Page 95 of 146 FirstFirst ... 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ... LastLast
Results 2,351 to 2,375 of 3644
  1. #2351
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Yeah, I didn't get any response to my invitation to go riding together. Feelings are definitely slightly hurt.
    Didn’t receive that man. I’ll be kicking around the pnw as usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    Sure as shit my friend, Ikunt coming through
    FKNA! Let me know once you secure dates and location.

  2. #2352
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Didn’t receive that man. I’ll be kicking around the pnw as usual.


    FKNA! Let me know once you secure dates and location.
    LOL, sorry for the confusion, I was talking about my invite to go riding with our buddy RJ. Would probably have more fun riding with you though, drop in on the Orygun thread in the ski/snowboard forum when you'll be in the Portland or Bend area and let's hook up.

  3. #2353
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Didn't Unabomber basically warn us all that the industrial revolution would be the demise of man? Too bad his tactics sucked.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

  4. #2354
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    LOL, sorry for the confusion, I was talking about my invite to go riding with our buddy RJ. Would probably have more fun riding with you though, drop in on the Orygun thread in the ski/snowboard forum when you'll be in the Portland or Bend area and let's hook up.
    Hah. No worries. Sounds good man, will do.

  5. #2355
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - 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.
    Seriously? This is your exact quote: "What we’ve learned through studying these long-term processes is that CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system. CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history."

    Apologies for saying control knob instead of just control.

    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.
    This doesn't seem especially relevant to whether CO2 is the "guerilla in the system that controls these large scale shifts in climate over earth's history."

    I ended up dismissing one of the rebuttals I provided to the Shakun paper because the spacial variability was a valid criticism. The other two rebuttals do not have that problem.

    What am I lying and misrepresenting here?

    -- 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.
    That's nice that you seem to have it all figured out, but somehow there isn't a scientific consensus on the subject: "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

    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.
    I've never heard of this invigorated precipitation and moisture theory before, but in essence, what you are saying is that CO2 is not the "guerilla in the system that controls these large scale shifts in climate over earth's history?" Some cooling force greater than the warming force provided by CO2 had to occur to stop the warming. Basic physics.

  6. #2356
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    Where are you going skiing this year?
    Tahoe

  7. #2357
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    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.
    I understand the law of diminishing returns, but you're going to have to explain to me it's relevance to this discussion.

  8. #2358
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    18,583
    watch out for snakes

  9. #2359
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I understand the law of diminishing returns, but you're going to have to explain to me it's relevance to this discussion.
    Temp rate of increase starts to decline decline while CO2 levels are still increasing due to other factors and interactions. Deniers see this as proof that C02 isn't the driving force in climate that it actually is..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  10. #2360
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,536
    ^^ Agreed, deniers want to argue CO2 is an effect not a cause but in other contexts they'll readily admit it's a cause. Are they even aware of how necessary greenhouse gasses are to life on earth? Too little and we're Mars, too much and we're Venus. Deniers arguing there's no CO2 effect is truly baffling.




    Anyway, Ron's arguments grow weaker and weaker. Hard to imagine anyone taking his comments seriously at this point but just in case, a response to each of his points above:

    - The "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system" was in reference to large scale shifts between greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, not in reference to icehouse Earth's glacial cycles. See below for more on CO2 and deglaciation which is a different discussion.


    -- Ron's two rebuttals are either gibberish or making points outside the scope of the paper. They are not rebuttals in any meaningful sense.

    If anyone wants to see for themselves go to Ron's link below and the read the comment written by "nuclear_is_good" who calls Ron's so called rebuttal "strange," which it is:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

    The comment makes a key point about CO2, "absence of the warming from CO2 the orbital effect + albedo feedbacks would most likely never be able to achieve large-scale deglaciation" In other words, for the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming CO2 is the only factor.


    --- What's laughable about is deniers are trying to argue CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause, not an amplifier. If a person were to agree, on the previous page for example, that CO2 is playing a role in modern warming and that CO2 amplifies warming then the whole argument that CO2 is merely an effect of warming goes out the window.


    ---- The wikipedia article discusses ice ages going back millions of years. The Shakun paper discuses increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Talking about supervolcanoes etc. in other epochs is, once again, a different discussion.


    ----- The basic physics argument is reductio ad absurdium. If a person wants learn more about chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc. then they should read about it. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it isn’t well documented in the scientific literature.

