Page 62 of 94 FirstFirst ... 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ... LastLast
Results 1,526 to 1,550 of 2350
  1. #1526
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    The farmers in Middle America don't agree with you. Saying we have no consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society is like saying we have no consensus whatsoever on whether it's appropriate to strip immigrant children from their families and incarcerate them. Sure, some jackasses insist it's not a problem -- that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

  2. #1527
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    ^^^ Enough of that "alarmist" bunk. Here's the real deal of when the time to act will be here..

    Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
    I'm pretty sure our buddy Ron the Trump voter would still not be convinced. I can hear him calling "normal variation!"

  3. #1528
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    No, you're claiming that the instrumental and proxy data is inconsistent and therefore invalid. Do I have to quote you above?
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    You inconsistently enumerate support and denial.
    You're not wrong about Ron inconsistently enumerating support and denial but in this instance he’s saying researchers shouldn’t make sweeping claims when, “proxy records [are] combined with recent instrumental.”

    But that’s not what’s happening. The studies are a comparison across space and time of the proxy data. In fact his own source from the previous couple of pages says as much, “the authors’ analysis does not encompass the continued warming in the early twenty-first century, because many of their proxy records were collected more than two decades ago.”



    Background on the studies:

    In contrast to pre-industrial climate fluctuations, current, anthropogenic climate change is occurring across the whole world at the same time. In addition, the speed of global warming is higher than it has been in at least 2,000 years. That’s according two of the studies, along with several more supporting studies, Ron and I are discussing.

    Recent findings based on 700 climate records in an open-access database show past warming and cooling was not uniform across time and space for the planet. Climate fluctuations in the past varied from region to region. Just a few short years ago, though, a lot of climate history focused on Europe and North America or sometimes the Northern Hemisphere giving the false impression that pre-industrial climate was globally synchronous.

    But it has now been shown that this was not the case. It looks like regional climates in pre-industrial times were primarily influenced by random fluctuations within the climate systems themselves.

    The results look very different for recent history. The warmest period of the last 2,000 years was most likely in the 20th century. This was the case for more than 98% of the surface of the earth. This indicates modern climate change cannot be explained by random fluctuations, but by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. What we didn’t know until now is that not only average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years, but also that a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

    Source: https://www.unibe.ch/news/media_news...index_eng.html

  4. #1529
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,180
    Hopefully all of the denialist die off first.
    That would be a good first step.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  5. #1530
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,130
    You guys ready to talk about how bitcoin drives energy production and transport innovation?

  6. #1531
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    You guys ready to talk about how bitcoin drives energy production and transport innovation?
    Wait until blockchain is used for tracking carbon credits

    CarbonX....what could go wrong

  7. #1532
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    I'm pretty sure our buddy Ron the Trump voter would still not be convinced. I can hear him calling "normal variation!"
    Ron claims to be a Patagonia wearing knucledragger who has never voted GOP. I'm betting if he never voted GOP it's because he's a Russian troll who isn't actually a citizen allowed to vote.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  8. #1533
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,145
    ^ or an unemployed Alberta Tar-Sands veteran....
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  9. #1534
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Svengali View Post
    ^ or an unemployed Alberta Tar-Sands veteran....
    Please don't besmirch the service and honour of our actual Veterans by bestowing the term "veteran" on coke addled, tar digger, assholes that only know greed.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  10. #1535
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,554
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless toboggan View Post
    besmirch
    Great word. 37 points
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  11. #1536
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless toboggan View Post
    Please don't besmirch the service and honour of our actual Veterans by bestowing the term "veteran" on coke addled, tar digger, assholes that only know greed.
    I thought by "Tar Sands veteran" he meant veteran of that industry, not military conflict service..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  12. #1537
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    "With increasing specificity and speed, scientists have been able to tell us how much worse climate change made an extreme weather event. "

    With increasing specificity and speed, scientists have been able to tell us how climate change intensified an extreme weather event. Now we can learn the effects almost in real-time. For instance, within weeks of the extreme heat wave in Europe this summer or the flooding from Hurricane Harvey in Houston in 2017, researchers published working papers explaining how much worse they were made by climate change. (Europe’s heat wave was 10 times more likely because of warming, and in Houston there was 38 percent more rainfall.) Still another paper analyzed how climate change fueled California’s 2012-2014 drought (up to 27 percent worse). Yet another focus of research looks at how much, say, Exxon’s historic pollution is responsible for today’s climate impacts—another area of attribution science called source attribution.
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...back-on-trial/
    Last edited by WMD; 09-16-2019 at 12:28 PM.

  13. #1538
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,030
    This week an entire issue of Time is dedicated to climate crisis. Forward by editor states no climate change skeptics will be part of the issue. Paraphrasing here but stated that human induced climate change is scientifically proven and needs to be addressed.

    I'm excited to read it. Will the overpopulation and over consumption issue have a solution or will we give control to the machines?

  14. #1539
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    You're using the usual ploy of claiming the data is invalid.

