generate electricity at night, you'd save even more money. And this new type of cogeneration (different types on site) power plant technology is in its infancy. We could become world producers of energy, without continuing the absurd pumping of carbons into the atmosphere.

China, France, Spain, Morocco, ME countries and so on are in a technology rush; currently constructing these plants as fast as they can. Will the US be the poor little sister who missed this new gold rush? Or will she jump out ahead of the pack and take the lead?

 

[Silhouette]

Or is the "algebraic expansion" too difficult to apply here in the US? Was that poster meaning trigonometry? I mean seriously "algebraic expansion"....gawd...

Steam is steam. We can either harvest the safe, clean kind or we can become a third world country while our dependence on carbon makes us the old fashioned Amish country of the 21st Century..

 

[bripat9643]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

The so-called "world scientific consensus" is a con. Trump is smart enough to see that it's a con. Trump doesn't go nearly far enough in rolling back Obama's global warming agenda. Anyone who swallows a con is a dumbass or is in on the con.

 

[bripat9643]

So Mr. Trump is a businessman. Supposedly he's a real whiz at it. Let's examine the following scenario. A cheeky poster brought up math...so here's some math. I must admit, I was astonished to learn that a 1000W coal power plant burns 200lbs of coal per second, 365 days per year. And we wonder why our atmosphere is filling up with carbon compounds, damaging it..

Company #1, let's call it "Karbon King" power company. Company #2, let's call it "Flexpower".. They're both located in Laughlin NV, say. There's an average of 291 sunny days in Laughlin NV.

Karbon King if it were a 1000MW power plant typical for coal; would burn 200lbs per second or 2.8 megatons per year Coal Power Plants - Jason Munster's Energy and Environment Blog But let's say pound for pound it's a 125MW plant; one of many dotting the country. 1000 divided by 125 = 8 So Karbon King burns 1/8th a 1000 MW plant or roughly 25lbs of coal per second or .35 megatons of coal per year...or @ 86,400 seconds a day, or 2 million, 160,000 pounds of coal per day. Which is 1080 tons of coal per day. Coal costs an average of $36/ton. Quandl So Karbon King is spending $38,880 per day to buy coal per day. Or 45 tons ($1,620) of coal per hour.

"Flexpower" also burns coal at the same rate, when days are not sunny, or at night. Each hour has 3600 seconds. So for each hour Flexpower burns her coal, she is burning 90,000 lbs of coal; or 45 tons of coal; or $1620 worth of coal (and who knows what untold hidden expense if NASA is correct that carbon burning is damaging our thermosphere) per hour. But Flexpower is different. She added a solar thermal array equivalent to this: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Dhursar | Concentrating Solar Power | NREL So for every hour the sun is shining, Flexpower shuts down her carbon burners.

In Laughlin NV, remember, there are 291 sunny days per year. In other regions of the vast 100s of thousands of acres of desolate and abandoned sun soaked desert or semi-desert of the Southwest, the days of sun may likely be more. We'll leave the molten salt heat storage technology aside for now, which continues to generate electricity at night after each sunny day. We'll keep it simple, crude for comparison purposes.

Each sunny day in Laughlin NV, Karbon King churns away, burning coal round the clock at the expense indicated above. Meanwhile, Flexpower is not burning coal for at least 8 hours per day, 291 days per year. BUT, both companies charge the same rate for electricity no matter what. So Flexpower is saving each year...8 x 291= 2328 coal burning hours which she would otherwise be burning $1620 of coal per hour. So Flexpower saves $3,771360 per year on fuel costs. Over 10 years, Flexpower saves roughly $38 million in fuel costs; while charging the same rate as her sister plant Karbon King.

Which one would make America more great? And, if these plants were set up across the sun soaked Southwest & Midwest and superconducted to Canada, it would mean jobs and income for the US; where right now we're shunting it out of the country in the opposite direction.

If you were to cogenerate linear fresnel solar thermal with geothermal or hydropower, or use molten salt heat storage to generate electricity at night, you'd save even more money. And this new type of cogeneration (different types on site) power plant technology is in its infancy. We could become world producers of energy, without continuing the absurd pumping of carbons into the atmosphere.

