Page 59 of 94 FirstFirst ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ... LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,475 of 2350
  1. #1451
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,866
    The good news is, in the future guys like Ron will have been proven wrong and they will be dead. Yo Ron, maybe speed it up a bit and go park your boat in a hurricanes path or there is lethal seaweed growing in France now. Maybe go for a walk in the tide pools?
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  2. #1452
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    THE RATE OF CHANGE, you fucking Dimwit.
    It’s been argued ad nauseam in this thread already but according to the latest research it’s not just the rate, it’s also the global condition and the heat:

    1. Average global temperatures are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years

    2. A warming period is now affecting nearly the entire planet at the same time for the first time

    3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

  3. #1453
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651

  4. #1454
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,404
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Why are we still doing this?

    This might be the stupidest study I have ever seen. They take the discredited Cook study, and compare its results to the results of plate tectonics studies and find a 99.9% consensus on climate change.
    Ah but you didn't read it, if that was your conclusion. Maybe try reading the bolded paper title and the Abstract again. Sentence by sentence. Your obfuscation is a re-occurring theme among the deniers.

    They are comparing the Cook 97% agreement study with a different study done later by Powell, 2016 that suggested the agreement is 99.99%. They are claiming Powell is overestimating the consensus by restricting the peer reviewed lit papers to the ones implicitly making a claim AGW is not occurring- which occurred on average 1 in 17,000+ publications within the field. It makes no comparisons to studies of plate techtonics other than to point out a similar level of agreement among the scientific field exists on both agw and plate techtonics, but that there is quite a different level public opinion support for these similarly well established facts.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  5. #1455
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,021
    Average global temperatures are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    Hmmmmmm, so all this started right about the time the Romans nailed that Jewish carpenter to a cross all cause he claimed to be some Deities son?

    I am sensing a trend.
    Mister Man! Mister Man! Mister Man. They left this card.

  6. #1456
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    4,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Hmmmmmm, so all this started right about the time the Romans nailed that Jewish carpenter to a cross all cause he claimed to be some Deities son?

    I am sensing a trend.
    He was flat earther, clearly needing to be crucified, don't ya' know.

  7. #1457
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Just don't post stupid false propaganda shit...
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    this is your mantra moron, posting fake shit!

  8. #1458
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Fixed you post.

    I hate to start this up again, but please find me one thing that is unusual about our current climate in the context of the last 2,000 years.
    do the world a favor and jump off a cliff

  9. #1459
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Jong Kong
    Posts
    54
    The point that gets glossed over is...

    Earth's climate has reached temps multiple times in the past that would make it uninhabitable for the vast majority of life..

    Even if we could reverse all of the damage we've done.. The question is whether or not we can regulate Earth's climate.

    Have we sped up climate change? Yes.. Can we slow it down? Yes.. Can we stop it? Highly doubtful. If we could stop it, do we know the long term consequences of doing so? No..





    Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app
    "Skiing is the easy part, Carl."

  10. #1460
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    "Al Roker just got back from Greenland, and he’s horrified by what he saw there"

    In Greenland, the glaciers are melting. And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate. Just this year, ice melts in the country contributed to an average global sea level rise of more than one millimeter. That may not seem like a lot, but after the hottest summer in Greenland’s record, about 440 billion tons of ice have melted off the country’s massive ice sheet. Over time, there’s enough ice in Greenland to raise sea levels by more than seven meters.

    NASA’s OMG mission is ongoing, and Today’s weather and feature anchor Al Roker recently joined it in Kulusuk, Greenland, as part of a new reporting unit at NBC that will focus on telling the story of climate change. Roker says that Arctic regions serve as “the canary in the coal mine” for climate change, as readily visible changes there signify serious problems to come for the rest of the planet. Greenland’s melting glaciers mean the eventual disappearance of habitable land in low-level areas ranging from Bangladesh to Florida. “The ripple effects [from Arctic] areas result around the globe, including the United States,” Roker says.

    This is the kind of research NBC’s new Climate Unit will continue to focus on. The unit will debut its work on Sunday, September 15 with an on-the-ground reporting series titled “Climate in Crisis” that will run through Friday, September 20 across NBC News, MSNBC, Telemundo, and NBC News Digital Sunday. While Roker’s trip to Greenland will highlight the many consequences of the country’s glacier melt, Lester Holt’s will travel to Alaska, his home as a child, to showcase what happens what a permafrost thaws does to cities.
    ...

    The new unit will focus on how climate change affects all different areas of society. “It’s not just, ‘Oh, there’s more severe weather,'” says Roker. For example, he explains, “There are 3,500 military facilities we have in this country and around the globe. Half of them are going to be susceptible to climate change.”

    For Roker, this fact is among the most surprising he’s learned in his climate change research so far. “Climate security is the number one threat for Homeland Security. You think of the obvious stuff,” he says, “but it never dawned on me that that would be one of the sidebars.”

