Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

- If you want to cherry pick a relatively short time frame and then say everything is fine, that's up to you, but over the preceding forty years, from 1979 to 2010, the volume of sea ice in the Arctic declined by between 55% and 65%.

Now, the area of ice covering the Arctic ocean is hovering around record lows. Sure, go ahead and say the low occurred in 2017, or whenever over the past decade, but each of those years is considerably lower then the 150 years that came before.



-- It's not just one study. It's multiple studies derived from a new more comprehensive database of climate records.

These recent findings from 2019 are based on 700 climate records in an open-access database. The records come from glacial ice, ocean sediments, tree rings, corals and other sources. The resource allows scientists to recreate wide snapshots of global climate that would have been extremely difficult just a few short years ago.


---- In contrast, your source "co2science," according to IRS records, is funded by entities like the ExxonMobil Foundation and Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coal mining company. Co2science sharply disputes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change, while at the same time also believing that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.

I was not stating that everything is fine. You made a post outlining the current state of the climate, of which virtually all your statements cannot be given as truth. I was simply pointing that out.

Using more climate records does not automatically make it better. It depends on the quality of the climate records used and their methodology. You simply cannot use this study as the basis for all your "facts." Talk about cherry picking.

co2science did not fund any of the studies involved in the analysis. They are archiving all the studies they can find on the MWP and comparing the results.

[ron johnson]

RJ, GSP, says Fox is news, lmfao. It's opinions at best. Reaffirming your established beliefs really, Fox is news, lol.

Your reading comprehension skills... they are lacking.

[MultiVerse]

I was not stating that everything is fine. You made a post outlining the current state of the climate, of which virtually all your statements cannot be given as truth. I was simply pointing that out.

Using more climate records does not automatically make it better. It depends on the quality of the climate records used and their methodology. You simply cannot use this study as the basis for all your "facts." Talk about cherry picking.

co2science did not fund any of the studies involved in the analysis. They are archiving all the studies they can find on the MWP and comparing the results.

- Several new studies. The studies’ global temperature reconstructions used multiple methodologies from a growing repository of ancient climate data maintained in an open database. Taken together, these studies indicate modern era climate change is both unique, and outside the range of natural variability.


-- Whereas co2science preys upon the casual reader, and exploits the scientific illiteracy of the general public all under the guise of a registered charity that accepts funding from among others the [ExxonMobil Foundation and Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coal mining company].

The most insidious feature of the website are the mini-reviews, where the editors reinterpret scientific papers by willfully misinterpreting the results in order to push their agenda.


More here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedb...climate_1.html

[Bunion 2020]

I have lurked in the ski forum for a few years. I never bothered with any of the other forums. This is the only climate thread I've seen on here because it started in the ski forum and then got moved. It took many annoyances reading this thread before I finally caved and made an account.

I have the same white background signed in or not signed in. How do I get a good one?

Oh bullshit.

This thread has lived in the PR since it was started.

You are thinking of the Climate Change thread from the Happy Forum that went political and was moved to Pollyass.

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ews-on-Climate

You are a poor liar which makes all your posting of denier boilerplate even more amusing.

Are you affiliated with Americans for Prosperity?

[k2skier112]

I'm sure you are the same people that disparage those that get their news from Fox, but you somehow feel enlightened because your news comes from MSNBC, NYT, etc.

You said you get your news from Fox^^, we all get our news from MSNBC, (and ect, MSNBC just as bad as Fox for being opinion over fact). Moving goal posts, CRS, lying, or are you just a fucking moron?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-matters-lot/ ya, ya, ya, it's the wapo, blow me
Furthermore, consider that “Fox & Friends” provided a weekly call-in platform for Trump starting in 2011 — a moment that allowed him to test out his various faux-populist talking points, not to mention forge a coziness with a cable news team that shows no signs of strain to this day. Even more important: Fox News projected programming sensibilities — slander immigrants; fearmonger on terrorism; pretend to care about working-class people while favoring economic policies that favor the rich — that Trump packed into his successful campaign. He had a road map provided by the programming that he has watched for years and years.


https://archives.cjr.org/cover_story...like_a_fox.php
The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological. . . . What I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party. . . . They’re widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is

[neufox47]

I have lurked in the ski forum for a few years. I never bothered with any of the other forums. This is the only climate thread I've seen on here because it started in the ski forum and then got moved. It took many annoyances reading this thread before I finally caved and made an account.

I have the same white background signed in or not signed in. How do I get a good one?

You’re the arrogant asshole who, with no formal training in climate science or science, thinks he can use googlefu to discredit the vast majority of the experts, who’ve dedicated their lives to this and have things like doctorates in atmospheric physics. And you think you’re annoyed.

[WMD]

Your reading comprehension skills... they are lacking.

