Results 2,326 to 2,350 of 3644
-
10-22-2019, 02:11 PM #2326Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-22-2019, 02:19 PM #2327
Ron's mother should have eaten him.
Not only has his question above already been answered on the previous page, but he admitted in this thread that greenhouse gases act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration. He has also admitted earlier in this thread that greenhouse gasses in the industrial era are driving modern warming.
It's time for Ron to move on to steps 3-through-9 because Ron already admitted defeat on the science.
-
10-22-2019, 02:22 PM #2328
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/exx...ange-1.5330310
Exxon trial to explore whether oil giant lied to investors about climate change regulation economic impact on company
An oil company lying? Say it ain't so!
-
10-22-2019, 02:25 PM #2329
-
10-22-2019, 02:26 PM #2330
-
10-22-2019, 02:37 PM #2331
I have one question for you Ron.
What kind of bird is this?
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
10-22-2019, 02:49 PM #2332
-
10-22-2019, 04:28 PM #2333Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
My question wasn't answered on the previous page unless you are admitting that you are wrong to state that "CO2 is the guerilla in the system, the control knob of climactic changes." On the previous page, you seem to be saying that orbital cycles are the control knob.
It's not like I have ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so why would you expect me to think that CO2 can't amplify warming? The magnitude of the amplification is an entirely different matter.
I've also never said said that CO2 is driving modern warming. I expect it is playing a role, but I don't know how much (nor does anyone else), nor am I going to fight anyone on how much of the modern warming is caused by CO2.
-
10-22-2019, 04:29 PM #2334Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-22-2019, 04:29 PM #2335Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-22-2019, 11:16 PM #2336
Depends on how you do it. Several proposals would return the money collected from the carbon fee (not a tax as it would not go to the treasury) to all people equally. The poor, who only have one home and travel less would actually come out ahead. The rich, or those with multiple large homes who fly all the time would pay more for their lifestyles.
I feel a carbon tax is a necessary tool but not THE solution to the climate crisis.
-
10-22-2019, 11:36 PM #2337
You're not wrong. About a month ago a study was discussed describing how during the last deglaciation the earth started slowly warming due orbital change but then the vast majority of warming, something like 90-93%, occurred in response to CO2 increases. Ron then presented a Wattsupwiththat Koch brothers paid denier response to the paper but shortly thereafter conceded his rebuttal was weak. Now, a short time later Ron once again brings up the same tired debunked talking points, this time with a variation but in essence a topic previously discussed.
Ron also refers to these past changes as "abrupt" even though they take place over centuries and millennia. That's orders of magnitude slower than what humans are causing now.
Note too how Ron wants to limit the discussion to just the past 400K years. How Ron ignored the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum's example of CO2’s smoking gun, just one of several geologically significant mass extinction events caused by rapid climate change over the last ~300 million years.
-
10-23-2019, 06:43 AM #2338
Exxon has misled Americans on climate change for decades. Here’s how to fight back
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...disinformation
Opinion
The fossil fuel industry has known about the role of its products in global warming for 60 years. Exxon’s own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, these companies have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. All the while, the science is clear that climate-catalyzed damages have worsened, storms have intensified, and droughts and heatwaves have become more frequent and severe, while forests have been damaged and wildfires have burned through the country.
By polluting the information landscape, these companies misrepresented the safety of their product and denied the public their right to be accurately informed.
Big oil is not the only industry to do so. Big tobacco is a famous case, but asbestos and lead industries have done it too. These days, campaigns by soda companies to contest sugar science and by the NFL to distort the science on concussions use similar tactics. The campaigns all run a similar playbook: they cite fake experts, place impossible demands on the science, cherry-pick data, impugn the integrity of individual scientists and the scientific process, and appeal to conspiracy theories. They leave the public with the perpetual impression that there are lots of unresolved questions, and that scientists are not to be trusted.
Research has confirmed that disinformation works, which is, of course, why special interests fund it. So it is crucial to expose disinformation for what it is, so that the public doesn’t fall prey to the next industrial-scale propaganda effort.
