Results 1,326 to 1,350 of 3644
-
09-11-2019, 01:54 PM #1326
-
09-11-2019, 03:19 PM #1327Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,591
-
09-11-2019, 05:38 PM #1328Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I don't find the IPCC to be an especially reliable source on climate. WMD and his ilk do, except for when the IPCC's views don't fit what they want to believe (ie: hurricanes). This is exactly what the quote is about.
I know I don't know everything, but I do know that there is nothing unusual about the current climate in the context of the past 10,000 years despite everything you are told. There are no increases in fires, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, or floods. I also know that we do not have the current technology to make 100% non carbon renewable plans feasible. You don't need to have a doctorate in climate science to see this, all you need to do is open you eyes.
-I misread a sentence, even with the misread I was still able to grasp the scientific concept of it.
-
09-11-2019, 05:39 PM #1329Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-11-2019, 06:12 PM #1330Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Obviously Taalas' comment does not imply that people and civilizations are at risk.
It's funny to me how you and other alarmists like to categorize global warming as a threat to suffering, death, species extinction, economic ruin, and civilization collapse.
The species extinction is entirely the result of human overhunting, habitat loss from human development, and non native species introduction. It has had nothing to do with global warming. You would actually expect biological diversity to increase with global warming since the warmest areas of the globe are the most biologically diverse. Now you want to implement massive solar and wind farms resulting in even more habitat loss, not to mention the effect of wind farms on bird populations.
The 100% non carbon renewable goals like the the GND are a sure fire way to increase poverty, death, suffering, and economic ruin. Nothing has been more important for decreasing poverty and improving human health than cheap energy (you can probably make a case for antibiotics on health).
graphics from: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/
It's amazing that you are still trying so hard to blame Dorian on global warming.
-
09-11-2019, 06:24 PM #1331Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-11-2019, 06:29 PM #1332
-
09-11-2019, 07:05 PM #1333
-
09-11-2019, 09:21 PM #1334
-
09-11-2019, 10:03 PM #1335
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
"Clean energy has reached a tipping point: It’s now cheaper to build and use a combination of wind, solar, batteries, and other clean tech in the U.S. than to build most proposed natural gas plants. Utilities want to spend $90 billion to build new gas plants and $30 billion to build new gas pipelines—but if they used renewables instead, consumers could save $29 billion in electricity bills, according to a new report from the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute."
In 2019, given what is needed on the grid today, we show that these technologies have crossed the line and become the cheapest way to add electricity to the grid,” says Chaz Teplin, a manager in RMI’s electricity practice. “Going forward, that case is going to only accelerate because while the price of natural gas, for example, may fluctuate up and down, the cost to install new renewables is only going to continue to decrease.”
The researchers looked at how natural gas plants are used on power grids today and then calculated what would be necessary for clean energy to replace those plants, including batteries to store power when wind and solar aren’t available. It’s already cheaper, in almost all cases, to build and run new clean energy projects than natural gas projects. By the middle of the 2030s, clean energy could drop in cost so much that it will be cheaper to build and run new renewables than to keep existing gas plants running, and gas plants could quickly become stranded assets (the same thing is currently happening with coal plants around the country). More than 90% of recently built plants could be forced into early retirement.
Many utilities already recognize the economic need to switch. Idaho Power plans to transition to 100% clean energy by 2045. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which works in several states, aims to be carbon-free by 2050. Regulators in Indiana rejected a plan to build a new $781 million natural gas plant earlier this year out of concern that it would become a stranded asset. Florida Power and Light plans to build the world’s largest solar-powered battery storage system to retire new natural gas plants. And the list goes on across the country.
-
09-11-2019, 11:11 PM #1336
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
Questioning the credibility of the IPCC is pretty funny. AR5 had over 2000 expert reviewers for just the first round of review. "The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors. "
To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather than waiting until the document is sent out for review.
The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—about 2,000 for the entire AR5—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review editors, who have expertise in the specific topic covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are available upon request.
If major differences emerge, lead authors are encouraged to organize a meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve the differences. The goal is not to reach a potentially “watered-down” compromise that conceals scientific uncertainties or real differences in expert opinion, but to produce a report of the highest scientific integrity, reflecting the state of our understanding fairly and adequately.
The revised draft is then sent back to the expert reviewers and also to government representatives for the government review stage. Each government is entitled to organize any type of review process it deems appropriate. For example, in the past, the U.S. government sought comments from agencies, scientific experts, and the general public (through a notice in the Federal Register) as the starting point for its comments.
Lead authors prepare revisions in response to scientifically valid comments, and encourage reviewers and other experts to resolve any remaining major differences by communicating directly. The resulting document is then submitted to the working group’s plenary session for consideration and acceptance.
Representing a range of expert opinions
One critical strategy the IPCC uses to ensure the scientific credibility and political legitimacy of its reports is to represent the range of scientific opinion on climate change fairly. To this end, the IPCC provides several channels for input from experts along the entire spectrum of opinion.
First, accredited NGOs from all sides of the issue are welcome as observers at the opening plenary session and some other sessions over the course of the report production cycle. In addition, scientists with controversial interpretations of the empirical evidence can and do become contributing authors by submitting material to lead authors, and play advisory roles for their governments by working with government representatives to revise and approve the final SPMs.
