Page 44 of 94 FirstFirst ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... LastLast
Results 1,076 to 1,100 of 2350
  1. #1076
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    I'm not sure you understand what "low confidence" means in the context of a scientific review article. It doesn't mean that the theory (that hurricanes are increasing, in this case) is likely wrong. It means that the data is low quality--maybe not enough sampling points or a long enough time fram--to know whether the theory is correct or not. The theory could still be correct, which just can't be confident of that.

    In any case, we spend a lot of time arguing about the changes that CO2 has already caused while what we should be concerned about is what the future holds depending on what we do or do not do to control emissions. Up until now the changes have been subtle enough that there are (shaky) grounds for debate. By the time the changes are dramatic enough that there is no longer any doubt we will be too busy just trying to stay alive to worry about controlling CO2 emissions and too late to prevent warmer from continuing to accelerate.

    And yeah, ranking disasters by cost is a quick and dirty and not very accurate way of assessing the threat but it gets people's attention.

    As far as the reliability of Sciline--it is published by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which also publishes Science. It is as respected a scientific organization as there is in the world. I understand that in your world view everything is partisan, any scientific information that contradicts your point of view is propaganda or a conspiracy, and the idea that most scientists don't have an agenda incomprehensible, but I point out the credentials of the AAAS for the rest of us.

    The issue is not just climate change. The denial of science is occurring across many fields. The main tactic of those who benefit from fossil fuels, harmful chemicals, and the like is to convince people that scientists are partisans with a preordained agenda, that scientific data is no more valid than the opinions of the uneducated, and that all news sources are just as biased as Fox and Breitbart. False equivalency is the name of the game.
    I know what "low confidence" means. It means that you do not have supportive evidence to state that hurricanes are worsening from global warming, which is what all these alarmist articles are doing.

    You aren't really following the points I'm trying to make. I am pushing back on the demonstrably false information that is being spread about global warming everywhere you look. Specifically stuff about extreme weather, "unprecedented" warmth, and renewable tech. I've stayed away from arguing about what the future might hold because its hard to prove or disprove. Personally, I remain very skeptical about the doomsday scenarios, but it has never been a point that I've been trying to make.

    That article is such a joke, it should really tell you something about the quality of such a "respected scientific organization." I don't know why you and everyone is trying to make this partisan. I am not partisan at all. I hate politics. Both political parties are corporate shills and neither will save this country from the coming ruin that they have both brought on.

    I do not think any information that supports CO2 caused global warming is propaganda or a conspiracy. It's entirely possible for this thread to discuss this topic in a reasonable manner and I would never chime in. The problem is that so little of what you guys actually post is rooted in sound science.

    I'm not the one denying science here. The points I'm making are easily backed up with data. That SciLine article is denying science.

  2. #1077
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Lol. Non-skiing shill's been buuuuuuusted.
    I guess I've been caught so I'll have to come clean. I'm actually a knuckle dragger.

  3. #1078
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,974
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    His game is to create doubt about climate change, so when we argue he wins. The arguing allows him to make it seem there is still a debate about the science or renewable energy. There isn't.
    This!
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  4. #1079
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,974
    You people understand you're essentially trying to argue with someone who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that there isn't a hole in the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes aren't bad for you, right?

    It's all the same shit. Same tactics. Same blind ideologues leading the same blind doubters. I mean, it's literally the same people in plenty of cases. Just a different day, and maybe in a different medium.

    Many news media outlets have stopped giving attention to these deniers the same way they finally stopped giving attention to people who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or we weren't harming the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes are good for you. I would suggest you do the same.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  5. #1080
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I guess I've been caught so I'll have to come clean. I'm actually a knuckle dragger.
    Fixed again
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #1081
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    You people understand you're essentially trying to argue with someone who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that there isn't a hole in the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes aren't bad for you, right?

    It's all the same shit. Same tactics. Same blind ideologues leading the same blind doubters. I mean, it's literally the same people in plenty of cases. Just a different day, and maybe in a different medium.

    Many news media outlets have stopped giving attention to these deniers the same way they finally stopped giving attention to people who would claim the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or we weren't harming the Ozone Layer, or that cigarettes are good for you. I would suggest you do the same.
    You aren't paying attention to anything I am saying. Every point I am making is based on real data. There is a reason no one has been able to refute anything I am saying other than neufox with our sea level discussion.

  7. #1082
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Bolded is exactly what I am saying, and your favorite data source (PAGES 2k) shows that the heat uptake pre 1950 DID occur in a globally uniform way.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Do you not realize that the Neukom study is based on the graph?
    The so called Neukom paper (Neukom also participated in the PAGES 2k paper) is based on 700 climate records in an open-access database and focuses on spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data. The graph, showing global mean temperature multidecadal variability, comes from the PAGES 2k paper which focusses on multi-decade rates of change.

    While you seem to think itís a distinction without a difference, arguing against spatiotemporal distributions by presenting a global mean temperature graph doesnít make sense.

