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

[simple]

Y

[ron johnson]

Ron, Ron. What is your argument exactly? Your obfuscation continues unabated. What do you believe?

I and most other thinking people believe what 97% of scientists say. Global warming is happening and is being driven by human behaviour.

I've said all this many times before, but I guess I'll do it again.

I believe that humans have contributed to warming the earth. How much? I don't know, nor does anyone else. Is the warming dangerous? I'm very skeptical, especially with regards to any claims about catastrophes and extinctions.

What I do know:
1) The media/activists/scientists/agencies are constantly exaggerating, conflating, and straight up lying about anything related to global warming. Once you become aware, it becomes impossible to ignore. They have lost any credibility with me. I have reached a point where I do not trust anything they say.
2) Trying to implement a government mandated 100% non carbon renewable energy system will be a total disaster with our current technology. The only way to reach zero emission goals is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt.

Part of me wants to sit back and watch the disaster that a GND type plan would cause. I can picture WMD up in Montana freezing his ass of in the middle of winter because the sun hasn't been out for weeks and the wind isn't blowing. Meanwhile, energy prices have skyrocketed, the country is $30 trillion in debt, and half the country is unemployed. All for some city living environmentalist fantasies that will have a negligible effect on CO2 induced warming anyway.

[MultiVerse]

1) The media/activists/scientists/agencies are constantly exaggerating, conflating, and straight up lying about anything related to global warming. Once you become aware, it becomes impossible to ignore. They have lost any credibility with me. I have reached a point where I do not trust anything they say.
.

This goes double for many of Ron's posts. Ron and his sources are constantly exaggerating, conflating, and straight up lying.

On this page, for example, Ron's chart of the MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent) plays games with the trendline. When I download the data and charted it in Excel (which took about a minute ) there was small downward trend.


The point, however, is not to look at the trend because the big picture shows a steep decades long decline in thick ice. Even though the Arctic sea ice extent appears to be only slowly trending downwards in recent years the proportions of what was once thick perennial ice has changed in favor of the new seasonal ice.

Because the thick multiyear ice is disappearing, Arctic sea ice changes more slowly. The thinner ice is more vulnerable to weather and wind so the observed changes are now more variable, not just dominated by warming.

[MultiVerse]

Arctic Sea Ice Is the Thinnest and Youngest It's Been in 60 Years:

[k2skier112]

Ron, Ron. What is your argument exactly? Your obfuscation continues unabated. What do you believe?

I and most other thinking people believe what 97% of scientists say. Global warming is happening and is being driven by human behaviour.

Here is a short list from NASA of a few scientific organizations and their statements regarding the topic.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2



American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3



American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4



American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5



American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6



American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7



American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8



The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International Academies: Joint Statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10



U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES



U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES



Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

U.S. Agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/upl...-are-doing.pdf

*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.



sent from Utah.

Rj's goal, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit

[SumJongGuy]

Since the start of MASIE records in 2006, there has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent:
Attachment 295429

Since 2006?? Look at some other records that go back farther.. And Extent <> Volume..

[SumJongGuy]

Hey ron.. Can tourniquets be used to stop global warming?

[SB]

they should get her started on the federal budget

[basinbeater]

Double post...

[basinbeater]

[QUOTE=basinbeater;5765049]

I've said all this many times before, but I guess I'll do it again.

I believe that humans have contributed to warming the earth. How much? I don't know, nor does anyone else. Is the warming dangerous? I'm very skeptical, especially with regards to any claims about catastrophes and extinctions.

What I do know:
1) The media/activists/scientists/agencies are constantly exaggerating, conflating, and straight up lying about anything related to global warming. Once you become aware, it becomes impossible to ignore. They have lost any credibility with me. I have reached a point where I do not trust anything they say.

And Exxon strategists see another case of successful obfuscation.

sent from Utah.



sent from Utah.

[neufox47]

I assume you mean they are getting worse, since these patterns are always changing. They aren't getting worse.



Ignore data pre 1960 and you can make that claim.



Not quite. IPCC AR15 had this to say:

Observed global changes in the water cycle, including precipitation, are more uncertain than observed changes in temperature (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). There is high confidence that mean precipitation over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1951 (Hartmann et al., 2013). For other latitudinal zones, area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence because of poor data quality, incomplete data or disagreement amongst available estimates (Hartmann et al., 2013). There is, in particular, low confidence regarding observed trends in precipitation in monsoon regions, according to the SREX report (Seneviratne et al., 2012) and AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013), as well as more recent publications (Singh et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Bichet and Diedhiou, 2018; see Supplementary Material 3.SM.2).