  11. #2361
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    exxon's own scientists saw this coming with eery accuracy over 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/o...sultPosition=1

  12. #2362
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Tahoe
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  13. #2363
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    ^^ Agreed, deniers want to argue CO2 is an effect not a cause but in other contexts they'll readily admit it's a cause. Are they even aware of how necessary greenhouse gasses are to life on earth? Too little and we're Mars, too much and we're Venus. Deniers arguing there's no CO2 effect is truly baffling.
    You've been really showing off your cluelessness lately. Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere, both ~95%. The difference is Venus has a much thicker atmosphere.

    Anyway, Ron's arguments grow weaker and weaker. Hard to imagine anyone taking his comments seriously at this point but just in case, a response to each of his points above:
    No they aren't, you're arguments are all over the place on this one because you are trying to defend an undefendable position.

    - The "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system" was in reference to large scale shifts between greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, not in reference to icehouse Earth's glacial cycles. See below for more on CO2 and deglaciation which is a different discussion.
    So how exactly is CO2 the guerilla in the climate system for the large scale shifts between greenhouse and icehouse earth?
    Name:  record.jpg
Views: 236
Size:  72.1 KB

    Also, if your guerilla comment is just for the shifts between greehouse and icehouse earth, then your Shakun paper has little relevance since it is only looking at one deglaciation cycle occurring during icehouse earth.

    -- Ron's two rebuttals are either gibberish or making points outside the scope of the paper. They are not rebuttals in any meaningful sense.

    If anyone wants to see for themselves go to Ron's link below and the read the comment written by "nuclear_is_good" who calls Ron's so called rebuttal "strange," which it is:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

    The comment makes a key point about CO2, "absence of the warming from CO2 the orbital effect + albedo feedbacks would most likely never be able to achieve large-scale deglaciation" In other words, for the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming CO2 is the only factor.
    I'm not interested in rehashing the Shakun paper debate, and since you claim you were only talking about the large scale climate shifts between greehouse earth and iceage earth, it has little relevance to our discussion. However, it is laughable to dismiss this one: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/...e-was-tricksy/ as "gibberish or making points outside the paper." It makes a pretty strong case that the authors of that paper cherry picked their data to fit their conclusions.

    --- What's laughable about is deniers are trying to argue CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause, not an amplifier. If a person were to agree, on the previous page for example, that CO2 is playing a role in modern warming and that CO2 amplifies warming then the whole argument that CO2 is merely an effect of warming goes out the window.
    You do realize that CO2 can have an amplifying effect, and that amplification can be a secondary force on the warming? Something significantly less than the 90% you are claiming.

    ---- The wikipedia article discusses ice ages going back millions of years. The Shakun paper discuses increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Talking about supervolcanoes etc. in other epochs is, once again, a different discussion.
    Once again, your arguments are all over the place. First you claim that your guerilla comment is in reference to the cycles between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth, of which we are looking at timescales of millions of years. But now you are talking about deglatiation cycles happening during the icehouse earth phase.

    ----- The basic physics argument is reductio ad absurdium. If a person wants learn more about chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc. then they should read about it. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it isn’t well documented in the scientific literature.
    I'm well aware of CO2 solubility in oceans, I wasn't familiar with the solubility of rocks, or whatever this "invigorated moisture and precipitation" theory you have, of which I can't find anything on google.

    Your theory doesn't make any sense on its own. In order for the oceans and and rocks to start absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it, the temperature must start to cool. This goes back to my basic physics point, which is entirely valid. In order for the warming caused by CO2 to be reversed, there must be a cooling force larger than the warming force of CO2. I'd like to see your sources for how this "invigorated moisture and precipitation" can provide a great enough forcing to stop the warming from CO2.

  14. #2364
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Temp rate of increase starts to decline decline while CO2 levels are still increasing due to other factors and interactions. Deniers see this as proof that C02 isn't the driving force in climate that it actually is..
    If that is the case (which it is, so thanks for supporting my position), then its obvious CO2 can't be the "guerilla in the system" of these past cycles. These "other factors and interactions" are the ones controlling these cycles.

  15. #2365
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,536
    - Wow Ron really is a moron. Thick versus thin is exactly the point. Mars has a thin atmosphere where almost all the carbon dioxide CO2 is stored in the planet. Then we have Venus which has a really thick atmosphere meaning most of the CO2 or carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and then we have Earth in the middle.

