Page 55 of 96 FirstFirst ... 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,375 of 2388
  1. #1351
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Obviously the article has a right wing slant to it. The quotes are what matter. Are you suggesting the quotes are made up or something?

    Also, I'm still waiting on a 3d climate graph from you.

  2. #1352
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Taalas comment that it is not going to be the end of the world rings true. Of course it isn't going to be the end of the world. The planet doesn't need saving, as it will exist long after we are gone. People, civilizations, and most other species are at risk, however.

    The planet (or climate) doesn't fall off a cliff at 2 degrees of warming. However, suffering, death, species extinction, economic ruin, civilization collapse, etc, will increase the warmer the planet gets. There is no red line above which certain death will occur, but keeping climate change to 1.5 degrees of warming is better than 2 degrees, 2 is better than 3, 3 is better than 4, etc. The warmer the planet gets, the more disruption, death, and chaos we will experience.

    I guess it would be fair to say that for the people of the Bahamas who were killed by Hurricane Dorian, climate change did mean the end of the world for them.

    The other garbage you posted was in a color and font I can't read on my computer thankfully.
    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).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ff1.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	278.9 KB 
ID:	293740
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ff2.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	305.7 KB 
ID:	293741
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ff3.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	177.7 KB 
ID:	293742
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ff5.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	275.9 KB 
ID:	293743
    graphics from: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/


    It's amazing that you are still trying so hard to blame Dorian on global warming.

  3. #1353
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Well, color me surprised. I'm guessing you're about the same age as the rest of the dentists here, so how would you say the snow conditions in the past few years compare to decades ago?
    I'm an early 30's east coast transplant, but they seem pretty normal compared to past snowfall totals. Either way, I don't think we have enough long term snowfall data to make many conclusions.

  4. #1354
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm an early 30's east coast transplant, but they seem pretty normal compared to past snowfall totals. Either way, I don't think we have enough long term snowfall data to make many conclusions.
    quote this shit, in 30 years you'll choke on these words

  5. #1355
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,360
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Obviously the article has a right wing slant to it. The quotes are what matter. Are you suggesting the quotes are made up or something?

    Also, I'm still waiting on a 3d climate graph from you.
    MV's the 3d data mapping geek here. I know how to read them though.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #1356
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'm an early 30's east coast transplant, but they seem pretty normal compared to past snowfall totals. Either way, I don't think we have enough long term snowfall data to make many conclusions.
    How many years have you be in the mountains?

    What locations?

  7. #1357
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,192

    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.
    https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331...ral-gas-plants

  8. #1358
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,192

    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.”
    https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...kgrounder.html
    Last edited by WMD; 09-12-2019 at 12:26 AM.

  9. #1359
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #1360
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,740
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  11. #1361
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    quote this shit, in 30 years you'll choke on these words
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    How many years have you be in the mountains?

    What locations?
    It's obvious now that he's catfishing,

    The snowboards likely belong to somebody else in his orbit and there's no way he's in his early 30s. Too many of his cultural references, like the IPCC scandal, things that animate him the most, things he keeps coming back to, things that I had to look up because they happened a decade or more ago. If true, that means he cared deeply about those events in his early twenties.

    With so many of his arguments coming from another era plus all the sites affiliated with Breitbart etc., he's probably just another run of the mill bandwagon retired conservative trolling an AGW thread.

  12. #1362
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,557
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Well, color me surprised. I'm guessing you're about the same age as the rest of the dentists here, so how would you say the snow conditions in the past few years compare to decades ago?
    Snow in the PNW has remained quite good and is over the 50 year LTA.

  13. #1363
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Deebased View Post
    Snow in the PNW has remained quite good and is over the 50 year LTA.
    With current rates of warming in the short term it will be more about a decline in ski season length at lower elevation resorts in the PNW, Midwest, and Northeast. Higher elevation resorts might even benefit from more moisture in the atmosphere and even experience slightly longer season lengths, but season length will suffer too as time goes on. Among people who tour the more noticeable change will be less opportunities to ski lower elevation lines because the years they fill in will be fewer and farther between.

  14. #1364
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Deebased View Post
    Snow in the PNW has remained quite good and is over the 50 year LTA.
    A 1,700 foot increase in the snowline on Mt Hood doesn't correlate to your claim. Citation?

  15. #1365
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,557
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    A 1,700 foot increase in the snowline on Mt Hood doesn't correlate to your claim. Citation?
    I'm referring to Snowfall totals at altitude not freezing levels.

    Here's an example. https://www.mtbaker.us/snow-report/snowfall-statistics

  16. #1366
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Deebased View Post
    I'm referring to Snowfall totals at altitude not freezing levels.

    Here's an example. https://www.mtbaker.us/snow-report/snowfall-statistics
    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!

  17. #1367
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    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.
    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: Name:  Willamette+frozen+1.png
Views: 83
Size:  469.8 KB

    All the documented freezes were in the 20th century, pretty clear those days are past.

  18. #1368
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    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. "



    https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...kgrounder.html
    I've already posted about my issues with the IPCC so I'm not going to rehash it again, but in short, the IPCC is a political organization masquerading as a science organization.

  19. #1369
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    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.
    Your analogy fails.

    And the science isn't settled.

  20. #1370
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Your analogy fails.

    And the science isn't settled.
    Actually, the science is settled, the last several dozen pages are just you trying to obfuscate that basic fact.

  21. #1371
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's obvious now that he's catfishing,

    The snowboards likely belong to somebody else in his orbit and there's no way he's in his early 30s. Too many of his cultural references, like the IPCC scandal, things that animate him the most, things he keeps coming back to, things that I had to look up because they happened a decade or more ago. If true, that means he cared deeply about those events in his early twenties.

    With so many of his arguments coming from another era plus all the sites affiliated with Breitbart etc., he's probably just another run of the mill bandwagon retired conservative trolling an AGW thread.
    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.

  22. #1372
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Actually, the science is settled, the last several dozen pages are just you trying to obfuscate that basic fact.
    Sure, 99% of scientists believe humans are causing the planet to warm. I'd consider that settled.

    How much of the warming humans are responsible for and how dangerous the warming is isn't close to settled.

  23. #1373
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Deebased View Post
    I'm referring to Snowfall totals at altitude not freezing levels.

    Here's an example. https://www.mtbaker.us/snow-report/snowfall-statistics
    Mt Baker, the snowiest place in the WORLD, is what you're basing the entire PNW off of...gotcha...

  24. #1374
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    But you dismiss most of what the 97% believe, but swallow hook, line and sinker, the 3%...riiight...so impartial. That's the opposite of science you troll

  25. #1375
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    But you dismiss most of what the 97% believe, but swallow hook, line and sinker, the 3%...riiight...so impartial. That's the opposite of science you troll
    How many times do I need to post about the 97% consensus being bogus?

Posting Permissions

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