Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 3644
-
09-07-2019, 11:38 PM #1201
RJ, how wrong do you want to be proven before you just go on and fuck off?
-
09-08-2019, 06:07 AM #1202
-
09-08-2019, 08:52 AM #1203Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Joisey
- Posts
- 2,656
Anybody read anything by Bjorn Lomborg?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUR0LrSadkg
-
09-08-2019, 09:14 AM #1204
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
-
09-08-2019, 11:36 AM #1205Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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).
-
09-08-2019, 12:13 PM #1206Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-08-2019, 12:34 PM #1207Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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."
-
09-08-2019, 12:36 PM #1208
-
09-08-2019, 01:13 PM #1209Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-08-2019, 01:22 PM #1210Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-08-2019, 01:28 PM #1211
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.
-
09-08-2019, 01:28 PM #1212Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-08-2019, 01:44 PM #1213Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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?
-
09-08-2019, 01:48 PM #1214Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
09-08-2019, 02:09 PM #1215
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 <<<
-
09-08-2019, 05:47 PM #1216
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!
-
09-08-2019, 06:14 PM #1217Funky But Chic
- 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.
-
09-08-2019, 06:21 PM #1218
or in the earth......
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...h-expedition#/Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.
-
09-08-2019, 08:59 PM #1219
-
09-08-2019, 09:23 PM #1220Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
09-08-2019, 10:33 PM #1221
^^ 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.)
...
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.”
-
09-09-2019, 12:55 PM #1222
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.
-
09-09-2019, 03:13 PM #1223Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
09-09-2019, 03:24 PM #1224Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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:
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.
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.
-
09-09-2019, 03:26 PM #1225Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Bookmarks