Page 49 of 146 FirstFirst ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 3644
  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,366
    RJ, how wrong do you want to be proven before you just go on and fuck off?

  2. #1202
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    4,497
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    you are a better interpreter of complex studies

  3. #1203
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Joisey
    Posts
    2,645
    Anybody read anything by Bjorn Lomborg?

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

  4. #1204
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,517
    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.

  5. #1205
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    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).

  6. #1206
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    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.

  7. #1207
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    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."

  8. #1208
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,366
    This is what having a conversation with rj/gsp is like

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dilbert Cripto.JPG 
Views:	38 
Size:	120.9 KB 
ID:	293408

  9. #1209
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    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.

  10. #1210
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    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.

  11. #1211
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    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.

  12. #1212
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    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".
    Are you serious? You don't think there is a big difference between claiming a record temperature was broken in Greenland when it was actually 4.2'C under the record. I can see the headlines now, instead of "Greenland records highest temperature on record," it's "Greenland records warm day in the summer!"

    How exactly is this cherry picking? I provided this link in response to a post about the falsely claimed warmest day on record in Greenland.

  13. #1213
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    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.

    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    I'm not going to be able to provide articles from the NYT, WP, and co because they won't run anything that might question the global warming position. A major frustration of mine is that everyone loves to denounce reliability of any source that questions the global warming narrative, but no one ever considers the bias coming from the pro-global warming sources. A perfect example of this is the recent Dorian coverage. How many major news media sources ran hysterical Dorian global warming stories that do not support the consensus on hurricanes?

  14. #1214
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    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.
    It doesn't matter, he asked me to point out what he got wrong so I did.

  15. #1215
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    27,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    I'm not going to be able to provide articles from the NYT, WP, and co because they won't run anything that might question the global warming position. A major frustration of mine is that everyone loves to denounce reliability of any source that questions the global warming narrative, but no one ever considers the bias coming from the pro-global warming sources.
    Virtually every one of the websites to which you've linked have been identified as misrepresenting data. Claiming an added layer of indirection doesn't really reinforce your credibility.

    So while you claim that you can't look to the NYT, WaPo, etc, those institutions have orders of magnitude better reputation for attempting to report the facts.

    I agree that climate change is extremely fashionable and drives irrational and emo reactions. But even those like Lomberg, who has also been discredited to a scientific extent, accept that AGW is occurring. Some such pundits claim there's an over reaction, which may be so.

    One guy who I like a lot in the shitstorm of climate change is Cliff Mass. He does a fantastic job of sticking to scientific constructs and criticizes many sources of climate hysteria to the extent that some of the more neoliberal pundits around attack him for not insisting that climate change is obviously manifest in current weather events. Good guy.

    Anyway, like I said, debate can be healthy in the absence of personal attacks.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  16. #1216
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Maybe it's time to talk about that other scientific conspiracy... that false evolution thing. It's only natural we segue to that since ron can prove it's totally false just like global warming..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  17. #1217
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Not me buddy. I'm gonna stay so far away from all that crap I might fall off the edge of the earth.

  18. #1218
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,370
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  19. #1219
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,366
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dilbert Cripto.JPG 
Views:	44 
Size:	120.9 KB 
ID:	293453

    this belongs on every page

  20. #1220
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    35,361
    Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident

  21. #1221
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    ^^ the climate scientists on Twitter are furious about this article, saying Franzen gets the science wrong.

    Michael Mann:
    "Hey @NewYorker, I fixed the headline for you:
    "What if we stopped pretending that false prophecies of unavoidable doom are anything other than crypto-denialist narratives that favor an agenda of inaction?" (see: washingtonpost.com/opinions/dooms…)"

    Dr Genevieve Guenther:
    There are many problems w the @NewYorker Franzen climate piece. Here are three:

    1) It distorts the science.
    2) It's completely apolitical.
    3) It contradicts itself: is the apocalypse coming or should we all start local farmers markets

    First: the science.

    Franzen claims that climate change will spin "completely out of control" if the planet heats to somwhere around 2°C.

    This is flat-out wrong.

    According to @helixclimate, the EU agency tasked with studying climate impacts from 1.5° to 6°C, the "tipping points" that cause global heating to spin out of control happen at solidly higher temperatures.

    But lest you think that scientists know what they're talking about, Franzen makes sure to attack the legitimacy of the @IPCC_CH.

    The crazy thing, though? Franzen doesn't understand how climate science works.

    (Although I don't know why I'm surprised.)

    Climate scientists don't make "best predictions." Nor do they have most confidence in their "lowest" projected temperature.

    They project temperature across a confidence *range*.

    I get it, I guess, climate science is hard. But if you're going to write about climate science for the @newyorker you should really get it right.

    Moving on to the more serious issue with this essay: did you all notice that it's easier for Franzen to imagine the end of the world than to envision a politics that will change our systems in time to save millions of lives?

    That lack of vision is a choice.

    It's an aesthetic choice.

    It's a political choice.

    These putatively lefty smart boys acting like they're so courageous and manly for accepting the apocalypse?

    They're just lazy and entitled.

    (And selfish, too, also selfish.)

    ...
    Washington Post Reporter Sarah Kaplan
    I'm not linking to that Jonathan Franzen essay (which is not only poorly argued but completely mischaracterizes the scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts on society), BUT...
    1. "Climate Change" is not a bomb that's gonna go off in 2030 if we don't cut emissions. It's an ongoing process (that is already well underway) and every day we don't take action to mitigate it, it gets worse.