    And then trying to say that's not what you're saying and then saying it again.
    If you want to say that I'm saying the data is invalid, then fine, I certainly am to a degree. I was coming from a more nuanced position since you seemed to be suggesting that I thought that the quality of the proxy record prevents any support for climate change theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Plus you keep citing anomalies as proof that trends don't exist but only when it supports your claims.
    Can you give some examples? I've already explained to you that I didn't bring up the Greenland ice gain as proof that trends don't exist.

  15. #1540
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Here's a thought... Unless Roland McDeny-old has something new instead of the same, totally debunked ad nauseum standard denier playbook circular logic.. folks should just stop rehashing the same tired old points over and over.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #1541
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,831

  17. #1542
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    What's your point?
    I'm no expert. However, a casual look at climate reconstructions of the last million years show that high CO2 levels go with high temperatures. Temperatures that would be noticeable in widespread differences of species and ecosystem distributions. I.e. change will be very disruptive.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.'
    What scientific body is saying this?


    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Some graphs in here to give you an idea: https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenm.../#774004fd20e5
    Thanks, those are incredible. By incredible, I mean not credible. Some guy, not a scientist, not referencing the work of a scientist. In a "journal" of business? This is not science.

    I agree it looks meaty, but without research, it's barely a spitball.

    If you want to seriously critique CO2/AGW, get yourself a PhD in a related field *and* read/do the research.

    If you want to usefully discuss the topic, at a minimum, gain an understanding of expertise in society, and the basic principles of science and scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    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.
    Yes you are. Like the folks who promoted asbestos, leaded gas, CFCs (ozone hole), cigarettes, etc, you are proposing we ignore scientific evidence of trouble and do nothing. With what scientists have discovered about CO2, "do nothing" is definitely proposing a geoengineering experiment.

    I'll drop this here for folks who want to read up on glacial ice balance.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...s-it-changing/
    Somewhere on that site I learned half the world's ice is tidewater glaciers. Since Ron likes cherries, I'll point him toward Columbia Glacier in Alaska to learn how quickly a tidewater glacier changes.
    10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.

  18. #1543
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - It makes a difference because your accusations of the researchers pushing an agenda are unfounded. Once again you default to impugning the scientific community. The paper itself focuses on the results and the results are what they are.
    Okay, the reviewers appear to be pushing an agenda then. They note the limitations of the data and question of how well they can compare global temperatures across this time period, yet they still provide conclusive quotes such as, "today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony."

    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    --- You are wrong about the so called methodological issues. When comparing proxy data, today’s climate does stands apart in its torrid global synchrony. I've explained this several times already but you don't seem to understand that the instrument data on the charts is there for reference. The researchers are using proxies for current and past temperatures. It's a comparison across space and time of the proxy data.
    I stand corrected then if they aren't using instrumental records. It would be a lot easier if was public so I could actually read it.

    But after looking more into the PAGES database I still have skepticism in the quality of the data used to come to their conclusions:
    https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/...-ring-proxies/
    https://climateaudit.org/2019/02/01/...rctic-proxies/
    https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/07/...ica-revisited/

  19. #1544
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    The farmers in Middle America don't agree with you. Saying we have no consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society is like saying we have no consensus whatsoever on whether it's appropriate to strip immigrant children from their families and incarcerate them. Sure, some jackasses insist it's not a problem -- that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
    The farmers would be wrong then.

    I'm not really buying the analogy. In any case, I bring up the lack of a consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society, because everyone has been brainwashed into believing there is a consensus.

  20. #1545
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,180
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The farmers would be wrong then.

    I'm not really buying the analogy. In any case, I bring up the lack of a consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society, because everyone has been brainwashed into believing there is a consensus.
    The animals that will become victims of mass extinctions don't care about concensus.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  21. #1546
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    What scientific body is saying this?
    The logarithmic effect argument is as levels of CO2 concentrations increase each addition unit of CO2 has a smaller effect than the CO2 added before. The effect is still upward sloping but it's not linear. The slope of CO2 warming energy is steeper in the beginning but then it takes a proportionally larger amount of CO2 to achieve the same effect.

    The problem is, or the big concern, is if the rest of world catches up with the developed world in CO2 output then that looks like exponential growth, which is sort of what we're seeing now. If that's the case then exponential growth is essentially a straight upward sloping line on a CO2 logarithmic chart.

  22. #1547
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    I'm no expert. However, a casual look at climate reconstructions of the last million years show that high CO2 levels go with high temperatures. Temperatures that would be noticeable in widespread differences of species and ecosystem distributions. I.e. change will be very disruptive.
    The thing you are missing from those graphs is that historically CO2 levels have always lagged temperature by 800-1,000 years. When you see graphs with hundred thousand year+ timescales it appears that CO2 levels and temperature are moving together at the same time, but they are not. CO2 is lagging behind temp by 800-1,000 years. There is no evidence of CO2 ever driving earth's temperature in the historical record.