Ron, do you work for, or are you affiliated or associated with Americans for Prosperity in any way?

You never answered. I wonder why?

[SumJongGuy]

Ron, do you work for, or are you affiliated or associated with Americans for Prosperity in any way?

You never answered. I wonder why?

Maybe you should try asking in Russian..

[WMD]

"Europe Is Warming Faster Than Even Climate Models Projected"

Climate change is raising temperatures in Europe even faster than climate models projected, according to new research published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The number of summer days with extreme heat in Europe has tripled since the 1950s, while the number of days with extreme cold more than halved.

Extremely hot days in Europe have become hotter by an average of 4.14 degrees Fahrenheit, the study found, while extremely cold days have warmed by 5.4 degrees F. The research examined data from weather stations across Europe from 1950 to 2018, with more than 90 percent of stations showing that the climate was warming.

“Even at this regional scale over Europe, we can see that these trends are much larger than what we would expect from natural variability,” Ruth Lorenz, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and lead author of the new study, said in a statement. “That’s really a signal from climate change.”

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/europe-...els-projectedj

[ron johnson]

- Several new studies. The studies’ global temperature reconstructions used multiple methodologies from a growing repository of ancient climate data maintained in an open database. Taken together, these studies indicate modern era climate change is both unique, and outside the range of natural variability.

Where are you getting several new studies from? Even if you won't accept the charts from co2science, the point is there are a lot of studies on the MWP that do not agree with your study. You cannot state as fact that this is the warmest it has been in the last 2000 years globally. You also cannot state as fact that the earth hasn't warmed synchronously this fast. I'll use a favorite alarmist graph to prove my point - the Mann hockey stick:


-- Whereas co2science preys upon the casual reader, and exploits the scientific illiteracy of the general public all under the guise of a registered charity that accepts funding from among others the [ExxonMobil Foundation and Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coal mining company].

The most insidious feature of the website are the mini-reviews, where the editors reinterpret scientific papers by willfully misinterpreting the results in order to push their agenda.


More here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedb...climate_1.html

Where are you getting several new studies from? Even if you won't accept the charts from co2science, the point is there are a lot of studies on the MWP that do not agree with your study. You cannot state as fact that this is the warmest it has been in the last 2000 years globally. You also cannot state as fact that the earth hasn't warmed synchronously this fast. I'll use a favorite alarmist graph to prove my point - the Mann hockey stick:

Look at the spike after 1900. The warming pre 1950 is supposed to be natural. So we have a graph showing a global warming (northern hemisphere in this case) naturally occuring at about the same rate as we see for the unnatural warming of the last 50 years.

[ron johnson]

Oh bullshit.

This thread has lived in the PR since it was started.

You are thinking of the Climate Change thread from the Happy Forum that went political and was moved to Pollyass.

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ews-on-Climate

You are a poor liar which makes all your posting of denier boilerplate even more amusing.

Are you affiliated with Americans for Prosperity?

All I know is there was an climate change thread in the ski forum that was active this spring or summer that many were clamoring to have moved. After a few weeks without seeing it I assume it got moved and saw this in PR and assumed it was the same one. Maybe the the thread in the ski forum just died out?

[ron johnson]

You said you get your news from Fox^^, we all get our news from MSNBC, (and ect, MSNBC just as bad as Fox for being opinion over fact). Moving goal posts, CRS, lying, or are you just a fucking moron?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-matters-lot/ ya, ya, ya, it's the wapo, blow me
Furthermore, consider that “Fox & Friends” provided a weekly call-in platform for Trump starting in 2011 — a moment that allowed him to test out his various faux-populist talking points, not to mention forge a coziness with a cable news team that shows no signs of strain to this day. Even more important: Fox News projected programming sensibilities — slander immigrants; fearmonger on terrorism; pretend to care about working-class people while favoring economic policies that favor the rich — that Trump packed into his successful campaign. He had a road map provided by the programming that he has watched for years and years.


https://archives.cjr.org/cover_story...like_a_fox.php
The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological. . . . What I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party. . . . They’re widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is

I never said or implied that I get my news from Fox. For the record I never watch Fox, or get any of my news from any right wing news media. MSNBC might be even worse than Fox right now considering they just wasted 2 years covering the Russia conspiracy theory. And no, I didn't form my Russia opinion from some right wing source, I got it from mega lefty Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate.

[Bunion 2020]

All I know is there was an climate change thread in the ski forum that was active this spring or summer that many were clamoring to have moved. After a few weeks without seeing it I assume it got moved and saw this in PR and assumed it was the same one. Maybe the the thread in the ski forum just died out?

Another swing and miss. There was a thread on climate, it grew political there was no clamoring, I PMed a Mod and they moved it.

Do you work for Americans for Prosperity?