    But the flip side of that is: everything we DO do makes it better.
    Yes, a global avg temperature rise of 1.5 degrees will be better and safer for humanity than one of 2 degrees. But a 2 degree world is still better than a 3 degree world, which is better than 4 or 5 or 8. Cutting emissions isn't EVER "pointless."

    2. Framing our response to change as a choice between mitigation and adaptation is misguided. And not a single person who actually spends time thinking about the problem sees it that way. We have to do both.
    3. Franzen wants us to give up on large scale, transformative change and turn inward. He says the global climate catastrophe can't be averted, so we may as well stop caring about the whole world and just focus on ourselves.

    Easy to say for someone who is white, affluent, privileged, protected -- and revealing of how blinkered Franzen's view of the world is.

    Look at the Bahamas right now. What is that except the climate catastrophe, already well underway?

    It's not only inaccurate to suggest that there's salvation to be found by retreating from the world. It's inhumane. It denies the suffering of millions of people we share this world with *right now*. It condemns countless more people to suffering in the future.

    4. If you're struggling with how to feel about climate change, I'd recommend this @DrKateMarvel essay: "Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending."

    Or read what the poet Alice Major told @MrDanZak:

    “It is an immense privilege to be alive at this time. We owe it to ourselves to try ... and to give meaning to it. Only by understanding our lives as meaningful can we hope to create meaningful change.”

  22. #1222
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Scientists have been misrepresenting the speed of climate change--by underestimating it.
    There is pressure on scientists to present a consensus to the public, so that evidence that suggest more rapid change is suppressed. It is felt that if there is any disagreement among scientists this will be used as evidence to undermine the credibility of all scientists. There is pressure from the denier community so scientists tend to downplay the most alarming evidence--so as not to be labeled alarmists.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...limate-change/

    The internet has given us a world in which everyone has access to information, but all information and all sources are considered equally valid, where education, training, and experience count for nothing, where expertise is relabeled as elitism, and everyone's opinion is equally valid, where everyone is assumed to have an agenda, and where everyone is part of a conspiracy.

  23. #1223
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Virtually every one of the websites to which you've linked have been identified as misrepresenting data. Claiming an added layer of indirection doesn't really reinforce your credibility.

    So while you claim that you can't look to the NYT, WaPo, etc, those institutions have orders of magnitude better reputation for attempting to report the facts.

    I agree that climate change is extremely fashionable and drives irrational and emo reactions. But even those like Lomberg, who has also been discredited to a scientific extent, accept that AGW is occurring. Some such pundits claim there's an over reaction, which may be so.

    One guy who I like a lot in the shitstorm of climate change is Cliff Mass. He does a fantastic job of sticking to scientific constructs and criticizes many sources of climate hysteria to the extent that some of the more neoliberal pundits around attack him for not insisting that climate change is obviously manifest in current weather events. Good guy.

    Anyway, like I said, debate can be healthy in the absence of personal attacks.
    Virtually every one? Not even close. What is there beside NTZ and climatechangedispatch? I'm happy to throw out the NTZ link if that will make everyone happy, I don't need it for my position. There is nothing wrong with my climatechangedispatch link. The 97% consensus has been thoroughly debunked, that link conglomerates all the evidence.

    The majority of scientists who get characterized as 'deniers' believe AGW is occuring.

    I don't know why you keep bringing up the personal attacks bit with me. I have tried to avoid them.

  24. #1224
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your source, and not for the first time, did a lot more than screenshotting graphs and abstracts, they purposefully misrepresented the scientific literature.

    And in your followup you did make an attempt at analysis and fell flat.

    Your own source, the "Evolution of land surface air temperature trend" paper, shows how in the second half of the of the twentieth century a warming period began affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    I mean, this is the first line from your own paper, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century."


    You've been raging in this thread about how nothing unprecedented is happening but according to your analysis and source the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate.
    Then dismiss the NTZ link, I don't need it. The "Evolution of land surface air temperature trend" paper is not public, so I was relying on this summary from ScienceDaily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm

    The summary does not support your position that a warming period is now affecting the whole globe for the first time. Nor do the land graphs from the paper:
    Name:  Warming-rate-of-global-land-surface-air-temperature-a-g-The-instantaneous-warming-rate.png
Views: 239
Size:  726.7 KB
    Warming rate of global land surface air temperature. a–g, The instantaneous warming rate of the secular trend in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2009, respectively. h, The spatial structure of the warming rate based on the time-unvarying linear trend over the whole data domain from 1901 to 2009.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Spatial-evolution-of-the-ensemble-empirical-mode-decomposition-trend-of-global-land.png 
Views:	40 
Size:	726.0 KB 
ID:	293525
    Spatial evolution of the ensemble empirical mode decomposition trend of global land surface air temperature. a–g, Ensemble empirical mode decomposition trends ending in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2009, respectively. h, The spatial structure of temperature increase based on time-unvarying linear trend over the whole data domain from 1901 to 2009.

    "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement is not a conclusion from the paper. They are relying on the IPCC for that statement.

  25. #1225
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The funny thing is, when you do make an attempt at analysis your attempts often fail.

    You are not only losing these debates, you're losing your own debates with yourself.



    In any case, this is what the most recent preponderance of evidence indicates:

    1. Average global temperatures are higher now 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. The speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None of these claims fit the bill.

Posting Permissions

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