    The more “obvious stuff” can currently be seen most dramatically in the proverbial coal mine of Greenland, where NASA has been finding water at tropical temperatures right at the base of glaciers. “Their initial findings are that the rate of ice melt could be double what they expected in the next several years, if this continues,” says Roker. “The effects that we were expecting to see in 50 or 60 years may be more like 20 or 30 years, or maybe even less. The rate at which things are picking up is very surprising to people, especially the scientists.”
    https://www.fastcompany.com/90403895...t-he-saw-there

  11. #1461
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    Earth has been much warmer too.
    What's your point?

    Neither end of that estimate range sounds promising. Especially with no end to the increasing level and rate of pollution.
    It's pretty promising if the climate sensitivity is closer to 1'C. If that is the case, there isn't much more warming that can be caused by CO2 alone. You would think these scientists would have a better grasp on the climate sensitivity of CO2 since this is all 'settled science.'

    With current CO2 levels at 0.042%, When is this "logarithmic diminutive effect" expected to start kicking in? millennia? eons? How many doublings? (Some math to help - 5 doublings get us to almost 1%). How strongly does it kick in? Seems to be basic atmospheric physics you're proposing. If its meaningful, the models are surely accounting for it already.

    Again, why are you proposing this geoengineering experiment? Do you not find it reckless?

    Methinks you're trolling now.
    Some graphs in here to give you an idea: https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2014/02/26/the-thought-experiment-that-first-made-me-a-climate-skeptic/#774004fd20e5

    I'm not proposing any geoingeneering experiment. This is what our society has done, there is little that can be done about it at this point.

  12. #1462
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    RJ strikes me as the kind of pedant who will tell you "only 80% of climate scientists think anthropogenic climate change is hazardous for our society!" as he drowns in a flood. I guess if you're gonna troll, you might as well troll hard. Probably a super-fun guy to ride a chair with.
    Global warming hasn't caused an increase in floods, so I'm not too worried about that.

    The point is we have no consensus whatsoever on how dangerous AGW is for society.

  13. #1463
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    The good news is, in the future guys like Ron will have been proven wrong and they will be dead. Yo Ron, maybe speed it up a bit and go park your boat in a hurricanes path or there is lethal seaweed growing in France now. Maybe go for a walk in the tide pools?
    Your hurricane reference confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  14. #1464
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It’s been argued ad nauseam in this thread already but according to the latest research it’s not just the rate, it’s also the global condition and the heat:

    1. Average global temperatures are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years

    2. A warming period is now affecting nearly the entire planet at the same time for the first time

    3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.
    I don't think the two of us are going to make any progress in this discussion. You have limited evidence for these claims, and zero evidence for these claims if you look solely at proxy records. You are only able to come to these claims when you compare instrumental records to proxy records.

    This started up again because of this post from Grape_Ape: "You have to be completely fucking retarded if you think that our climate is behaving normally (as in, the way it did behave up until about 2000). As skiers, we should have a finger on the pulse of this shit. I do. Some idiots don't. WTF"

    He is saying that it should be obvious to anyone that the climate of the past 20 years has been wildly abnormal. I'd love to know in what way.

  15. #1465
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    Ah but you didn't read it, if that was your conclusion. Maybe try reading the bolded paper title and the Abstract again. Sentence by sentence. Your obfuscation is a re-occurring theme among the deniers.

    They are comparing the Cook 97% agreement study with a different study done later by Powell, 2016 that suggested the agreement is 99.99%. They are claiming Powell is overestimating the consensus by restricting the peer reviewed lit papers to the ones implicitly making a claim AGW is not occurring- which occurred on average 1 in 17,000+ publications within the field. It makes no comparisons to studies of plate techtonics other than to point out a similar level of agreement among the scientific field exists on both agw and plate techtonics, but that there is quite a different level public opinion support for these similarly well established facts.
    I didn't read it, but I read this summary of it: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ctonics-a-hoax

    I stand by my stupid statement.

    It's really a moot point anyway because all this study tries to determine is if humans are causing global warming or not. This has never been a point of contention of mine. My point is that these consensus studies get used to try to prove that the vast majority of scientists believe human caused global warming is dangerous for society. That is a lie, there is no consensus on that.

  16. #1466
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I don't think the two of us are going to make any progress in this discussion. You have limited evidence for these claims, and zero evidence for these claims if you look solely at proxy records. You are only able to come to these claims when you compare instrumental records to proxy records.

    He is saying that it should be obvious to anyone that the climate of the past 20 years has been wildly abnormal. I'd love to know in what way.
    There hasn't been progress because you simply either ignore or willfully misinterpret the evidence.

