Page 100 of 118 FirstFirst ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... LastLast
Results 2,476 to 2,500 of 2932
  1. #2476
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    That's what you got out of my post? Oh right, you just try to spread doubt however you can.

    It's not how much money was spent on research. It's how much money was spent creating false science to spread doubt about the true science.

    Exxon understand what was happening by the 70's, and has spent hundreds of millions hiding that from the public with junk science ever since.

    "In 1982, 7 years before I was even born, Exxon accurately predicted that by this year, 2019, the Earth would hit a CO2 concentration of 415 ppm and a temperature of 1ºC. Dr. Hoffert, is that correct?" - AOC

    "We were excellent scientists." - Dr Hoffert

    House Democrats on Wednesday laid out evidence that the oil behemoth ExxonMobil had known since the 1970s about the potential for a climate crisis and intentionally sowed doubt about it. One of those testifying was Martin Hoffert, a scientist consultant for Exxon Research and Engineering in the 1980s. Responding to the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Hoffert testified that in 1982, Exxon scientists predicted how carbon dioxide levels would rise and heat the planet as humans burned more fossil fuels.

    Your "smoking gun" graph in that video is from this document: http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

    Which was based on publicly available research at the time. It is not some secret Exxon model.

  2. #2477
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I try not to but I've taken a few jabs at Ron. Not because of his positions or his denialism. It's because sometime he's shrill, strident, and needy. Skepticism is fine but Ron places too much emphasis on conspiracy and not enough on enjoying the ride, on trying to figure this stuff out.


    For example, in Ron's Wikipedia quote above it says several factors are important WRT to ice ages. A point I've been making all along, and in fact we've discussed all of them.

    If Ron approached his source with an open mind he'd see that "the motion of tectonic plates..." changing "atmospheric composition" is almost exactly what I describe on the previous page. It's the India-Asia collision.

    That's the macro "large-scale" event that lowers CO2 to the point where we can transition to an icehouse phase.

    Then, among the other factors in Ron's quote are Milankovitch cycles and orbital changes. This is what I wrote two pages ago about "smaller ebb and flow glacial-interglacial" cycles:
    What happened in the geologic past is we cross a critical threshold in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that allows things like our relationship with the sun in the shape of our orbit and how tilted we are on our axis which has periodicity, we have to drop CO2 to a certain level so that those things can emerge as climate signals. That’s the glacial interglacial cycle.

    We reached a threshold about 3 million years ago where we start to see the 41,000 and 100,000 year cycle of our tilt in the shape of our orbit showing up as the growth and decay of ice sheets over time.

    Instead of connecting the dots, Ron says "you try to use my wikipedia article against me because of this one sentence" even though both of his quotes support my explanation.

    It's Wikipedia so whoever made the edits didn't connect the dots and neither did Ron. Instead he sees it as an attack. That happens a lot.
    More nonsense. This entire discussion has stemmed from your quote that "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system, and CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history." I have been telling you that no, this is not the case, there are other factors at play.

    You then describe your elaborate theories of what is happening (specifically the cooling over the past 55 million years) as fact when they aren't facts, just theories. Because my wikipedia article notes some of your theories, you try to use it as proof of your position, even though the article makes it clear that the causes of ice ages are not well understood.

    And you continue to ignore my request to hear your theories for what is happening 145mm years ago, 290mm years ago, and 439mm years ago, when temperatures are doing the opposite of what we would expect from your CO2 theory.

  3. #2478
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Marmot or Fox View Post
    Completely normal. Nothing to see here.
    Yep, never been any wind in California before.

  4. #2479
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,753
    It's hard to believe there are people still denying the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

    For present Earth conditions CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder middle latitudes; the remainder is mostly due to water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate. The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the presence of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor. Conversely, increasing CO2would warm the atmosphere and ultimately result in greater water-vapor content—a now well-understood situation known as water-vapor feedback.

    So for the umpteenth time, nobody is saying CO2 is the only thing that effects global temperatures. In the ancient past the numbers varied but CO2's significance remained. On a geologic timescale atmospheric CO2 is number #1 for Earth⁠ just like CO2 is #1 for uninhabitable hot Venus and how the narrow emmisive spectra of CO2 on Mars makes it cold and uninhabitable.

    More here: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

  5. #2480
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Your "smoking gun" graph in that video is from this document: http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

    Which was based on publicly available research at the time. It is not some secret Exxon model.
    I'm not going to bother to check your source to see if you are telling the truth but I'm glad to see you agree that Exxon knew the science back in the 70's and that the scientific models have proven to be quite accurate.

    Then WTF are you arguing about in this thread??? The science is clear.

    And where this graph comes from is unimportant to the discussion that Exxon knew and then spent decades trying to cover up the truth.

