Page 56 of 96 FirstFirst ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 2393
  1. #1376
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    5,722
    Hot as fuck here in Balmer. Sick of it.
    They think I do not know a buttload of crap about the Gospel, but I do.

  2. #1377
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    So at this point I need to be a hired shill that lives close enough to the mountains to have a close friend with snowboards, who was also previously scouting out TGR so I could learn inside jokes such as change for a nickel? or PM Rontele.
    Your opinions seem honest to me. Humans don't like change and we like to argue. Your opinions aren't extreme, in the sense that a sizable part of the population has similar questions and doubts.

    I expect you will not suddenly change due to badgering in this thread. Maybe you will. As I read human psychology, it's more likely your beliefs become more hardened due to argument (mine too). Humans suck.

    At one point upthread you were complaining about climate extremists, and I agree there are some, and they get too much media attention. When someone says the world is going to end in ten years if we do nothing, that's a pile of BSL. When someone says banning plastic straws will save us - also BSL. At the same time, we have a serious problem, and it's getting worse. The sooner we do more to solve it, the easier and cheaper it'll be.
    10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.

  3. #1378
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    How many times do I need to post about the 97% consensus being bogus?
    whatevs, 80-20%, either way you're a fucking moron tRump supporter

  4. #1379
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    167
    I haven't waded through all 56 pages of this in detail but most of the discussion seems to focus on whether CO2 levels are due to human activity or not. This is an important topic but misses out half the debate when deciding what action to take.
    Like making decisions in avy terrain there is a likelihood and a consequence component to climate change. If the consequence is an uninhabitable planet then we'd better be damn sure that climate change isn't an issue if we are not going to try to address it. Even if you are 90% sure that the current rises in temperature are natural and things will naturally swing back, a 10% chance of the end of humankind seems to be a pretty big gamble to me and given that the majority of peer reviewed scientific literature suggests that the odds are more the other way then the logical response to the situation is to take action.

  5. #1380
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    How many times do I need to post about the 97% consensus being bogus?

    Just once when you have real data to back it up. You have not done that yet, because you can't.

    How many times do I have to post that the 3% of dissenters have been shown to be making mistakes, and when those mistakes are corrected their findings match the rest of the 97%.

  6. #1381
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by gritter View Post
    I haven't waded through all 56 pages of this in detail but most of the discussion seems to focus on whether CO2 levels are due to human activity or not. This is an important topic but misses out half the debate when deciding what action to take.
    Like making decisions in avy terrain there is a likelihood and a consequence component to climate change. If the consequence is an uninhabitable planet then we'd better be damn sure that climate change isn't an issue if we are not going to try to address it. Even if you are 90% sure that the current rises in temperature are natural and things will naturally swing back, a 10% chance of the end of humankind seems to be a pretty big gamble to me and given that the majority of peer reviewed scientific literature suggests that the odds are more the other way then the logical response to the situation is to take action.
    Yeah, the funny thing is that at the end of the day, progressives are saying "let's make some changes so our human society can carry on for the long haul." It's the so-called conservatives who are saying "fuck it, let the whole thing burn". What's conservative about that?

    To be fair, I don't think this will be the end of humankind, just a massive and catastrophic reduction in our numbers. Maybe the people funding climate denialism anticipate coming out on top after the die off.

  7. #1382
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    Your opinions seem honest to me. Humans don't like change and we like to argue. Your opinions aren't extreme, in the sense that a sizable part of the population has similar questions and doubts.

    I expect you will not suddenly change due to badgering in this thread. Maybe you will. As I read human psychology, it's more likely your beliefs become more hardened due to argument (mine too). Humans suck.

    At one point upthread you were complaining about climate extremists, and I agree there are some, and they get too much media attention. When someone says the world is going to end in ten years if we do nothing, that's a pile of BSL. When someone says banning plastic straws will save us - also BSL. At the same time, we have a serious problem, and it's getting worse. The sooner we do more to solve it, the easier and cheaper it'll be.
    I call BSL on this!

  8. #1383
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,038
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post

    To be fair, I don't think this will be the end of humankind, just a massive and catastrophic reduction in our numbers.
    Catastrophic seems to mean as in Bad.

    Humans have treated the planet like an ash tray because when you come right down to it we have not really evolved very much in the blink of an eye we have been walking upright and using our big brains. Maybe if there is a huge die off then the "lucky" ones left will alter their ways of viewing how humans should behave and it will be for the better.

    When you consider the time that we have been around VS the time the planet has been here, we are mere fleas on an elephant. Maybe the elephant will wash us off.
    Mister Man! Mister Man! Mister Man. They left this card.