    What scientific body is saying this?
    Here is a graphic showing the estimated climate sensitivity of different papers along with the IPCC's range:
    Name:  ecs.png
Views: 69
Size:  90.0 KB
    Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimates from new research beginning in 2011 (colored), compared with the assessed range given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the collection of climate models used in the IPCC AR5. The “likely” (greater than a 66% likelihood of occurrence) range in the IPCC Assessment is indicated by the gray bar. The arrows indicate the 5 to 95 percent confidence bounds for each estimate along with the best estimate (median of each probability density function; or the mean of multiple estimates; colored vertical line). Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates. The right-hand side of the IPCC AR5 range is actually the 90% upper bound (the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95 percent confidence bound of their estimate). Spencer and Braswell (2013) produce a single ECS value best-matched to ocean heat content observations and internal radiative forcing.

    Thanks, those are incredible. By incredible, I mean not credible. Some guy, not a scientist, not referencing the work of a scientist. In a "journal" of business? This is not science.

    I agree it looks meaty, but without research, it's barely a spitball.

    If you want to seriously critique CO2/AGW, get yourself a PhD in a related field *and* read/do the research.

    If you want to usefully discuss the topic, at a minimum, gain an understanding of expertise in society, and the basic principles of science and scientists.
    I thought you might appreciate things in more simple terms. Here is a paper on CO2's logarithmic forcing: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014JD022466

    This isn't a controversial subject.

    Yes you are. Like the folks who promoted asbestos, leaded gas, CFCs (ozone hole), cigarettes, etc, you are proposing we ignore scientific evidence of trouble and do nothing. With what scientists have discovered about CO2, "do nothing" is definitely proposing a geoengineering experiment.
    We don't have clear scientific evidence of trouble. The only thing we can be sure to cause society problems from global warming is rising sea levels. In any case, there isn't much that can be done about it with our current tech. Tech needs to reach a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt non carbon energy. Without that you will never get a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.

  23. #1548
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,971
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    I thought by "Tar Sands veteran" he meant veteran of that industry, not military conflict service..
    Maybe re-read what I typed when you're sober.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  24. #1549
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The farmers would be wrong then.

    I'm not really buying the analogy. In any case, I bring up the lack of a consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society, because everyone has been brainwashed into believing there is a consensus.
    This too is a lie. One of Ron's goals is to throw so much bullshit out there that we don't argue every point.

    There very definitely is consensus on how dangerous AGW is for society

    From the 2018 National Climate Assessment :
    1. Communities
    Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.

    2. Economy
    Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.


    3. Interconnected Impacts
    Climate change affects the natural, built, and social systems we rely on individually and through their connections to one another. These interconnected systems are increasingly vulnerable to cascading impacts that are often difficult to predict, threatening essential services within and beyond the Nation’s borders.

    4. Actions to Reduce Risks
    Communities, governments, and businesses are working to reduce risks from and costs associated with climate change by taking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies. While mitigation and adaptation efforts have expanded substantially in the last four years, they do not yet approach the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.

    5. Water
    The quality and quantity of water available for use by people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry, recreation, and the environment.

    6. Health
    Impacts from climate change on extreme weather and climate-related events, air quality, and the transmission of disease through insects and pests, food, and water increasingly threaten the health and well-being of the American people, particularly populations that are already vulnerable.

    7. Indigenous Peoples
    Climate change increasingly threatens Indigenous communities’ livelihoods, economies, health, and cultural identities by disrupting interconnected social, physical, and ecological systems.

    8. Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
    Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being altered by climate change, and these impacts are projected to continue. Without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, transformative impacts on some ecosystems will occur; some coral reef and sea ice ecosystems are already experiencing such transformational changes.

    9. Agriculture
    Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.

    10. Infrastructure
    Our Nation’s aging and deteriorating infrastructure is further stressed by increases in heavy precipitation events, coastal flooding, heat, wildfires, and other extreme events, as well as changes to average precipitation and temperature. Without adaptation, climate change will continue to degrade infrastructure performance over the rest of the century, with the potential for cascading impacts that threaten our economy, national security, essential services, and health and well-being.

    11. Oceans & Coasts
    Coastal communities and the ecosystems that support them are increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change. Without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and regional adaptation measures, many coastal regions will be transformed by the latter part of this century, with impacts affecting other regions and sectors. Even in a future with lower greenhouse gas emissions, many communities are expected to suffer financial impacts as chronic high-tide flooding leads to higher costs and lower property values.


    12. Tourism and Recreation
    Outdoor recreation, tourist economies, and quality of life are reliant on benefits provided by our natural environment that will be degraded by the impacts of climate change in many ways.
    https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

  25. #1550
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The only thing we can be sure to cause society problems from global warming is rising sea levels. In any case, there isn't much that can be done about it with our current tech. Tech needs to reach a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt non carbon energy. Without that you will never get a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
    Our house is on fire and the fire department can only send fire trucks, not drone firefighters. Might as well not bother. Let it burn.

Posting Permissions

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