  6. #2481
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,753
    I caught that too. Everything Ron writes is a version of the “nothing to see here!” moment in Naked Gun.

  7. #2482
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,653
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I caught that too. Everything Ron writes is a version of the “nothing to see here!” moment in Naked Gun.
    LOL I just figured out who Ron Johnson is..

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

  8. #2483
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    11,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Yep, never been any wind in California before.
    I've lived in CA for 43 years. I've never seen anything like the number and size of the fires the last few years. Keep in mind that last winter was exceptionally wet and that we've already had significant rainfall this fall, yet once again the state is engulfed in flames. People are losing everything and you sit in your mother's basement and post your charts and graphs and bullshit. The heartbreak that people are going through now is on you and all the other deniers, and if people die their blood is on your hands. It's time for you to get out of your bathrobe, go outside, and look at the world instead of living on the internet.

  9. #2484
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's hard to believe there are people still denying the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

    For present Earth conditions CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder middle latitudes; the remainder is mostly due to water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate. The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the presence of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor. Conversely, increasing CO2would warm the atmosphere and ultimately result in greater water-vapor content—a now well-understood situation known as water-vapor feedback.

    So for the umpteenth time, nobody is saying CO2 is the only thing that effects global temperatures. In the ancient past the numbers varied but CO2's significance remained. On a geologic timescale atmospheric CO2 is number #1 for Earth⁠ just like CO2 is #1 for uninhabitable hot Venus and how the narrow emmisive spectra of CO2 on Mars makes it cold and uninhabitable.

    More here: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
    Now you are just moving the goalposts. I am not denying the impact of greenhouse gasses. I am denying your belief that CO2 has controlled the ice age cycles. This much is obvious from looking at the graph I've posted, and the lack of understanding of what causes ice ages among scientists. If your theory was right, we would see an actual correlation between temperature and CO2 throughout these cycles, and instead of my wikipedia quote reading:

    "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth–Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes."

    It would read something like:

    "The causes of ice ages are understood to be the result of changes in CO2 levels. There are several factors that cause CO2 levels to change such as...."

  10. #2485
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I'm not going to bother to check your source to see if you are telling the truth but I'm glad to see you agree that Exxon knew the science back in the 70's and that the scientific models have proven to be quite accurate.

    Then WTF are you arguing about in this thread??? The science is clear.

    And where this graph comes from is unimportant to the discussion that Exxon knew and then spent decades trying to cover up the truth.
    Throw enough darts at the board and you are bound to get a couple to stick.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EEL_yXYWkAAnNj6.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	99.3 KB 
ID:	299606

  11. #2486
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    I've lived in CA for 43 years. I've never seen anything like the number and size of the fires the last few years. Keep in mind that last winter was exceptionally wet and that we've already had significant rainfall this fall, yet once again the state is engulfed in flames. People are losing everything and you sit in your mother's basement and post your charts and graphs and bullshit. The heartbreak that people are going through now is on you and all the other deniers, and if people die their blood is on your hands. It's time for you to get out of your bathrobe, go outside, and look at the world instead of living on the internet.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fires.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	340.2 KB 
ID:	299607

    With you having lived in CA for 43 years I'm sure you are aware that there a number of factors related to these wildfires, and its absurd to blame them on climate alone.

  12. #2487
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I'm not going to bother to check your source to see if you are telling the truth but I'm glad to see you agree that Exxon knew the science back in the 70's and that the scientific models have proven to be quite accurate.

    Then WTF are you arguing about in this thread??? The science is clear.

    And where this graph comes from is unimportant to the discussion that Exxon knew and then spent decades trying to cover up the truth.
    The didn't "know." The document is a summary of the implications and uncertainties of the CO2 theory at the time.

  13. #2488
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post

    With you having lived in CA for 43 years I'm sure you are aware that there a number of factors related to these wildfires, and its absurd to blame them on climate alone.
    NASA Earth Observatory: "Rising Global Temperatures Influence California’s Fire Season"

    If it seems like California has been getting hit by more and larger fires lately, that's because it has. In 2017, California endured the Thomas Fire, the state’s largest fire (by area) at that time. One year later, the Mendocino Fire Complex took its place. In 2018, California also suffered its most destructive fire ever and set a new record for burned area in one year.

    A study published in July 2019 shows these remarkable fire years are no longer freakish anomalies. They fit with a trend of more frequent and bigger fires. According to the researchers, the annual burned area across California has increased fivefold over the past five decades, and the main driver is higher temperatures.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...as-fire-season

  14. #2489
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,753
    lol @ Ron citing random Wikipeda edits as the authoritative source when study after study, including those cited in his own source, show the connection between CO2 and ice ages.