  9. #1384
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,196
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I call BSL on this!
    Boot Sole Length?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  10. #1385
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    How isn't it? I've followed the subject somewhat...

    CO2 levels are 50% higher than any natural level, and climbing rapidly (1 or 2 % per year, i.e. doubling every few decades). Humans are causing this (simple math and chemistry). CO2 traps heat on Earth (physics). Earth's temperature is a heat balance (physics). Less heat escaping means equilibrium is shifting, temperature will rise (physics). Additionally, we are altering the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, uncertain that either action is beneficial, and reasonably believe both harmful (chemistry, biology). That's a second global experiment. As humans, we have access to one habitable planet, and no hope for anything remotely close (astronomy).

    Explain to me again why we want to fuck up our only home?
    Sorry, I mean what's unsettled about that?
    CO2 levels have been naturally much higher than today's levels.

    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Beyond that there is much uncertainty.

    For example, the climate sensitivity of CO2 - the average temperature increase of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels - is unknown. Estimates are between 1'C and 4.5'C. That is quite a bit of uncertainty for "settled science."

    Beyond that, CO2 has a logarithmic diminutive effect on warming. This means that as you keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you get a less of a warming response. To visualize, put temperature in the y axis and CO2 levels in the x axis:
    Name:  logarithmic-climate-sensitivity.png
Views: 75
Size:  22.8 KB
    Because of this, CO2 alone cannot cause run away catastrophic warming. The entire theory of catastrophic human caused warming is dependent on positive feedbacks amplifying the original warming from CO2 such as methane release from melting permafrost, increased atmospheric water vapor, etc. There is absolutely no consensus on how these positive and negative feedbacks will interact.

    There is a case that higher CO2 levels will be beneficial to humans. Plants love CO2. There is a reason many greenhouses raise CO2 levels up to 1200ppm. We are already seeing the earth become 'greener' from CO2: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

    Warmer temperatures will open up more land to agriculture and enable longer growing seasons. Higher CO2 levels will increase crop yields.

    Rising sea levels are the only thing we can be certain to be a problem for human civilization as a result of global warming at this point.

    Here is a study that finds that out of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members, only 52% believe that humans are mostly responsible for global warming: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1
    Name:  survey.png
Views: 76
Size:  30.9 KB

    In other words, 48% of the world's largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals would be considered 'climate deniers' by WMD's camp.

  11. #1386
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I never bought into the paid shill narrative, and I said so. More like a person pretending to be new to all of this but in reality letting too many things slip.

    The phrase science advances one funeral at a time comes to mind. There are just too many references and positions that are outdated for someone claiming to be three years in, and it's not just the decade old IPCC email thing.

    FWIW, I don't really mind. Threads like these can be useful to get up to speed on a topic so early on this was a good refresher but now it's becoming a little boring and repetitive.
    If I was only on here to stir shit up, wouldn't it make more sense for me to claim I've been studying climate for 15 years rather than admit to only 3?

    I'm curious what positions and references were outdated.

  12. #1387
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    whatevs, 80-20%, either way you're a fucking moron tRump supporter
    For the 100th time, definitely not a Trump supporter.

    Although as painful as it is to admit, I think I'd rather him over any 2020 Dems. I would love Gabbard, but she's not going to get the nomination.

    Either way I will be voting 3rd party.

  13. #1388
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Catastrophic seems to mean as in Bad.

    Humans have treated the planet like an ash tray because when you come right down to it we have not really evolved very much in the blink of an eye we have been walking upright and using our big brains. Maybe if there is a huge die off then the "lucky" ones left will alter their ways of viewing how humans should behave and it will be for the better.

    When you consider the time that we have been around VS the time the planet has been here, we are mere fleas on an elephant. Maybe the elephant will wash us off.
    Well, "bad" in the sense that these deaths will be caused by things like starvation/thirst, extreme weather and maybe some opportunistic tropical diseases expanding their range. Maybe some armed conflict thrown into the mix when enough people are desperate. I tend to agree with you that as a group, we'll be getting what we deserve, but it's going to be painful.

  14. #1389
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Just once when you have real data to back it up. You have not done that yet, because you can't.

    How many times do I have to post that the 3% of dissenters have been shown to be making mistakes, and when those mistakes are corrected their findings match the rest of the 97%.
    I've already shown you multiple times that the 97% is BS. For another example, look a couple posts up.

  15. #1390
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    CO2 levels have been naturally much higher than today's levels.

    CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Beyond that there is much uncertainty.

