Page 49 of 94 FirstFirst ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 2341
  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Either he doesn't or he's still really believing we will believe he is correct... updating the charts with his sharpie as we go along to try to prove he wasn't wrong. True story bro! He had no idea what the z axis was or how 3d charts work for starters. Trying to talk the way over his head talk, trying to learn as he goes along. and failing... Make that failed. The science geeks here have given up after making genuine efforts to help him understand..
    Please provide the instance of where I'm updating charts with a sharpie or whatever this is supposed to suggest.

    The z axis and 3d charts comments make no sense. Can you please provide an example of where a "3d chart" is of use in climate discussion.

    I'm still waiting for you to give an example of one of the "every single debates" that I have lost.

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Fartsniffers will fartsniff oh wise and mighty Ronbo

    Get gang fucked by a rabid pack of chimpanzees.
    I think you should go back to your old avatar. Suits you better.

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    “Any scientist who could soundly demonstrate that Earth is not warming [because of human activity] would become an instant science celebrity.” -@MichaelEMann

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Already told you, there is no analysis from NTZ on the link I gave. All it is a link to 2019 papers on the MWP.
    Here's your link lying sack of shit. BTW, the moron deniers you pray too are the ones that alter the data and the charts to make them look legit, then you pass it around as fact instead of the fake bullshit it is.
    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Here's your link lying sack of shit. BTW, the moron deniers you pray too are the ones that alter the data and the charts to make them look legit, then you pass it around as fact instead of the fake bullshit it is.
    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/
    How dumb are you? Do you not realize that NTZ has no affiliation with the papers abstracts and graphs they are copying?

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I know its not a graph reconstructing temperature. What is so confusing about it is why it is set up like a temperature reconstruction. You would expect a graph of warming and cooling 51 year rates to be in bar graph form. It looks like they are showing the warming and cooling rates for every single year of the past 2000 years. I'd love to know how they think they have enough data to attempt something like that.

    Enough with the sea level rate thing. I didn't look closely enough at the graph you had linked because of the confirmation bias I saw from the 3.1mm/year acceleration listed in the top right, which is what I was expecting to find.
    Even when you had the chance to google what a 51 year average rate is you couldn't figure it out or were to lazy to try. It is the average temperature change during a trailing 51 year period, expressed in degrees C change / hundred years. It is not the average temperature for separate 51 year periods (1-51, 52-103). That would be almost pointless.

    To make it a bar graph you'd need a bar for every single year - so it would look like a line. Again you don't understand line graphs, charts or intermediate math. Yet you are so arrogant you think you are a better interpreter of complex studies, you clearly don't understand, than almost every PhD climate scientist. Who by the way would spin circles around you in every respect of your knowledge of science.

  7. #1207
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,952
    Even I would.

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Unfortunately its not easy.

    "The Harvard University researchers also concluded that the transition to wind or solar power in the United States would require 5 to 20 times more land than previously thought"

    "For wind, the average power density—the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant—was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some energy experts because most of the latter estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, the interactions do not matter. For wind farms that are more than 5 to 10 kilometers deep, the interactions have a major impact on the power density."

    "For solar energy, the average power density (measured in watts per meter squared) is 10 times higher than wind power, but also much lower than estimates by leading energy experts, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
    We could relatively easily get to 40-80% renewables, dependent on location, without hitting exponential rate increases and with current tech. But people like you continue to excuse and condone energy plans that make no attempt to limit carbon. Additionally, you refuse to factor the cost of carbon into any of your cost hand wringing. Oh whoops, we are going to end up spending trillions per year to combat rising seas but we shouldn't consider that! Just like we shouldn't consider calving when we look at the ice balance on Greenland.

  9. #1209
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,111
    In 24 October 2017, Breitbart.com’s James Delingpole published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing.

    Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations.

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

    Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies).
    We emailed Delingpole to ask how long it took him to research his piece, given that less than 24 hours elapsed between the original NTZ post and his Breitbart piece. Rather than write back, Delingpole published our query on Breitbart, along with the following response (which read in part):

    As little time as I possibly could.