    Ron is arguing against a strawman because Wikipeda correctly states the scientific consensus is several factors are important. CO2 is not the only factor, but CO2 does set the threshold for glacial-interglacial cycles. The fact that there were also other events in the ancient past like volcanoes and meteors, and also other climate signals, does not change the fact that atmospheric composition is the most important.



    As for moving the goalposts, that's not the case at all. Ron has no alternative theory other than a so called "cooling force." Ron even posted a Wikipedia article with a chart arguing for his "cooling force" theory, even though his article directly contradicted his "cooling force" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg

    The chart from Ron's Wikipedia article shows the central role of CO2 as a controller of climate.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 10-27-2019 at 03:15 PM.

  15. #2490
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    NASA Earth Observatory: "Rising Global Temperatures Influence California’s Fire Season"

    Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!


    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...as-fire-season
    Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!

  16. #2491
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,297
    Ooof!

  17. #2492
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    lol @ Ron quoting Wikipeda as the authoritative source when study after study, including those cited in his own source, show the connection between CO2 and ice ages.

    Ron is arguing against a strawman. CO2 is not the only factor, but CO2 does set the threshhold for glacial-interglacial cycles. The fact that there were also other events in the ancient past like volcanoes and meteors, and also other climate signals, does not change that.


    Ron also has no alternative theory other than a so called "cooling force." Ron even posted a Wikipedia article with a chart arguing for his "cooling force" theory, even though his article directly contradicted his "cooling force" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg
    To start off with, I can't believe you brought up your useless chart again!! You have to be trolling at this point right?

    Obviously wikipedia isn't some authoritative source, but it does a pretty good job of summarizing subjects. You got another suggestion?

    No strawman here. Your position has been that CO2 controls ice ages.

    How exactly does my article contradict cooling forces? Earth's temperature is determined by the interplay between forces that cause warming and forces that cause cooling. When earth enters into a ice age, the cooling forces overwhelm the warming forces.

  18. #2493
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,753
    - The issues isn't with Wikipedia making a list of climate signals. It's a series of edits after all. Sometimes those edits form a cohesive whole and other times they don't. There's nothing in the Ron's Wikipedia quote that hasn't been discussed already in this thread. An honest broker would acknowledge that, and make the connection.

    In other words nobody is saying these things are fully understood, but the connections are better understood by scientists than is implied by a Wikipedia snippet. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


    -- That's why Ron's chart matters because it's the basis for the difference between radiative forcing and feedbacks. Yes there are warming feedbacks and cooling feedbacks, warming forcings and cooling forcings, but key to all of it is radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases really are the largest contributor to the Earth’s climate outside the sun which is producing energy for the whole system.

  19. #2494
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,297

  20. #2495
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Some grade A climate science here folks. Just cherry pick the start date, ignore a massive variable (70 years of fire suppression), and you got a study that can be used for headlines!
    Yeah, NASA doesn't know shit about science. Maybe you could educate them as well as us.

  21. #2496
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - The issues isn't with Wikipedia making a list of climate signals. It's a series of edits after all. Sometimes those edits form a cohesive whole and other times they don't. There's nothing in the Ron's Wikipedia quote that hasn't been discussed already in this thread. An honest broker would acknowledge that, and make the connection.

    In other words nobody is saying these things are fully understood, but the connections are better understood by scientists than is implied by a Wikipedia snippet. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
    No, it's disingenuous for you to state unequivocally that CO2 controls ice ages when the data and scientific community don't support it, and it's disingenuous for you to say that ice ages are better understood by scientists than implied by the wikipedia article without offering any proof beyond a theory for the cooling over the past 55 million years and some vague YouTube video that has little to do with what we are talking about. And you continue to ignore my request for your explanation of what is happening 145mm years ago, 290mm years ago, and 439mm years ago because it's unexplainable with your theory.

    -- That's why Ron's chart matters because it's the basis for the difference between radiative forcing and feedbacks. Yes there are warming feedbacks and cooling feedbacks, warming forcings and cooling forcings, but key to all of it is radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases really are the largest contributor to the Earth’s climate outside the sun which is producing energy for the whole system.
    Your chart couldn't matter less. As I've said repeatedly, it is for the year 2005 alone, and even then, it's just a best guess. They do not know the exact radiative forces of the various components. It's going to look a lot different for year 145,090,012BC.

  22. #2497
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Marmot or Fox View Post
    This is where MV gets his arguments from. It's about the alarmist equivalent of wattsupwiththat.com

  23. #2498
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Yeah, NASA doesn't know shit about science. Maybe you could educate them as well as us.
    Ought to tell you something about the state of our climate institutions....

  24. #2499
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Ought to tell you something about the state of our climate institutions....
    hubris noun
    hu·​bris | \ ˈhyü-brəs \
    Definition of hubris
    : exaggerated pride or self-confidence

  25. #2500
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    47,356

Posting Permissions

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