    For example, the climate sensitivity of CO2 - the average temperature increase of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels - is unknown. Estimates are between 1'C and 4.5'C. That is quite a bit of uncertainty for "settled science."

    Beyond that, CO2 has a logarithmic diminutive effect on warming. This means that as you keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you get a less of a warming response. To visualize, put temperature in the y axis and CO2 levels in the x axis:
    Name:  logarithmic-climate-sensitivity.png
Views: 75
Size:  22.8 KB
    Because of this, CO2 alone cannot cause run away catastrophic warming. The entire theory of catastrophic human caused warming is dependent on positive feedbacks amplifying the original warming from CO2 such as methane release from melting permafrost, increased atmospheric water vapor, etc. There is absolutely no consensus on how these positive and negative feedbacks will interact.

    There is a case that higher CO2 levels will be beneficial to humans. Plants love CO2. There is a reason many greenhouses raise CO2 levels up to 1200ppm. We are already seeing the earth become 'greener' from CO2: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

    Warmer temperatures will open up more land to agriculture and enable longer growing seasons. Higher CO2 levels will increase crop yields.

    Rising sea levels are the only thing we can be certain to be a problem for human civilization as a result of global warming at this point.

    Here is a study that finds that out of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members, only 52% believe that humans are mostly responsible for global warming: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1
    Name:  survey.png
Views: 76
Size:  30.9 KB

    In other words, 48% of the world's largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals would be considered 'climate deniers' by WMD's camp.
    If you look at the areas of expertise in the chart--78% of published climate scientists attribute GW to mostly human causes. And of your 48% deniers among all respondents, only 4% actually deny warming and 7% don't know if it's happening. 10% accept GW but attribute to both human and natural causes. 20% accept GW but don't think there's enough evidence to know the cause. Only 5% say it's happening but mostly natural.

    So once again you have grossly misrepresented the findings of the survey by cherry picking the data.

    As far as the great benefit of global warming and increased CO2 on food production--that doesn't account for drought, desertification, and flooding (look what happened in the Missouri-Mississippi basin this spring. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tion=US%20News Even in the absence of drought what happens in places like California and Southern Europe when the winter snows those areas depend on for summer water turn to winter rains that cannot be captured?

    Meanwhile, here's an interesting tidbit: In June, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that, in April, renewable energy production had surpassed coal-fired power for the first time in history. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...term=TNY_Daily

  16. #1391
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,365
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  17. #1392
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Boot Sole Length?
    Ask Ron.

  18. #1393
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,365
    Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?

    Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
    University of Houston Energy Fellows
    University of Houston Energy Fellows Contributor
    University of Houston Energy Fellows
    Contributor Group

    Energy
    We are thought leaders in energy from the University of Houston.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg.../#70916a9b1157
    Note the sponsors of the dispute claiming that it's not 97% it's more like 87% or whatever..



    Time to pick some cherries..

    Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.


    .................................................. ..............

    The response has led to some head scratching by Cook and his colleagues.

    "I expected the criticism from climate deniers because they've been attacking the consensus for 20 years," Cook said. "I'm a bit disappointed that scientists who accept the consensus and who are trying to work towards climate action are criticizing this method of communication because the reason why we did it was based on a lot of social science research."

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  19. #1394
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I've already shown you multiple times that the 97% is BS. For another example, look a couple posts up.
    Ok, so what is it...maybe 96%?
    You get the point here?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  20. #1395
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Ask Ron.
    Snowboarder's BSL is still up for debate..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  21. #1396
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Beaverton, OR
    Posts
    278

  22. #1397
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    As far as the great benefit of global warming and increased CO2 on food production--that doesn't account for drought, desertification, and flooding (look what happened in the Missouri-Mississippi basin this spring. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...§ion=US%20News Even in the absence of drought what happens in places like California and Southern Europe when the winter snows those areas depend on for summer water turn to winter rains that cannot be captured?
    Meanwhile in Spain, the rain is mainly on the plain??

    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  23. #1398
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot View Post
    This doesn't say the nations will be wiped off the earth by the 2,000. It says they could be if the trend isn't reversed by 2000.. That's where they put the point of no return back then. Just like now we're hoping to keep the warming under 1.5 degrees C by 2050.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  24. #1399
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,887
    I read in another TGR thread that the earth is flat, why caint we all just move to the shady side?

    I also think we need PG on this problem.
    watch out for snakes

  25. #1400
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,025
    Quote Originally Posted by SB View Post
    I read in another TGR thread that the earth is flat, why caint we all just move to the shady side?
    We'd all fall off, duh.

Posting Permissions

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