    From : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/ .

    Debates are generally healthy.

    Mr. Johnson, I have no idea what kind of person you are. I'm generally pretty naïve and assume that people mean well. But your arguments are flimsy and virtually all of the website you've referenced such as NTZ outside the academic ones are partial to or funded by the fossil fuels industry. So from my perspective, your case is frail.

    Another example with regard to climatechangedispatch: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch/

    I do think the data on cloud cover and cosmic particles contribution to cooling is interesting. But it's just part of the story, a fiber in the material of theories that serve to explain stuff. So is AGW.

    I don't really understand the argument that if we can't have 100% renewable energy resources like solar and wind, that they're completely useless. Maybe we will have to have some carbon based backups as our energy production transitions. I'd be fine with that.

    I guess what totally disembowels your diatribes is the accusation of ad hominem attacks while in the same posts making them. It's just poor form and convinces no one.
    Last edited by Buster Highmen; 09-07-2019 at 10:13 PM.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    For as much shit as I get in this thread does anyone care to make a list of things I got wrong in this thread? Off the top of my head I can think of:

    1. Sea level rise argument with neufox.
    2. The Easterbrook GISS graph is incorrect. Greenland was not as warm in the past as that graph showed, but it still had many periods warmer than today over the past 10,000 years.
    3. I suppose some might say my criticism of MultiVerse's authoritative statements on the global synchronous warmth experienced today compared to the past are wrong. I wouldn't agree.

    Anything else?

    I've disproved a lot more of the true believer's positions than my positions have been disproved.
    I've owned you at every exchange. Go ahead and post them up. You were wrong or misleading about everything. Or just flat out unable to understand basic concepts.

  11. #1211
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,952
    Ron, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? You should be.

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,144
    Climate Change Deniers like Ronald always prefer the single solution/magic silver bullet to all of life's complexities!
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    This is hilarious. This is from the same guy who's previous paper on the same thesis was widely critiqued, after which he decided to sue the authors of the critique for $10 million rather than engage in the scientific process.

    Just looking through the summary you linked a couple of quotes stood out that make you question the study's methodology:

    "For the study, the researchers relied on two computational modeling programs. The first program predicted global weather patterns from 2050 to 2054. From this, they further predicted the amount of energy that could be produced from weather-related energy sources like onshore and offshore wind turbines, solar photovoltaics on rooftops and in power plants, concentrated solar power plants and solar thermal plants over time."

    -This is total guesswork, and I wouldn't put much faith on models predicting 30 years out based on past performance.

    "Overall, the researchers found that the cost per unit of energy – including the cost in terms of health, climate and energy – in every scenario was about one quarter what it would be if the world continues on its current energy path. This is largely due to eliminating the health and climate costs of fossil fuels. Also, by reducing water vapor, the wind turbines included in the roadmaps would offset about 3 percent of global warming to date."

    -I'm betting they are using many worst case scenarios to attribute costs on health and climate. On energy costs I'm betting they aren't properly accounting for the disposal, replacement, and environmental costs associated with wind, solar, and batteries since none of these proposals ever do.

    Here is a deeper look into Jacobson's proposal: http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-10...al-2018-study/


    So when he says he "can confidently state that there is no economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy..." what he means is $100+ trillion is no big deal. And then don't forget that much of this infrastructure has a shelf life and needs to be replaced every 20-30 years.
    An "Op Ed" hack for a link

    "There is an old Russian saying that applies here: “long calculation means wrong calculation.” The likelihood is that this study is off by at least an order of magnitude."

    "An order of magnitude low is my guess.

    I’ve read both Jacobson 2017 and Clack. Based on my own experience Jacobson is insane. There is just…so many huge problems he glosses over with his solutions, so many impracticalities baked in the cake.

    Which is odd, because you could solve the problem at a small fraction of the price by conceding that 100% renewable is not cost effective, and mixing in an appropriate amount of gas and small nuclear into the mix. Getting to 60% renewable is quite possible, with the remainder split between natural gas and nuclear is quite feasible, at a small fraction of the price. And that would essentially solve the worries about global warming."