The presence of climate change experts from industry and environmental organizations in the assessment process also illustrates the IPCC’s desire to seek input from outside traditional research institutions. Industry examples have included representatives from across the energy sector such as fossil fuels and renewables (e.g. the Electric Power Research Institute and ExxonMobil). Environmental examples have included representatives from NGOs from around the world (e.g. The International Indigenous People’s Forum on Climate Change, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council).
Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”Last edited by WMD; 09-12-2019 at 12:26 AM.
-
09-12-2019, 01:52 AM #1337click here
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- valley of the heart's delight
- Posts
- 2,465
Let me rephrase that for you:
I don't find the IARC to be an especially reliable source on cancer. WMD and his ilk do, except for when the IARC's views don't fit what they want to believe (ie: blah). This is exactly what the quote is about.
I know I don't know everything, but I do know that there is nothing unusual about my current health in the context of the past 30 years despite my adenocarcinoma diagnosis. There are no increases in blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, kidney stones, hernias, or hemorrhoids. I also know that we do not have the current technology to make 100% cancer remissions feasible. You don't need to have a doctorate in oncology to see this, all you need to do is open you eyes.
---
If I read Ron correctly, he trusts a naturopaths's opinion over his team of doctors. And since cancer ain't 100% curable, he'll refuse treatment. Hey Ron - the science is settled. By the time your organs start failing, we may not have treatment options. It's true we don't know exactly how bad your cancer's gonna get, or exactly when. You may even survive, but any reasonable person will take action, soon.10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.
-
09-12-2019, 06:56 AM #1338
https://reason.com/2019/06/03/confes...imate-skeptic/
Read this Ron
Jerry Taylor used to be one of the foremost libertarian critics of regulatory efforts to forestall climate change. No longer. Now, as head of the Niskanen Center, he advocates for a carbon tax and urges center-right folks to take climate change more seriously.
What caused the conversion? Writing in the Bulwark, Taylor explains why one does not have to be a climate alarmist to think that climate change is a serious problem that merits a serious policy response. Writes Taylor:
The big debate in climate science right now isn't whether or not climate change is occurring—or whether human activity is the main cause. The big debate is about scale: How much change will there be, over how long a time frame, and how large (or small) will be the follow-on effects.
As a consequence, we have to think about climate change as a risk-management problem, and take seriously that our "best guess" about prospective climate changes might be wrong, and account for potential downside risks, including the possibility that some risks are greater than others. This leads Taylor to the following conclusion:
If we think about climate risks in the same fashion we think about risks in other contexts, we should most certainly hedge—and hedge aggressively—by removing fossil fuels from the economy as quickly as possible. . . .
As Taylor explains, this is a consequence of taking risk and uncertainty seriously, and need not be based upon the assumption that particularly apocalyptic scenarios are certain or even likely. Cost-effective mitigation measures make sense insofar as they provide protection against downside risks. This approach doesn't justify every potential climate policy proposal, but it is more than sufficient to overcome the "do nothing" approach favored by most Republican officeholders and conservative policy mavens.
For my part (as a fellow recovered climate policy skeptic) I have also argued that a principled commitment to property rights further counsels in favor of taking climate change seriously—again without any need to embrace apocalyptic visions of a hothouse cataclysm. While there may be good arguments against many of the policy proposals forwarded in DC, including the ill-fated Waxman-Markey climate bill and the Clean Power Plan—the alternative to these policies should not be doing nothing at all.
]
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
09-12-2019, 07:59 AM #1339Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 10,525
-
09-12-2019, 09:22 AM #1340
-
09-12-2019, 09:31 AM #1341Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 10,525
I'm referring to Snowfall totals at altitude not freezing levels.
Here's an example. https://www.mtbaker.us/snow-report/snowfall-statistics
-
09-12-2019, 09:58 AM #1342
Warmer air carries more moisture. Snowfall levels will be higher in places where the air cools enough to produce snow. Rainfall totals will be higher elsewhere. The area of places where snowfall happens will decrease and the area places where rain falls will increase respectively. This appears to already be happening.
The places I ski are right along that edge of viability. Our season was dependable from late November through February 20 years ago. It's now really only really dependable from late December through mid February.Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-12-2019, 10:31 AM #1343Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,591
Agree - as a point of reference, the Columbia River used to freeze over: http://clarkcountytalk.com/2018/04/1...olumbia-river/
Even the Willamette has frozen over:
All the documented freezes were in the 20th century, pretty clear those days are past.
-
09-12-2019, 10:42 AM #1344Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-12-2019, 10:45 AM #1345Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-12-2019, 10:50 AM #1346Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,591
-
09-12-2019, 10:56 AM #1347Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Aww come on MV, I liked you the best in this thread. You're the only one that was actually willing to have a real conversation in here.
I've already stated that I only started paying attention to the climate debate 3ish? years ago. So it would make no difference whether I was early 30s or older. I'm not sure what cultural references you are referring to, but any skeptic is going to have heard about the climate gate emails.
So at this point I need to be a hired shill that lives close enough to the mountains to have a close friend with snowboards, who was also previously scouting out TGR so I could learn inside jokes such as change for a nickel? or PM Rontele.
-
09-12-2019, 10:58 AM #1348Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-12-2019, 11:15 AM #1349
-
09-12-2019, 11:18 AM #1350
Bookmarks