Results 1,051 to 1,075 of 3644
-
09-04-2019, 08:16 AM #1051
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.
-
09-04-2019, 09:46 AM #1052
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.
-
09-04-2019, 10:41 AM #1053
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
-
09-04-2019, 10:48 AM #1054Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-04-2019, 10:53 AM #1055Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 10:56 AM #1056Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 11:11 AM #1057
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
-
09-04-2019, 11:24 AM #1058Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 11:33 AM #1059
-
09-04-2019, 11:55 AM #1060
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.
-
09-04-2019, 12:25 PM #1061
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.
-
09-04-2019, 01:35 PM #1062Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 01:44 PM #1063
"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.
-
09-04-2019, 01:47 PM #1064
-
09-04-2019, 02:07 PM #1065
-
09-04-2019, 02:23 PM #1066Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-04-2019, 02:27 PM #1067Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 02:40 PM #1068
-
09-04-2019, 02:47 PM #1069
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.
-
09-04-2019, 02:48 PM #1070
-
09-04-2019, 03:54 PM #1071Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-04-2019, 03:55 PM #1072
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.
-
09-04-2019, 03:57 PM #1073
- 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:
-
09-04-2019, 04:36 PM #1074
-
09-04-2019, 05:14 PM #1075Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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/
Bookmarks