Page 43 of 146 FirstFirst ... 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,075 of 3644
  1. #1051
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Quote Originally Posted by NWFlow View Post
    The one thing I will say ron isn't wrong about is the current cultural climate's inability to foster critical thinking. There's actually a fair amount of interesting discussion in this thread, and multiverse is doing a great job carrying the rational, scientific torch.

    But saying things like "Fox news lolol - Ron Johnson you dummy" doesn't really contradict the larger point that Ron is trying to make -- that plenty of irrational propaganda also exists around global warming and climate change. The bourgeois + class has certainly latched on to the topic and is unlikely to be able to even begin to define the MWP etc.

    Not saying Ron's right about a lot of the science, but not sure he's wrong about some of the pseudo-religious fervor that a lot of people can display on this topic.

    And FWIW, my main Arctic climate / permafrost professor was (and remains) a climate skeptic.
    And your contribution is to say make this a class/cultural issue: "The bourgeois+class has certainly latched on to the topic . . . ."
    There is no doubt that the climate issue has gotten caught up in our tribal war but it didn't start that way. It was turned into a cultural issue by big energy and its paid shills and paid politicians because big energy stands to lose big if the scientists are believed. How else can you explain why one political party believes the scientists and one does not?
    So give us an example of "irrational propaganda" about climate change.

  2. #1052
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    But what about China? No matter what we do, we are screwed because China will never address climate change.

    "Envision Sets Most Ambitious 100% Renewable Energy Target For Mainland China"

    Shanghai-based energy technology manufacturer Envision has joined the global RE100 initiative with the most ambitious and earliest 100% renewable energy target out of all member companies from mainland China, committing to be powered by 100% electricity by 2025.


    Image Credit: Envision
    Envision, a manufacturer of wind turbines, energy management software, and energy technology services, will look to wind energy and solar energy coupled with smart energy management to reach its new 100% renewable energy target, and will seek to supply renewable electricity to its battery factories located in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

    Through its new renewable energy target, the company expects to save hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year by 2025, which will in turn save the company tens of millions of US dollars on its electricity bills.

    “The mission of Envision is to solve the challenges for a sustainable future for human beings,” said Zhang Lei, CEO of Envision, who also called on other Chinese companies to “join RE100.”

    “It’s a great step forward for Envision to lead by example,” added Yuming Hui, China Director, The Climate Group. “We hope it inspires thousands more Chinese companies to take action in their own operations – from buying certificates to installing solar PV and wind turbines, there are solutions available now.”

    The global RE100 initiative — led by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP — draws together companies from around the world who are committed to 100% renewable electricity. With Envision’s commitment, RE100 now boasts over 190 major companies — many of which also have operations and supply chains in China.

    Further, companies in the commercial and industrial sector currently account for approximately two-thirds of the world’s end-of-use electricity, meaning that large-scale adoption of renewable energy technology in the C&I sector could yield significant reductions in emissions and accelerate the transition to a clean economy.
    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/03...ainland-china/

  3. #1053
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Big Sky/Moonlight Basin
    Posts
    14,417
    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    I was born and grew up in Komsomolsk-on-Amur city, Russian Siberia and Far East
    This explains a lot....


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    "Zee damn fat skis are ruining zee piste !" -Oscar Schevlin

    "Hike up your skirt and grow a dick you fucking crybaby" -what Bunion said to Harry at the top of The Headwaters

  4. #1054
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    "Hurricanes and Climate Change

    "Evidence continues to mount that human-induced climate change is causing hurricanes to grow stronger and more destructive. Hurricanes are producing heavier rain, their storm surges are riding atop higher sea levels, and in many cases they are lingering longer over land, causing increased flooding and infrastructure destruction."

    https://www.sciline.org/quick-facts/...tm_campaign=qf
    Alarm bells should be ringing in your head after the first sentence. Ranking hurricanes on cost is about the most biased metric you can use considering coastal development and property values are they highest they have ever been. Obviously any major hurricanes in recent years are going to be the costliest in history.

    Reading further, it turns out if you just ignore the data from before 1975, you can now make a strong case that hurricanes are getting worse.

    Tell me WMD, do you have a problem with the IPCC? From their latest report: "there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades," and "There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally."

    If you had any sense, you would now realize that this website, and whoever on twitter posted it, is not a reliable source of information and not worthy of your attention going forward. Instead, I expect you will continue to post this nonsense.

  5. #1055
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    But what about China? No matter what we do, we are screwed because China will never address climate change.

    "Envision Sets Most Ambitious 100% Renewable Energy Target For Mainland China"



    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/03...ainland-china/
    Wow, a Chinese alternative energy company seeks to supply its own battery factories with renewable energy!

    I've said it before, but I'll start taking non carbon renewables seriously when you can find me a city or county with a 100% non carbon renewable energy system.

  6. #1056
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    I love how you type "the alarmists" like it's some kind of small group of whack jobs. Again Irony to 100 on a two dimensional graphic..
    I love how you think thats some kind of niche term.