  8. #1083
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Lets try to be clear on what you are saying. You are saying that the warming post 1950 is unprecedented because it is happening at a global scale, and thus the warming pre 1950 was not happening at a global scale? If this is the case, where is your evidence for the pre 1950 warming not occuring on a global scale?

    - The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


    -- The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”*

    The second period extends from the mid-1970s to today:

    “The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

    “The extraordinary rate of the industrial-era temperature increase is evident on timescales longer than approximately 20 years”


    --- The Neukom paper has the warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century.**


    ---- *Notes: The papers(s) reference material points to studies describing the strong role of internal variability, including cold anomalies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific in the early twentieth century.

    ** Late twentieth century warming is much greater than early twentieth century warming:

    Name:  nasa-2.jpg
Views: 152
Size:  36.1 KB

  9. #1084
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You aren't paying attention to anything I am saying. Every point I am making is based on real data. There is a reason no one has been able to refute anything I am saying other than neufox with our sea level discussion.
    I call BSL on this!

    You have no real data. It has all been debunked. You are lying.

  10. #1085
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The so called Neukom paper (Neukom also participated in the PAGES 2k paper) is based on 700 climate records in an open-access database and focuses on spatiotemporal distribution of proxy data. The graph, showing global mean temperature multidecadal variability, comes from the PAGES 2k paper which focusses on multi-decade rates of change.

    While you seem to think itís a distinction without a difference, arguing against spatiotemporal distributions by presenting a global mean temperature graph doesnít make sense.
    Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

    The bottom graphs appear to show that early 20th century was a global phenomenon, and quote: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed." So it looks like the warming pre 1950 was global in nature according to this paper. And according to the PAGES temperature record, the pre 1950 warming is very similar to the post 1950 warming.

    In any case the point remains that you cannot unequivocally state that this is the only time the earth has warmed this quickly and synchronously in the past 2000 years. There are hundreds of studies at odds with these two papers:

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...9008193601&z=2

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/

  11. #1086
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


    -- The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”*

    The second period extends from the mid-1970s to today:
    “The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

    “The extraordinary rate of the industrial-era temperature increase is evident on timescales longer than approximately 20 years”


    --- The Neukom paper has the warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century.**


    ---- *Notes: The papers(s) reference material points to studies describing the strong role of internal variability, including cold anomalies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific in the early twentieth century.

    ** Late twentieth century warming is much greater than early twentieth century warming:

    Name:  nasa-2.jpg
Views: 152
Size:  36.1 KB
    My question that you quoted doesn't seem to be answered by anything that you wrote. The graph you posted seems to be a fake. I've never seen a graph from NASA showing only .31'C warming in the first half of the 20th century. Your graph's early 20th century warming looks a lot different from this graph which includes NASA GISS:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	surface temp.gif 
Views:	29 
Size:	63.9 KB 
ID:	293091

  12. #1087
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,840
    Global Warming with the Dems right now on CNN. Excellent. At least they are talking about it. Agree or disagree with their positions they are making it an issue. Contrast to the other party with heads in sand.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  13. #1088
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I call BSL on this!

    You have no real data. It has all been debunked. You are lying.
    You have repeatedly told me I am lying, and when I ask you point out what I am lying about, you don't respond.

  14. #1089
    Those heads are not down in the sand, they are up and in the ass.

    Hows that view Ronbo.
    Mister Man! Mister Man! Mister Man. They left this card.

  15. #1090
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

    The bottom graphs appear to show that early 20th century was a global phenomenon, and quote: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed." So it looks like the warming pre 1950 was global in nature according to this paper. And according to the PAGES temperature record, the pre 1950 warming is very similar to the post 1950 warming.

    In any case the point remains that you cannot unequivocally state that this is the only time the earth has warmed this quickly and synchronously in the past 2000 years. There are hundreds of studies at odds with these two papers:

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...9008193601&z=2

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/
    - It's fair for you to use it, and I never claimed otherwise, only that the way you were using it doesn't make sense.

    -- If the chart looks weird it might be because it is showing 30 yr ensemble medians for the individual temperature reconstructions to illustrate warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer.

    --- While I appreciate your links, you are missing the point. The data is not suggesting there wasn't a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with warm regions, etc. Instead, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.

    ----- Also, I read a couple of the notrickszone studies at random and they left out key details. For example, notrickszone quotes the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) "OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present" but fails to include the next line "not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies."

    If you look at the charts in the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) paper you see that surface temperatures today are higher for OPT-0015 than during the Medieval Warm Period and that global average Common Era surface temperature anomalies (figure 1) are also higher.

    The notrickszone appears to engage in both cherry picking and purposeful misrepresentation.

    ---- Anyway, this is what a broad cross section of data and models indicate:
    1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
    3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

  16. #1091
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    My question that you quoted doesn't seem to be answered by anything that you wrote. The graph you posted seems to be a fake. I've never seen a graph from NASA showing only .31'C warming in the first half of the 20th century. Your graph's early 20th century warming looks a lot different from this graph which includes NASA GISS:
    Your question was answered. What we've seen repeatedly from you in this thread is either willful ignorance, or it takes you a long time to grasp concepts.

    The data points on the two charts are essentially the same. Both charts clearly have less area under the curve pre-1950 than post 1950. Have you not seen a graph with a smoothing curve?

    Deniers also have a history of faking graphs to make early 20th century global warming appear as large as the warming after 1950 so maybe that's why it looks different:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200805050...windlers-list/

  17. #1092
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You have repeatedly told me I am lying, and when I ask you point out what I am lying about, you don't respond.
    Everything. Every single point you make has been debunked and is BSL!

  18. #1093
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Middle of the NEK
    Posts
    4,529
    RJ must get paid by the word.

  19. #1094
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_smoothing

    Remember this from some graduate level statistics and a chaos theory course. Yes, I passed, Bs in statistics and an A in Chaos Theory and it's Implications. Still leave the climate science to the peer reviewed experts because I didn't sleep at a holiday in. But, ya, exponential smoothing is pretty common.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  20. #1095
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - It's fair for you to use it, and I never claimed otherwise, only that the way you were using it doesn't make sense.
    If I am using it wrong, then you were using it wrong to support your Neukom paper.

    -- If the chart looks weird it might be because it is showing 30 yr ensemble medians for the individual temperature reconstructions to illustrate warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer.
    I think you said you had read the paper. Can you copy/paste the chart description?

    --- While I appreciate your links, you are missing the point. The data is not suggesting there wasn't a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with warm regions, etc. Instead, from a spatiotemporal standpoint preindustrial forcing, unlike today, was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multiple decades and centennial timescales. In other words, regional warm and cold periods existed even when the globe was going through cold or warm periods at different times.
    I know what your point is. My point is there is a lot of other research that suggests the MWP did produce warm temperatures at a global scale for multiple decades.

    ----- Also, I read a couple of the notrickszone studies at random and they left out key details. For example, notrickszone quotes the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) "OPT-0015 indicates that ocean heat content was larger during the Medieval Warm Period than at present" but fails to include the next line "not because surface temperature was greater, but because the deep ocean had a longer time to adjust to surface anomalies."

    If you look at the charts in the Pacific, Atlantic Ocean (heat content) paper you see that surface temperatures today are higher for OPT-0015 than during the Medieval Warm Period and that global average Common Era surface temperature anomalies (figure 1) are also higher.

    The notrickszone appears to engage in both cherry picking and purposeful misrepresentation.

    ---- Anyway, this is what a broad cross section of data and models indicate:
    1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
    3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.
    Is there anything more cherry picky than using one paper (maybe 2?) that is reliant on modeling as the basis for your statement? I link the papers not to say that they are all better papers, but to show that there is a lot of research on the MWP that suggests otherwise. You need more evidence than what you are presenting to state such a thing as fact. A more appropriate statement would be that new research suggests that 1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years etc, etc.

    Just as another example, this paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe and some areas were cooling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm

  21. #1096
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your question was answered. What we've seen repeatedly from you in this thread is either willful ignorance, or it takes you a long time to grasp concepts.
    I'll go through your points.

    "The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

    -When are they ending the "early 1900s"? The warming lasted until mid century.

    "The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, ďwas shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system

    -Based on the graph from that paper I don't see how they can make the bolded conclusion, and at the same time conclude that the warming post 1950 was globally synchronous at multiple decades. Also we have this quote on the Neukom paper: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."

    "The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

    -By two industrial-era periods they mean early 1900's-1940's and post 1970's right?

    The data points on the two charts are essentially the same. Both charts clearly have less area under the curve pre-1950 than post 1950. Have you not seen a graph with a smoothing curve?

    Deniers also have a history of faking graphs to make early 20th century global warming appear as large as the warming after 1950 so maybe that's why it looks different:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200805050...windlers-list/
    I didn't post the right graph. Should be this one which shows ~.5'C pre 1950 warming after smoothing:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	giss.png 
Views:	26 
Size:	96.7 KB 
ID:	293098

  22. #1097
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Everything. Every single point you make has been debunked and is BSL!
    Should be pretty easy to find some then, but that would require more effort than copy/pasting sensational news articles.

  23. #1098
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Should be pretty easy to find some then, but that would require more effort than copy/pasting sensational news articles.
    Your points don't deserve debate. I'm glad you are enjoying the articles. I have lots more to share.

  24. #1099
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,977

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?
    Thatís because it is a warming rate you moron. Not the amount of warming. The rate of warming and its expressed as something other than degrees per year. This is why no one should listen to you. You lack basic understanding of scientific and mathematical concepts. You use your ignorance to latch onto individual points and miss the forest for the trees; you donít grasp the concepts. Just like when you claimed the ocean was rising at linear rates and not accelerating. You were too stupid to understand a line graph.

    What training do you have in science? Math?
    Last edited by neufox47; 09-05-2019 at 04:54 AM.

  25. #1100
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post

    What training do you have in science? Math?
    North KaKalaKi banned exponential math to forecast sea level rise either because the legislators couldn't comprehend it or because it was hitting the property values of their beach houses.

    If it ain't Y=MX+B it's illegal LOL!


    New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

Posting Permissions

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