China, France, Spain, Morocco, ME countries and so on are in a technology rush; currently constructing these plants as fast as they can. Will the US be the poor little sister who missed this new gold rush? Or will she jump out ahead of the pack and take the lead?

One error, out of the many in your screed: both companies do not charge the same price for electricity. Building two power plants instead of one costs a lot more, so the Flexpower company either has to charge a lot more or get government subsidies. The later is almost always happens because charging more than your competitors is the road to bankruptcy.

I could spend all day ripping your idiocies apart, but that should suffice to show how wrong you are.

 

[Clementine]

Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

As future president, Donald Trump has promised to dismantle President Barack Obama’s progress toward improving the environment. He has supported the Keystone XL pipeline and removing regulations on the gas and oil industries. He wants to reduce the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he called a “disgrace,” and scrap the Clean Power Plan, which would compel power plants to reduce their carbon emission. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate change deal. And he also once claimed that global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese.” Donald Trump Will Be the Only World Leader to Deny Climate Change Is Real

Well Mr. Trump. You's got some learnin' to do. Average-student business-major Donald Trump; who doesn't take regular security briefings from experts even, cuz, you know, he's smarter than they are on everything...has suddenly deemed himself smarter than world scientific consensus. He might as well declare that green is now purple. What will be next in his world of make-believe?

Even the chemical industry disagrees with you; and dozens of other professional organizations, including NASA. Who is smarter Trumpees? Your guru Donald Trump? Or almost all world scientists?:

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Discuss

It's the left who needs to be exposed. The proposed solutions to global warming have nothing to do with helping climate. They are using global warming scare tactics to push massive wealth redistribution.

No surprise that the left never talks about the policies being touted as solutions.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump, an average business student, claims to be smarter than nearly all world scientists. I remember college and it was cleanly divided on the quad between business and science students. Like oil and water, we didn't mix well at all. Business demands science bow to its bottom line. Science demands business be objective on reality, even if it means sacrificing the bottom line.

Like cats and dogs... We scientists saw the business majors as whores and pimps. The business majors saw us as "chumps destined to poverty". This little rivalry has now taken center stage in the world in a most insidious way. And our entire collective fate is tied to who will win. Who are you rooting for? Not just today but for your grandkids?

But an examination of Trump’s own academic record yields a distinctly unflattering picture of the celebrity businessman. Among other things, Trump has allowed the media to report for years that he graduated first in his class at Wharton, despite strong evidence that this is not true and indications that he was, in fact, an undistinguished student....“the commencement program from 1968 does not list him as graduating with honors of any kind,” even though “just about every profile ever written about Mr. Trump states that he graduated first in his class at Wharton in 1968.” Just what kind of student was Donald Trump?

But the stakes are a bit higher these days. The planet is in dutch. Our last fresh reserves of water are in peril. People's tapwater is catching fire. Leaves on plants are getting UV burns they never got before and the oceans are creeping closer and closer to expensive settlements. Wild weather is becoming more frequent. 100 year storms are happening every other year now.

Wake up Trumpees. Your jobs can exist from green energy just as easily as they can with dirty energy. Like I said before, your dirty scummy energy buddies can still profit YUGELY off of their existing power plants. All they have to do is follow the simple steps in video #1 in post #4 here and tie in a solar thermal element to their steam turbines. Then, every day the sun shines, their profits increase exponentially. And, we slow down the carbon that's thinning the atmosphere "insulation" we all rely on to stay cool in the Summers and warmer in the Winters. BigCarbon lobbies Congress to maintain monopolies on these twin-type power plants...and they get fabulously richer than they are now in the process. The earth suffers less...Win win win!

Where did you learn that Trump was an average business student?

You just tell one lie after the other, don't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a simple diagram for Trumpees. Just subsitute where it says "coal", virtually any other source of heat you can come up with; including concentrated sunlight or geothermal

What if it's night?