  7. #1057
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Big Sky/Moonlight Basin
    Posts
    14,417
    Hey Ron Johnson, what is your BSL ?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    "Zee damn fat skis are ruining zee piste !" -Oscar Schevlin

    "Hike up your skirt and grow a dick you fucking crybaby" -what Bunion said to Harry at the top of The Headwaters

  8. #1058
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Hey Ron Johnson, what is your BSL ?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    BSL?

  9. #1059
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Hey Ron Johnson, what is your BSL ?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    He's been arguing with 97% of the best that they have him in the wrong shell for years..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  10. #1060
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Alarm bells should be ringing in your head after the first sentence. Ranking hurricanes on cost is about the most biased metric you can use considering coastal development and property values are they highest they have ever been. Obviously any major hurricanes in recent years are going to be the costliest in history.

    Reading further, it turns out if you just ignore the data from before 1975, you can now make a strong case that hurricanes are getting worse.

    Tell me WMD, do you have a problem with the IPCC? From their latest report: "there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades," and "There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally."

    If you had any sense, you would now realize that this website, and whoever on twitter posted it, is not a reliable source of information and not worthy of your attention going forward. Instead, I expect you will continue to post this nonsense.
    I'm not sure you understand what "low confidence" means in the context of a scientific review article. It doesn't mean that the theory (that hurricanes are increasing, in this case) is likely wrong. It means that the data is low quality--maybe not enough sampling points or a long enough time fram--to know whether the theory is correct or not. The theory could still be correct, which just can't be confident of that.

    In any case, we spend a lot of time arguing about the changes that CO2 has already caused while what we should be concerned about is what the future holds depending on what we do or do not do to control emissions. Up until now the changes have been subtle enough that there are (shaky) grounds for debate. By the time the changes are dramatic enough that there is no longer any doubt we will be too busy just trying to stay alive to worry about controlling CO2 emissions and too late to prevent warmer from continuing to accelerate.

    And yeah, ranking disasters by cost is a quick and dirty and not very accurate way of assessing the threat but it gets people's attention.

    As far as the reliability of Sciline--it is published by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which also publishes Science. It is as respected a scientific organization as there is in the world. I understand that in your world view everything is partisan, any scientific information that contradicts your point of view is propaganda or a conspiracy, and the idea that most scientists don't have an agenda incomprehensible, but I point out the credentials of the AAAS for the rest of us.

    The issue is not just climate change. The denial of science is occurring across many fields. The main tactic of those who benefit from fossil fuels, harmful chemicals, and the like is to convince people that scientists are partisans with a preordained agenda, that scientific data is no more valid than the opinions of the uneducated, and that all news sources are just as biased as Fox and Breitbart. False equivalency is the name of the game.

  11. #1061
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    I rarely even read RJ's replies as they are total BS, or is that total BSL? He is completely not credible, so his replies don't matter.

    But, since he likes to say that the cost of action on climate change is too high, it then makes sense to talk about the cost of climate crises. The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.

  12. #1062
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    He's been arguing with 97% of the best that they have him in the wrong shell for years..
    The 97% is a made up number. It's been posted about multiple times in the thread.

  13. #1063
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    "I decided to get out there & communicate climate change, because the stakes are too great. We’re talking about the greatest challenge we face as a civilization, & I can’t allow personal attacks against
    me to cow me into submission." - Dr. Michael E Mann, 2019 Tyler Laureate.

  14. #1064
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    11,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Hey Ron Johnson, what is your BSL ?
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    BSL?
    Lol. Non-skiing shill's been buuuuuuusted.

  15. #1065
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rosebud Lake BC
    Posts
    740
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1189.JPG 
Views:	35 
Size:	476.1 KB 
ID:	293067

  16. #1066
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    I'm not sure you understand what "low confidence" means in the context of a scientific review article. It doesn't mean that the theory (that hurricanes are increasing, in this case) is likely wrong. It means that the data is low quality--maybe not enough sampling points or a long enough time fram--to know whether the theory is correct or not. The theory could still be correct, which just can't be confident of that.

    In any case, we spend a lot of time arguing about the changes that CO2 has already caused while what we should be concerned about is what the future holds depending on what we do or do not do to control emissions. Up until now the changes have been subtle enough that there are (shaky) grounds for debate. By the time the changes are dramatic enough that there is no longer any doubt we will be too busy just trying to stay alive to worry about controlling CO2 emissions and too late to prevent warmer from continuing to accelerate.

    And yeah, ranking disasters by cost is a quick and dirty and not very accurate way of assessing the threat but it gets people's attention.

    As far as the reliability of Sciline--it is published by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which also publishes Science. It is as respected a scientific organization as there is in the world. I understand that in your world view everything is partisan, any scientific information that contradicts your point of view is propaganda or a conspiracy, and the idea that most scientists don't have an agenda incomprehensible, but I point out the credentials of the AAAS for the rest of us.

    The issue is not just climate change. The denial of science is occurring across many fields. The main tactic of those who benefit from fossil fuels, harmful chemicals, and the like is to convince people that scientists are partisans with a preordained agenda, that scientific data is no more valid than the opinions of the uneducated, and that all news sources are just as biased as Fox and Breitbart. False equivalency is the name of the game.
    I know what "low confidence" means. It means that you do not have supportive evidence to state that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, which is what all these alarmist articles are doing.