In our report America Misled: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Deliberately Misled Americans About Climate Change, we document how the fossil fuel industry has misled the American public (and the world). We expose the most common myths about climate change generated by big oil and the misleading techniques used by Exxon.
Our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of over four atomic bombs per second
For example, cold weather is often used to argue that global warming isn’t happening. This favorite talking point of President Trump is an extreme form of cherry picking: ignoring what’s happening to our planet by focusing on local weather conditions. Just because the planet is heating up rapidly doesn’t mean cold weather in North Dakota will cease to exist overnight. But if we look at the overall picture, it’s hot and getting hotter. Our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of over four atomic bombs per second, and the four hottest years on record are the last four years.
Exxon also misled us through arguments that appear convincing but contain logical fallacies. One is the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past, so today’s climate change must be natural, also. But just because something happened naturally in the past doesn’t mean it has to be natural now; the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. It’s like arguing that people have died naturally from cancer in the past, therefore smoking can’t cause cancer today.
And then there’s the classic tactic of citing fake experts to cast doubt on the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The most prominent example is an internet petition of 31,000 dissenting “experts” who think humans aren’t disrupting the climate. However, over 99% of the signatories have no expertise in climate research – it’s populated with graduates of programs in computer science, veterinary science, and mechanical engineering, as well as dead people and pop stars, but very few with climate expertise. In actual fact, 97% or more of domain experts agree on the fundamental fact that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
Exposing and explaining the techniques of denial are crucial steps in neutralizing disinformation, not just from the fossil fuel industry but from any source. Once people know the ways they can be deceived, disinformation no longer has power over them. As Edward Everett once said: “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.” But it’s not enough to offer information – we also have to expose disinformation, so that people understand what we have been up against.
Why do climate deniers hate Capitalism?
Why do climate deniers hate Democracy?
Why do climate deniers hate America?
-
10-23-2019, 09:05 AM #2339
Rj be trolling again. Must be back from vacation in Crimea.
sent from Utah.sigless.
-
10-23-2019, 11:37 AM #2340Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
How desperate you are getting. You are trying to link our current argument about whether CO2 is the control knob in earth's climate cycles to our previous discussion about the Shakun et al paper. This fits nicely with your playbook to cherry pick one or two studies that fit your narrative. The Shakun paper is looking at one cycle (warming in the 10,000-20,000 YBP) and attributing it to a rise in southern hemisphere temperatures causing a release of CO2 from SH oceans, which then warmed the northern hemisphere. Even if we take the paper's conclusions as valid, it does not imply that CO2 is the control knob over past cycles in earth's history. Some other force had to trigger the warming that caused the release of CO2, or the cooling that stopped the warming and caused the absorption of CO2.
-You then revert to alarmist strategy #1, which is to discredit the source rather than the information. The WattsUpWithThat Koch brother connection is a smear campaign. The site is not funded by the Koch brothers. The website's owner, Anthony Watts, once received a one time payment $90,000 from the Heartland Institute (which does receive some funding from the Koch brothers) to fund a special project to create a website to access new temperature data from NOAA. But in typical alarmist logic, this makes everything posted on his website invalid. And for the record, after further review, I did concede that one of the rebuttals I linked was weak, but I stood by these two: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...e-was-tricksy/
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
--I think it's fair to call these changes abrupt, since given your CO2 control knob theory, something abrupt MUST have happened to stop the runaway greenhouse effect that would result from your theory.
---I was playing nice by limiting the discussion to the past 400k years. How can you explain the CO2 control knob theory with this?
-
10-23-2019, 12:51 PM #2341Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
10-23-2019, 12:53 PM #2342
- Of course Ron lies to make his point. That should be obvious by now. I never used the phrase "control knob" and the paper never says, "CO2 is the control knob over past cycles in earth's history." Because, as has been repeated ad nauseam CO2 and other greenhouse gasses work as an amplifier, not the trigger for glacial cycles.
The fact that Ron and wattsupwiththat ignore spatial variability and lag correlations in their rebuttals and instead repeatedly lie about and misrepresent arguments in order to make their points should, by now, be enough evidence of the weakness of Ron's arguments.