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

    Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

    But you don't see any headlines about that.
    Cherry picking cunt you are

    From your link;
    "The institute believes that snow had caused poor ventilation around the thermometers at the site, wrongly boosting the temperature.

    The record temperature ever recorded at Summit is 2.2C, which was reached in both 2012 and 2017. But -2C is still unusual at the station.

    "It's not a record, but -2C is still warm," Damberg said. "It was the heat that lay around Europe that moved up to Iceland and on to Greenland."

    Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the institute, told The Local that the revised temperature figure did not affect the institute's estimate that the ice cap lost a record 12.5bn tons of ice in just 24 hours last week, which triggered headlines across the world.

    "This does not alter our ice melt figures at all," she said in an email to The Local, pointing out that while the temperature measurement was taken at about 2m above the ice, her group was "largely interested in the surface temperature".

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    RJ, how wrong do you want to be proven before you just go on and fuck off?

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,814
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    you are a better interpreter of complex studies

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Joisey
    Posts
    1,575
    Anybody read anything by Bjorn Lomborg?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUR0LrSadkg

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Considering that I'm the only person that has ever owned up to being wrong about anything in this thread, I'd have to say yes.
    As a non-liberal, and ‘willing to listen’ neutral I have to say that it appears to me that you’ve lost this debate. In particular because of your use of inferior sources. Find someone that isn’t blatantly motivated by an agenda and we might be able to have a debate again, but I doubt that will happen.




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Even when you had the chance to google what a 51 year average rate is you couldn't figure it out or were to lazy to try. It is the average temperature change during a trailing 51 year period, expressed in degrees C change / hundred years. It is not the average temperature for separate 51 year periods (1-51, 52-103). That would be almost pointless.

    To make it a bar graph you'd need a bar for every single year - so it would look like a line. Again you don't understand line graphs, charts or intermediate math. Yet you are so arrogant you think you are a better interpreter of complex studies, you clearly don't understand, than almost every PhD climate scientist. Who by the way would spin circles around you in every respect of your knowledge of science.
    I understand the concept of a warming rate. What wasn't clear from the graph without its description is the warming rate of [what time period] compared to [what time period]. The idea that they have a good enough temperature record (based on proxies) to determine the world wide average temperature warming rate for each year compared to the previous 51 years is a bit crazy. And on top of that they want to compare these warming rates to the rates of recent times using more accurate instrumental recordings.

    I struggled to interpret the graph because I would have expected this type of analysis to not be comparing warming rates of every single year compared to the past 51. A more appropriate method to eliminate some of the noise would be to compare decades to the previous 51 years (hence the bar graph suggestion).

  20. #1220
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    We could relatively easily get to 40-80% renewables, dependent on location, without hitting exponential rate increases and with current tech. But people like you continue to excuse and condone energy plans that make no attempt to limit carbon. Additionally, you refuse to factor the cost of carbon into any of your cost hand wringing. Oh whoops, we are going to end up spending trillions per year to combat rising seas but we shouldn't consider that! Just like we shouldn't consider calving when we look at the ice balance on Greenland.
    I have never made a position against expanding renewable % in the energy supply as long as it makes economic sense. My criticism of wind in solar is in context of these 100% renewable non carbon plans touted everywhere which are currently unfeasible with our storage tech.

    Germany has made massive investments in renewables and hasn't been able to get any reduction in CO2 emissions since 2009: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#d20ded1ea2b9

    Even if the US reduced carbon emissions to zero it would have a minimal impact on future warming. ~.02'C by 2100: https://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-te...ers-fact-sheet
    https://www.heritage.org/energy-econ...e-here-are-the

    I know you guys won't be happy about Cato and Heritage sources, but they are the only ones I could find who did this type of analysis. If someone can find this analysis from a source they like better I'd love to see it.

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    In 24 October 2017, Breitbart.com’s James Delingpole published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing.

    Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations.

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

    Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies).
    We emailed Delingpole to ask how long it took him to research his piece, given that less than 24 hours elapsed between the original NTZ post and his Breitbart piece. Rather than write back, Delingpole published our query on Breitbart, along with the following response (which read in part):

    As little time as I possibly could.