    Earth is often referred to as the Goldilocks planet not too hot not too cold just right. We have just the right amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to create an environment that is suitable for biological life.


    -- I brought up the Shakun paper in response to Ron's chart, not the other way around. The discussion was originally about how the earth operates in two different climate modes, greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, until TGRs very own idiot child Ron tried to change the subject.


    --- In the context of Ron's chart the Shakun paper demonstrates how 90-93% of the warming during the last deglaciation occurred in response to CO2 increases.


    ---- Once again, Ron changed the subject from greenhouse earth and icehouse earth to deglaciation cycles. Just go back to page 94/95 of this thread and see for yourself how Skicouger's chart showed time scales of millions of years and then Ron argued against the point with a 400K/yr chart.


    ----- Ron's so called "cooling force" isn't a force per se in the physics sense like gravity. That's just dumb. It's a process. There are different processes that help the climate regulate itself i.e, chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc.


    ------ Speaking of physics, Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.

  16. #2366
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624

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

    Is the guerrilla in the system Che Guevara? Just wondering. And isn't he dead?

  17. #2367
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,536
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Is the guerrilla in the system Che Guevara? Just wondering. And isn't he dead?
    According to Ron the guerrilla in the system is a physics force, like gravity or electromagnetism, that either cools or warms the planet. We know it's true because Ron says it's "entirely valid."

  18. #2368
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Wow Ron really is a moron. Thick versus thin is exactly the point. Mars has a thin atmosphere where almost all the carbon dioxide CO2 is stored in the planet. Then we have Venus which has a really thick atmosphere meaning most of the CO2 or carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and then we have Earth in the middle.

    Earth is often referred to as the Goldilocks planet not too hot not too cold just right. We have just the right amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to create an environment that is suitable for biological life.
    Wow, you are really doubling down on the stupid. Do you understand what an atmosphere is? 95% of Mars' atmosphere is CO2. That atmospheric CO2 is not stored "in the planet."

    -- I brought up the Shakun paper in response to Ron's chart, not the other way around. The discussion was originally about how the earth operates in two different climate modes, greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, until TGRs very own idiot child Ron tried to change the subject.
    Apologies for not knowing that your statement that "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system. CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history" was in reference to only the large climate shifts between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth, and not in reference to deglaciation cycles as well. Are you saying that CO2 does not control the deglatiation cycles in icehouse earth then? Just the shifts between greenhouse and icehouse earth?

    --- In the context of Ron's chart the Shakun paper demonstrates how 90-93% of the warming during the last deglaciation occurred in response to CO2 increases.
    So now you are saying that CO2 is controlling the deglatiation cycles?
    ---- Once again, Ron changed the subject from greenhouse earth and icehouse earth to deglaciation cycles. Just go back to page 94/95 of this thread and see for yourself how Skicouger's chart showed time scales of millions of years and then Ron argued against the point with a 400K/yr chart.
    I'm still waiting for you to explain how CO2 is controlling these cycles between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth happening over millions of years:
    Name:  record.jpg
Views: 201
Size:  72.1 KB
    ----- Ron's so called "cooling force" isn't a force per se in the physics sense like gravity. That's just dumb. It's a process. There are different processes that help the climate regulate itself i.e, chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc.
    You are clueless. Surely you must have heard of radiative forcing? The radiation balance is what determines earth's temperature.

    "Radiative forcing or climate forcing is the difference between insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.[1] The influences that cause changes to the Earth's climate system altering Earth's radiative equilibrium, forcing temperatures to rise or fall, are called climate forcings.[2] Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
    ------ Speaking of physics, Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.
    Nope.

  19. #2369
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    According to Ron the guerrilla in the system is a physics force, like gravity or electromagnetism, that either cools or warms the planet. We know it's true because Ron says it's "entirely valid."
    No, I'm saying CO2 is not the guerilla in the system because there are other factors like solar output, orbital cycles, cloud cover, ocean cycles, etc. that can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2.