    - Just because the chart shows the instrumental target does not mean they are using instrumental records for the industrial era and proxy records for the common era because that's not the case. The instrumental record is used a calibration for the anomalies, temperature anomalies are shown with respect to instruments, a relative baseline, but the models themselves are using proxy data.

    -- Also, thanks to your [Ron's] efforts we have additional research that supports the second item that something like 90%-to-98% of the planet is warming: after 1950, "except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."

    --- Among the glaring abnormalities we're seeing in recent decades is the way warming is affecting nearly the entire planet at the same time but also how pre-industrial warming happened in the aftermath volcanic forcing. Now, it's GHG forcing.

  17. #1467
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I didn't read it, but I read this summary of it: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ctonics-a-hoax

    I stand by my stupid statement.

    It's really a moot point anyway because all this study tries to determine is if humans are causing global warming or not. This has never been a point of contention of mine. My point is that these consensus studies get used to try to prove that the vast majority of scientists believe human caused global warming is dangerous for society. That is a lie, there is no consensus on that.
    That's nice. Run along now.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  18. #1468
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    In Greenland, the glaciers are melting. And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate.



    https://www.fastcompany.com/90403895...t-he-saw-there
    Not quite. The largest glacier in Greenland has been gaining mass the past 3 years: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing

    And its not the only one:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Helheim-2012-2019.gif 
Views:	40 
Size:	455.9 KB 
ID:	294000
    Name:  Petermann2012-2019-3.gif
Views: 93
Size:  322.5 KB

  19. #1469
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    If that is the case, there isn't much more warming that can be caused by CO2 alone.
    Even if this ends up being the case there are additional greenhouse gases to contend with: Methane, NOX, CFCs, HFCs each of which is much more potent.

    Then there's all the other issues like a loss of sea ice exposing dark, open waters, shifting the ocean surface from highly reflective to one that absorbs most of the sun's energy.

    Add to that the human response. A warming planet creates a lot more demand for air conditioning which in turn releases more greenhouse gasses.

    In other words, it's not just CO2 alone.

  20. #1470
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    There hasn't been progress because you simply either ignore or willfully misinterpret the evidence.

    - Just because the chart shows the instrumental target does not mean they are using instrumental records for the industrial era and proxy records for the common era because that's not the case. The instrumental record is used a calibration for the anomalies, temperature anomalies are shown with respect to instruments, a relative baseline, but the models themselves are using proxy data.

    -- Also, thanks to your [Ron's] efforts we have additional research that supports the second item that something like 90%-to-98% of the planet is warming: after 1950, "except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."

    --- Among the glaring abnormalities we're seeing in recent decades is the way warming is affecting nearly the entire planet at the same time but also how pre-industrial warming happened in the aftermath volcanic forcing. Now, it's GHG forcing.
    Your Neukom paper says as much itself: "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span."

    You think its just a coincidence that in this graph from Neukom et al the two largest warming spikes are during the instrumental era? And the first big warming spike is mostly naturally caused:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	neukom.png 
Views:	29 
Size:	397.7 KB 
ID:	294002



    Sure, my paper suggests that most of the planet is warming at the same time post 1950, but it tells us nothing about the previous 2000 years.

  21. #1471
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Not quite. The largest glacier in Greenland has been gaining mass the
    It's worth pointing out that we shouldn't expect see tototally linear trends. There will be ebb and flow on shorter times scales. The real concern is if long term the retreats are bigger than the advances.

  22. #1472
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Even if this ends up being the case there are additional greenhouse gases to contend with: Methane, NOX, CFCs, HFCs each of which is much more potent.

    Then there's all the other issues like a loss of sea ice exposing dark, open waters, shifting the ocean surface from highly reflective to one that absorbs most of the sun's energy.

    Add to that the human response. A warming planet creates a lot more demand for air conditioning which in turn releases more greenhouse gasses.

    In other words, it's not just CO2 alone.
    This is the point I'm making. There is no 'settled science' on how all these positive and negative feedbacks will interact.

  23. #1473
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's worth pointing out that we shouldn't expect see tototally linear trends. There will be ebb and flow on shorter times scales. The real concern is if long term the retreats are bigger than the advances.
    Agree, just pointing out that another one of WMD's links is not reliable.

  24. #1474
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You think its just a coincidence that in this graph from Neukom et al the two largest warming spikes are during the instrumental era? And the first big warming spike is mostly naturally caused:
    You should know what I think because we've discussed this already. We went from a relatively violent volcanic period to a relatively quiet volcanic period.

    So it's not just a coincidence. The first so called big warming spike marked the end of the little ice age. 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. After that, in addition to other natural forcing humans played a role as well.

  25. #1475
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Agree, just pointing out that another one of WMD's links is not reliable.
    Are you claiming that a spike or valley in a large sampling invalidates the observation of trends in the large?
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

Posting Permissions

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