    From : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/ .

    Debates are generally healthy.

    Mr. Johnson, I have no idea what kind of person you are. I'm generally pretty naïve and assume that people mean well. But your arguments are flimsy and virtually all of the website you've referenced such as NTZ outside the academic ones are partial to or funded by the fossil fuels industry. So from my perspective, your case is frail.

    Another example with regard to climatechangedispatch: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch/

    I do think the data on cloud cover and cosmic particles contribution to cooling is interesting. But it's just part of the story, a fiber in the material of theories that serve to explain stuff. So is AGW.

    I don't really understand the argument that if we can't have 100% renewable energy resources like solar and wind, that they're completely useless. Maybe we will have to have some carbon based backups as our energy production transitions. I'd be fine with that.

    I guess what totally disembowels your diatribes is the accusation of ad hominem attacks while in the same posts making them. It's just poor form and convinces no one.
    It's baffling me how you guys keep bringing up this snopes article on NTZ. It is irrelevant to the discussion I was having. This stems from my argument with MultiVerse on the MWP. I presented him evidence of hundreds of studies that bring to question his position on the MWP compared to today's warming. Among these studies I linked to him, I shared this link from NTZ, which came from a google search on papers about the MWP, which showed papers from 2019 about the MWP. The NTZ link, has nothing but screenshots of paper's abstracts and graphs with links relating to the MWP. I am not relying on any analysis from NTZ on my position. I am not using NTZ to prove that "global warming is fake."

    I had to look to find what link I gave from climategatedispatch. I guess its this one? https://climatechangedispatch.com/97...-97-consensus/

    Once again, I am not relying on any analysis from climategatedispatch. The link is simply a directory to various papers, articles, and blogs about the "97% consensus."

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    This is what having a conversation with rj/gsp is like

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dilbert Cripto.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	120.9 KB 
ID:	293408

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    I've owned you at every exchange. Go ahead and post them up. You were wrong or misleading about everything. Or just flat out unable to understand basic concepts.
    Well to start with you haven't been especially involved in this thread, only discussing sea level and Greenland. But you were pretty clearly one of the only people in this discussion that had any sense. Probably just you and MutliVerse to some extent. That said, you were wrong about how much of Greenland's ice is lost to melt vs calving, and you made claims about how unusual the current warmth of Greenland is.

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    An "Op Ed" hack for a link

    "There is an old Russian saying that applies here: “long calculation means wrong calculation.” The likelihood is that this study is off by at least an order of magnitude."

    "An order of magnitude low is my guess.

    I’ve read both Jacobson 2017 and Clack. Based on my own experience Jacobson is insane. There is just…so many huge problems he glosses over with his solutions, so many impracticalities baked in the cake.

    Which is odd, because you could solve the problem at a small fraction of the price by conceding that 100% renewable is not cost effective, and mixing in an appropriate amount of gas and small nuclear into the mix. Getting to 60% renewable is quite possible, with the remainder split between natural gas and nuclear is quite feasible, at a small fraction of the price. And that would essentially solve the worries about global warming."
    If you can find a better analysis of what is required for Jacobsen's proposal then be my guest. That is the only analysis I could find.

    Not sure why you are quoting two of the comments that support my position.

  25. #1225
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Well to start with you haven't been especially involved in this thread, only discussing sea level and Greenland. But you were pretty clearly one of the only people in this discussion that had any sense. Probably just you and MutliVerse to some extent. That said, you were wrong about how much of Greenland's ice is lost to melt vs calving, and you made claims about how unusual the current warmth of Greenland is.
    What fucking difference does it make whether the glaciers are melting more or calving more. Ice mass is lost either way. And warming is responsible for the increased calving by accelerating the flow of the glacier into the sea.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo765

    I don't usually debate you on a point by point basis but you're arguing about whether there's more loss due to calving or melting is such a perfect example of how you try to use an insignificant point to (unsuccessfully) discredit the person you are debating while totally ignoring the big picture.

Posting Permissions

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