  20. #2370
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,536
    - Ron, do you even read your wikipedia links? Last time your link talked about chemical weathering and CO2 which you claimed you couldn't find anything on Google. This time your link states the largest radiative forcing components are greenhouse gasses, which you are using as evidence that it's not greenhouse gasses. Your own source disagrees with you! They even presented a chart. The chart is even titled "Radiative-forcing components"

    The point you're missing is it's the different processes that allow the climate to regulate greenhouse gases, not some physics force. Forcings does not mean force in the way you are using the term.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg


    -- As far as Mars vs Venus goes, in this case the amount matters more than the percentage per se. 95% of a small amount of something is still a small amount. How is that not obvious?


    -- Anyway, the answer to rest of your questions about Paleo climate are answered in this helpful video for deniers:


  21. #2371
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    No, I'm saying CO2 is not the guerilla in the system because there are other factors like solar output, orbital cycles, cloud cover, ocean cycles, etc. that can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  22. #2372
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Ron, do you even read your wikipedia links? Last time your link talked about chemical weathering and CO2 which you claimed you couldn't find anything on Google. This time your link states the largest radiative forcing components are greenhouse gasses, which you are using as evidence that it's not greenhouse gasses. Your own source disagrees with you! They even presented a chart. The chart is even titled "Radiative-forcing components"

    The point you're missing is it's the different processes that allow the climate to regulate greenhouse gases, not some physics force. Forcings does not mean force in the way you are using the term.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg
    Do you even read the caption on your chart? The chart is for year 2005 alone. Those forces are not constant throughout time.

    I'm not sure what link you are referring to regarding chemical weathering and CO2, but it was your "invigorated moisture and precipitation" theory that I couldn't find anything on with google, and for which I'm still waiting for you present some information on.

    I am using the "forcing" term correctly. The chart you highlighted demonstrates it clearly. It shows the influence of several radiative forces resulting from various processes.

    -- As far as Mars vs Venus goes, in this case the amount matters more than the percentage per se. 95% of a small amount of something is still a small amount. How is that not obvious?
    95% of a small amount isn't exactly a small amount in this case. It's probably not such a great idea to compare Mars to Venus because Venus has such an extreme amount of pressure. Earth is a bit more comparable. Despite the atmosphere of Mars being 100x less dense than earth, 95% of its composition is CO2 (compared to a composition of .04% on earth), resulting in it having 11.5x more CO2 by weight in its atmosphere than earth.
    -- Anyway, the answer to rest of your questions about Paleo climate are answered in this helpful video for deniers:

    You're video didn't answer any of the simple questions I have laid out for you that you keep dodging. So for a third time, if "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system, and CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history," and this comment was only in relation to the large scale climate shifts between greenhouse earth and icehouse earth happening over millions of years, then how are you explaining this graph:
    Name:  record.jpg
Views: 273
Size:  72.1 KB

  23. #2373
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,063
    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"

  24. #2374
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,644
    You guys still arguing with that bot?

  25. #2375
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,536
    - Does Ron believe there's no greenhouse effect at all? He claims his chart is for year 2005 alone and forcings are not constant throughout time, which is true, but the greenhouse effect is still the most dominant climate forcing throughout time.


    -- "invigorated moisture and precipitation" just means the Earth's total rainfall goes up and therefore the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere increases, decreasing the greenhouse effect. That's taken directly from Ron's wikipedia article.


    --- Ron didn't/doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses are stored in soil but the chemistry is simple: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 (soil), H2CO3 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2 +H2O


    ---- On the previous page Ron wrote "Some cooling force greater than the warming force provided by CO2 had to occur to stop the warming. Basic physics." In reality it's natural processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere which then makes it possible for the planet to cool down. There are other factors too, but those factors are not a so called "cooling force" that somehow invalidates the greenhouse effect of CO2. Ron did correctly use the term "forcings" the second time around when he cited wikipedia but the first time around he got it wrong.


    ------ When comparing Venus, Mars, and the Earth you just calculate emissiviity and solar intensity (W/m*m) of each planet. The math is straightforward, and corresponds with observations. The greenhouse effect on Venus is primarily caused by CO2. Ron's argument that there's no greenhouse effect on Venus and instead it's the extreme amount of pressure is another wattsupwiththat slight of hand.


    ------ The video does explains the graph. The video makes the point that deniers engage in: 1) Cherry Picking 2) Over Simplification, and 3) Jumping to Conclusions. Ron's graph is an Over Simplification. I used CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system as a metaphor while the video uses an angry beast as metaphor. There were also examples provided on page 95 and 97 of this thread.

Posting Permissions

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