-- In a nutshell for the warming: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial warming. 2) Arctic ice melts flooding the oceans with fresh water which changes ocean circulation. 3) Over the course of millennia this leads to oscillation between the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. 4) Several millennia later as a result of the initial ocean warming large amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. 5) After the influx of CO2 the vast majority of warming, something like 90-93%, occurs.
For the cooling: The climate system tends to operate with thermostatic properties. If it starts getting too warm some properties kick in the cause it to cool back down. For example, if temperature starts getting warm then feedback from invigorated precipitation and invigorated moisture increases chemical weathering which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere which then causes things to cool down. As the planet cools the oceans cool and because cold water has a higher degree of CO2 solubility it soaks up carbon from the atmosphere.
--- There are different processes that help the climate regulate itself. But when something happens like the destabilization of ocean methane deposits it takes a long time for these processes to come back into balance.
The bottom line and what deniers want people to ignore is how human activity is upsetting this balance.
-
10-23-2019, 12:55 PM #2343
Another scientific and mathematical principle RonBurgandy seems to miss is the law of diminishing returns.. Nonlinear functions can have inflection where at certain extreme levels results/outputs turn the other direction.
Last edited by SumJongGuy; 10-23-2019 at 01:37 PM.
Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
10-23-2019, 01:25 PM #2344
How the fossil fuel industry polluted the information landscape
Key points
1. Internal corporate documents show that the fossil fuel industry has known about the reality of
human-caused climate change for decades. Its response was to actively orchestrate and fund
denial and disinformation so as to stifle action and protect its status quo business operations.
2. As the scientific consensus on climate change emerged and strengthened, the industry and its
political allies attacked the consensus and exaggerated the uncertainties.
3. The fossil fuel industry offered no consistent alternative explanation for why the climate was
changing—the goal was merely to undermine support for action.
4. The strategy, tactics, infrastructure, and rhetorical arguments and techniques used by fossil
fuel interests to challenge the scientific evidence of climate change—including cherry picking,
fake experts, and conspiracy theories—come straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook for
delaying tobacco control.
These key points reflect the position of experts studying climate denial and the history of fossil fuel
interests, based on thousands of pages of documented evidence.
https://www.climatechangecommunicati...ica_Misled.pdf
-
10-23-2019, 01:28 PM #2345
-
10-23-2019, 01:42 PM #2346Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- idaho panhandle!
- Posts
- 9,929
-
10-23-2019, 01:57 PM #2347
Yeah, I'd maybe phrase it a bit differently, but the discussion over the past couple of pages is likely moot in many ways. The point made earlier that the charts top out at 280ppm/CO2 probably means we are done with glacial cycles because we are now well over 400ppm.
What happened in the geologic past is we cross a critical threshold in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that allows things like our relationship with the sun in the shape of our orbit and how tilted we are on our axis which has periodicity, we have to drop CO2 to a certain level so that those things can emerge as climate signals. That’s the glacial interglacial cycle.
We reached a threshold about 3 million years ago where we start to see the 41,000 and 100,000 year cycle of our tilt in the shape of our orbit showing up as the growth and decay of ice sheets over time. This is important that we’ve had to drop down to a certain level before we could start seeing these glacial interglacial periodicities because it also means that if we increase CO2 to a certain extent those periodicities will disappear.
Now we are taking CO2 and CH4 that is not been part of our carbon budget for millions of years, from a different climate mode than we are currently in, and we are adding it to our modern carbon budget so we are changing the carbon budget in a way that is not part of the current cycle.
We are digging up these fossil fuels and burning them so we are changing the modern carbon budget, we are taking carbon that hasn’t been in the atmosphere for a long time and we’re setting it loose.
-
10-23-2019, 01:58 PM #2348Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,591
-
10-23-2019, 02:43 PM #2349
-
10-23-2019, 02:47 PM #2350
Just saw this on the twitters. Seems applicable. Life presents us with too many other less useless ways to waste our time.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Bookmarks