 

[healthmyths]

As the atmosphere, which acts like a shield and blanket at the same time, begins to disappear from destructive chemical reactions caused by things men are doing on the earth's surface, you would expect colder winters as CLIMATE CHANGE continues (not "Warming" per se)

In the Winter, with a thinner "blanket" you would expect colder-colds. In the Summer, guess what we find? Warmer warms as the shield function of our atmosphere thins.

I guess Trumpees think it's fun to look at climate change like an infant. That way the pesky little details of what's actually happening can be denied. That way, industry doesn't have to encounter the hassles and expense of complying with global climate practices aimed at saving our planet. The simple minded greedy apes just want their bunches of bananas. They don't want to hear about the inconvenient details of how their greed is destroying their home.

"But for awhile there we were having much cooler Summers than normal!"..

Yes, yes we were. Again, climate change deniers will have to stretch their taxed little brains further to understand the "silly" science behind all the mystery.

Water, which is also ice, which makes up the ice caps on both poles of our planet, is a funny element. It has what is known in chemistry as a "high specific heat". What that means is, that it takes a lot of energy to change it from a solid to a liquid, a liquid to a gas, or a gas to a plasma. Many other compounds or elements do not need as much heat as water to do this. As an element or molecule, like water, approaches a phase change from solid ice to liquid water, it takes on the most energy in the form of heat to complete the phase change.

So, to put that in layman's terms, while the Summer's were cooler, the ice caps' acceleration in melting were "stealing the heat" from the atmosphere....which we all felt on our skins as "a cooler Summer". "So climate change isn't really happening!!" Except that it is. Just not the neat little way that most minds would like to box it in.

Do three experiments at home that will help you understand the full scope of how our climate is changing for the worse as far as organic life is concerned.

1. The ice cube experiment. Put an ice chunk on the counter in a warm home. Hold your hand away from it. Then hold your hand near it. As your hand comes near to it, but doesn't actually touch it, you will feel cold. That is because as the ice melts, it is stealing heat from the immediate surroundings, including your hand as it approaches. Put a fan behind the ice chunk next. Place your hand in front of the stream of air blowing past the chunk. You'll notice cold too; and this will accelerate the melting of the ice. This is how the warmer wind functions blowing across the ice caps in Summer. The size of the ice caps are their ability to make the "false cool Summers" more noticeable. As they shrink in size, these cool Summers will not be felt as widely.

2. The atmosphere "blanket" test. Now that it's Winter, you can go outside and try this simple test. Take a thick warm blanket outside and cover yourself with it as you sit for awhile in a chair. Then, take it off and replace it with a sheet. Sit for the same amount of time. Which is colder? The thinner sheet mimics the thinning atmosphere and the colder Winters showing up as the earth's climate change.

3. The atmosphere "shield" test. In Summer, go out in the middle of July on a sunny day and sit under a solid type of shelter from the sun for awhile. Then, sit under an opaque or semi-clear piece of corrugated roofing. Or just directly in the sun without any shield. Which is hotter?

For extra credit, the Winter solstice (shortest day) is near. On that day, should the sun be shining, take an automobile headlamp reflector, remove the bulb exposing just the bulb clip. Using a pair of welding glasses for safety, place a piece of paper or a small dry piece of wood in the clip. Aim the reflector directly at the sun, even later in the day if you like. DO NOT look directly at the center of the reflector or anywhere near it, even with welding glasses. It will be at its weakest and lowest potential of energy for the entire year. Wait several seconds until the wood or paper catches fire. Douse quickly with water you have nearby.

This extra credit is the key to solving both our energy crises AND climate change. The less we damage our atmosphere with chemicals related to the petroleum industry and relying on it to give us energy, the more we can slow down the damage to everything; not the least of which, ourselves.

I take it you would agree with the below.

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How much has the global temperature risen since 1880? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

So for nearly 90 years from 1880 to 1970 the temperature reading stations depended on these three elements.
1) The human eyeball can discern the difference on a mercury bulb thermometer of 2°F right.
2) That the humans recording the temperatures and humans re-recording and humans re-re-recording could read the handwriting.
3) That standing outside in -30° or 120° degrees was uncomfortable.

Plus this known fact:
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/

Adding all these factors is it possible the world temperature increase of 1.5°F maybe off?