Do you work for or with a group or Org. to push an agenda?

[ron johnson]

You’re the arrogant asshole who, with no formal training in climate science or science, thinks he can use googlefu to discredit the vast majority of the experts, who’ve dedicated their lives to this and have things like doctorates in atmospheric physics. And you think you’re annoyed.

All you need is a brain to look at real life data on extreme weather and see that it doesn't jive with what gets reported. Even the IPCC agrees with me there, but you would never know it based on what gets reported.

[old goat]

Where are you getting several new studies from? Even if you won't accept the charts from co2science, the point is there are a lot of studies on the MWP that do not agree with your study. You cannot state as fact that this is the warmest it has been in the last 2000 years globally. You also cannot state as fact that the earth hasn't warmed synchronously this fast. I'll use a favorite alarmist graph to prove my point - the Mann hockey stick:

Look at the spike after 1900. The warming pre 1950 is supposed to be natural. So we have a graph showing a global warming (northern hemisphere in this case) naturally occuring at about the same rate as we see for the unnatural warming of the last 50 years.

The Industrial Revolution started in the mid 18th Century. I was there.

[ron johnson]

Ron, do you work for, or are you affiliated or associated with Americans for Prosperity in any way?

You never answered. I wonder why?

Because its a stupid trolly question. Of course I don't.

[ron johnson]

Another swing and miss. There was a thread on climate, it grew political there was no clamoring, I PMed a Mod and they moved it.

Do you work for Americans for Prosperity?

Do you work for or with a group or Org. to push an agenda?

Guarantee there were some saying it should be moved out of the ski forum. So basically I'm right? There was a thread on climate and it got moved?

[ron johnson]

The Industrial Revolution started in the mid 18th Century. I was there.

Yes, and all climate scientists would tell you there wasn't enough CO2 being released until after 1950 to have much of an effect on climate.

[MultiVerse]

Where are you getting several new studies from?
You cannot state as fact that this is the warmest it has been in the last 2000 years globally. You also cannot state as fact that the earth hasn't warmed synchronously this fast. I'll use a favorite alarmist graph to prove my point .

-- I cited a couple of the studies the last time this came up:

Throughout the last 2,000 years, external factors such as volcanic eruptions or solar activity were not intense enough to cause markedly warm or cold temperatures across the whole world for decades, or even centuries

These studies show that the warmest period of the last 2,000 years was most likely in the 20th century. They also show that this was the case for more than 98 percent of the surface of the earth. This shows – once again – that modern climate change cannot be explained by random fluctuations, but by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

What we didn’t know until now is that not only average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years, but also that a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

-- Plus, your point is more than a little silly because the Earth consists of more than just the Northern Hemisphere. If your point underrepresents half the planet then it's not much of a point, maybe half a point.

Even then you're relying on data from decades ago whereas the latest research is based on 700 climate records in a growing open-access database.

If you're an honest broker then it's time for you to update your prior beliefs because recreating wide snapshots of global climate like those in the studies would have been extremely difficult just a few short years ago.




Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

PAGES 2k Consortium. (2019). Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0

Koch, A., Brierley, C., Maslin, M. M. & Lewis, S. L. Quat. Sci. Rev. 207, 13–36 (2019).

Schurer, A. P. et al. Nat. Geosci. 11, 220–221 (2018).

[neufox47]

All you need is a brain to look at real life data on extreme weather and see that it doesn't jive with what gets reported. Even the IPCC agrees with me there, but you would never know it based on what gets reported.

This is the climate change thread. Where did I allege anything you beg to differ with me on about hurricanes?

You seek to find the edge of the debate and quibble on pedantic terms. Then mischaracterize any support for alternative energy or endorsements of climate change as synonymous with your pedantic debate.

[WMD]

"For a given hurricane, it is now possible to determine the extent to which climate change made it worse. For Harvey, it's estimated that climate change increased its precipitation 38% and its likelihood by 6x. Sources: "
Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017GL075888

[WMD]

Because its a stupid trolly question. Of course I don't.

Another lie, of course.

[SumJongGuy]

You seek to find the edge of the debate and quibble on pedantic terms. Then mischaracterize any support for alternative energy or endorsements of climate change as synonymous with your pedantic debate.

It's the typical "poison the well" strategy. Find one or two data points that may be questionable and then declare the entire body of research globally is corrupted and must be tossed out as invalid.

[old goat]

Yes, and all climate scientists would tell you there wasn't enough CO2 being released until after 1950 to have much of an effect on climate.

The same climate scientists you don't believe about anything else? You really are a piece of work.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Why do you guys keep feeding this troll? Like, you think you're actually going to convince him? Maybe his spelling and grammar makes him look like less of an ignorant tool at first, but not the message.
Just tell him he's a dumb fuck and stop responding.