    You aren't really following the points I'm trying to make. I am pushing back on the demonstrably false information that is being spread about global warming everywhere you look. Specifically stuff about extreme weather, "unprecedented" warmth, and renewable tech. I've stayed away from arguing about what the future might hold because its hard to prove or disprove. Personally, I remain very skeptical about the doomsday scenarios, but it has never been a point that I've been trying to make.

    That article is such a joke, it should really tell you something about the quality of such a "respected scientific organization." I don't know why you and everyone is trying to make this partisan. I am not partisan at all. I hate politics. Both political parties are corporate shills and neither will save this country from the coming ruin that they have both brought on.

    I do not think any information that supports CO2 caused global warming is propaganda or a conspiracy. It's entirely possible for this thread to discuss this topic in a reasonable manner and I would never chime in. The problem is that so little of what you guys actually post is rooted in sound science.

    I'm not the one denying science here. The points I'm making are easily backed up with data. That SciLine article is denying science.

  17. #1067
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Lol. Non-skiing shill's been buuuuuuusted.
    I guess I've been caught so I'll have to come clean. I'm actually a knuckle dragger.

  18. #1068
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    His game is to create doubt about climate change, so when we argue he wins. The arguing allows him to make it seem there is still a debate about the science or renewable energy. There isn't.
    This!
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  19. #1069
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    You people understand you're essentially trying to argue with someone who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that there isn't a hole in the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes aren't bad for you, right?

    It's all the same shit. Same tactics. Same blind ideologues leading the same blind doubters. I mean, it's literally the same people in plenty of cases. Just a different day, and maybe in a different medium.

    Many news media outlets have stopped giving attention to these deniers the same way they finally stopped giving attention to people who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or we weren't harming the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes are good for you. I would suggest you do the same.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  20. #1070
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I guess I've been caught so I'll have to come clean. I'm actually a knuckle dragger.
    Fixed again
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  21. #1071
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    You people understand you're essentially trying to argue with someone who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that there isn't a hole in the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes aren't bad for you, right?

    It's all the same shit. Same tactics. Same blind ideologues leading the same blind doubters. I mean, it's literally the same people in plenty of cases. Just a different day, and maybe in a different medium.

    Many news media outlets have stopped giving attention to these deniers the same way they finally stopped giving attention to people who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or we weren't harming the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes are good for you. I would suggest you do the same.
    You aren't paying attention to anything I am saying. Every point I am making is based on real data. There is a reason no one has been able to refute anything I am saying other than neufox with our sea level discussion.

  22. #1072
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Bolded is exactly what I am saying, and your favorite data source (PAGES 2k) shows that the heat uptake pre 1950 DID occur in a globally uniform way.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Do you not realize that the Neukom study is based on the graph?
    The so called Neukom paper (Neukom also participated in the PAGES 2k paper) is based on 700 climate records in an open-access database and focuses on spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data. The graph, showing global mean temperature multidecadal variability, comes from the PAGES 2k paper which focusses on multi-decade rates of change.

    While you seem to think it’s a distinction without a difference, arguing against spatiotemporal distributions by presenting a global mean temperature graph doesn’t make sense.

  23. #1073
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Lets try to be clear on what you are saying. You are saying that the warming post 1950 is unprecedented because it is happening at a global scale, and thus the warming pre 1950 was not happening at a global scale? If this is the case, where is your evidence for the pre 1950 warming not occuring on a global scale?

    - The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


    -- The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”*

    The second period extends from the mid-1970s to today:

    “The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

    “The extraordinary rate of the industrial-era temperature increase is evident on timescales longer than approximately 20 years”


    --- The Neukom paper has the warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century.**


    ---- *Notes: The papers(s) reference material points to studies describing the strong role of internal variability, including cold anomalies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific in the early twentieth century.

    ** Late twentieth century warming is much greater than early twentieth century warming:

    Name:  nasa-2.jpg
Views: 290
Size:  36.1 KB

  24. #1074
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You aren't paying attention to anything I am saying. Every point I am making is based on real data. There is a reason no one has been able to refute anything I am saying other than neufox with our sea level discussion.
    I call BSL on this!

    You have no real data. It has all been debunked. You are lying.

  25. #1075
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The so called Neukom paper (Neukom also participated in the PAGES 2k paper) is based on 700 climate records in an open-access database and focuses on spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data. The graph, showing global mean temperature multidecadal variability, comes from the PAGES 2k paper which focusses on multi-decade rates of change.

    While you seem to think it’s a distinction without a difference, arguing against spatiotemporal distributions by presenting a global mean temperature graph doesn’t make sense.
    Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

    The bottom graphs appear to show that early 20th century was a global phenomenon, and quote: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed." So it looks like the warming pre 1950 was global in nature according to this paper. And according to the PAGES temperature record, the pre 1950 warming is very similar to the post 1950 warming.

    In any case the point remains that you cannot unequivocally state that this is the only time the earth has warmed this quickly and synchronously in the past 2000 years. There are hundreds of studies at odds with these two papers:

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...9008193601&z=2

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •