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

[Self Jupiter]

[Bunion 2020]

I've disproved a lot more of the true believer's positions than my positions have been disproved.

The position that you are a fartsniffer of the highest order remains rock solid.

[SumJongGuy]

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.

You lost every single debate above.. Still waiting on your credentials beyond YouTube University. Pretty much everyone else here has at least a masters degree with graduate level math and statistics courses. Yet we all still bow to the climatology expert opinions and the peer reviews. How bout you Ron? This is why you don't understand how wrong you are on every one of these points..

[ron johnson]

You lost every single debate above.. Still waiting on your credentials beyond YouTube University. Pretty much everyone else here has at least a masters degree with graduate level math and statistics courses. Yet we all still bow to the climatology expert opinions and the peer reviews. How bout you Ron? This is why you don't understand how wrong you are on every one of these points..

If I lost every single debate, then please pick one, should be pretty easy.

Everyone else here has at least a masters degree with graduate level math and statistics? Dafuq?

[ron johnson]

The position that you are a fartsniffer of the highest order remains rock solid.

Have you gotten any further along with your detective work on whether or not there was a climate change thread in the ski forum where several posters thought it should be moved?

[MultiVerse]

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.

If those are the only three things you can think of then you have no more self-awareness than a vinyl floor.

4. Not only did you post Easterbrook's graph and then reference it over-and-over, but you willfully ignored data from other ice-core sites in Greenland

5. You repeatedly, not just once, but multiple times posted fraudulent information

6. You continuously, and either ignorantly or willfully misrepresent other peoples' statements

7. You misrepresent your own past statements

8. You post sources, and then make assertions about those sources even though your own source directly contradicts your own specious claims

9. And on and on...

What a legend.

[ron johnson]

If those are the only three things you can think then you have no more self-awareness than a vinyl floor.

4. Not only did you post Easterbrook's graph and then reference it over-and-over, but you willfully ignored data from other ice-core sites in Greenland

5. You repeatedly, not just once, but multiple times posted fraudulent information

6. You continuously, and either ignorantly or willfully misrepresent other peoples' statements

7. You misrepresent your own past statements

8. You post sources, and then make assertions about those sources even though your own sources directly contradict your own specious claims

9. And on and on...

4. Huh? I was the one posting the other ice core data in Greenland in support of my position.

5. Like what?

6. Like what?

7. Like what?

8. I guess you must be talking about this link I gave: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm Of which the story and abstract from the paper support my position. You were able to find a graph from the paper which kind of supports your position and kind of doesn't.

None of these examples you give are refutations of a position of mine. I could pretty easily do this for you, many things you have posted in this thread were flat out wrong.

[Bunion 2020]

Fartsniffers will fartsniff oh wise and mighty Ronbo

Get gang fucked by a rabid pack of chimpanzees.

[Kinnikinnick]

Ron

If you were completely wrong, would you have any idea?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SumJongGuy]

Ron

If you were completely wrong, would you have any idea?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

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..

[ron johnson]

Ron

If you were completely wrong, would you have any idea?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

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.

[ron johnson]

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.

[old goat]

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.

[WMD]

“Any scientist who could soundly demonstrate that Earth is not warming [because of human activity] would become an instant science celebrity.” -@MichaelEMann

[k2skier112]

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/

[ron johnson]

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?

[neufox47]

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.

[iceman]

Even I would.

[neufox47]

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.

[Buster Highmen]

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.

[neufox47]

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.

[iceman]

Ron, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? You should be.

[Svengali]

Climate Change Deniers like Ronald always prefer the single solution/magic silver bullet to all of life's complexities!

[k2skier112]

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."

[k2skier112]

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".