For heavy precipitation, AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013) assessed that observed trends displayed more areas with increases than decreases in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (likely). In addition, for land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for evaluation, it was assessed that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century (Bindoff et al., 2013a)



Nope.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/...mate-alarmism/

While I already established that you can’t read basic graphs, have no understanding of statistics, now you use this paragraph to dispute that extreme rainfall events aren’t increasing. Can you even read at an 8th grade level?

For heavy precipitation, AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013) assessed that observed trends displayed more areas with increases than decreases in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (likely). In addition, for land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for evaluation, it was assessed that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century (Bindoff et al., 2013a)

[neufox47]

i'd like to do neither thank you. now if Jennifer Anniston is offering that, just let me know where to make my climate alarmist donation.

I’m sure your old, ignorant, obtuse, Solaris driving, government bureaucrat ass is doing way better.

[Game Over]

they should get her started on the federal budget

Why is Violet from Willie Wonka getting so many memes made about her?

[SkiCougar]

I’m sure your old, ignorant, obtuse, Solaris driving, government bureaucrat ass is doing way better.

i'm sorry to correct but not old, not ignorant, read 40 books a year for past 7 years, not govt bureaucrat; i'm an interface programmer for a hospital system and I would never drive anything but a jeep.

i'll grant you obtuse, but I read 40 books a year; most people read 4; feels like i'm trying to talk to squirrels most times; so yes; I most likely come off obtuse.

well, we have our server problems resolved today that allowed me to hang out here so much past two days; so I have work to do.

i'll let you all get back to your version of ticks on a dog that you have going in this thread.

[MultiVerse]

i'll grant you obtuse, but I read 40 books a year; most people read 4; feels like i'm trying to talk to squirrels most times; so yes; I most likely come off obtuse.

Not all books are correct or useful and if a person tends toward confirmation bias then in spite of his or her best efforts they still end up deliberately uninformed.

[SumJongGuy]

Not all books are correct or useful and if a person tends toward confirmation bias then in spite of his or her best efforts they still end up deliberately uninformed.

Betting several of those books were Ayn Rand claiming that very complex issues are actually quite simple, and individual will (called freedom) and unbridled market forces are the answer to all of those complex issues.

[TBS]

... I read 40 books a year; most people read 4; feels like i'm trying to talk to squirrels most times; so yes; I most likely come off obtuse.

It doesn't count if your 40 books come with crayons

[reckless toboggan]

It doesn't count if your 40 books come with crayons

Well what else is he gonna shove up his nose then?

[SumJongGuy]

It doesn't count if your 40 books come with crayons

That would qualify him as an editor at Breitbart and InfoWars.

[Dantheman]

Part of me wants to sit back and watch the disaster that a GND type plan would cause. I can picture WMD up in Montana freezing his ass of in the middle of winter because the sun hasn't been out for weeks and the wind isn't blowing. Meanwhile, energy prices have skyrocketed, the country is $30 trillion in debt, and half the country is unemployed. All for some city living environmentalist fantasies that will have a negligible effect on CO2 induced warming anyway.

Similar apocalyptic claims abounded prior to the passage of every major piece of environmental legislation enacted in the late 20th century. How'd that work out?

i'm sorry to correct but not old, not ignorant, read 40 books a year for past 7 years, not govt bureaucrat; i'm an interface programmer for a hospital system and I would never drive anything but a jeep.

i'll grant you obtuse, but I read 40 books a year; most people read 4; feels like i'm trying to talk to squirrels most times; so yes; I most likely come off obtuse.

40 books a year, and yet you can't grasp basic scientific principles like the GWP of trace quantities of GHGs, which are simple enough to determine that they were accurately quantified in the 19th century and regularly confirmed by high school science students. You should confirm your hypothesis by breathing air dosed with 0.1% carbon monoxide. It's only 0.1%, what could possibly happen?*


* - Please don't actually do this. My personal feelings about you aside, I'd really rather not see you die.

[neufox47]

i'm sorry to correct but not old, not ignorant, read 40 books a year for past 7 years, not govt bureaucrat; i'm an interface programmer for a hospital system and I would never drive anything but a jeep.

i'll grant you obtuse, but I read 40 books a year; most people read 4; feels like i'm trying to talk to squirrels most times; so yes; I most likely come off obtuse.

well, we have our server problems resolved today that allowed me to hang out here so much past two days; so I have work to do.

i'll let you all get back to your version of ticks on a dog that you have going in this thread.

Just because you aren’t collecting SS doesn’t mean you aren’t old. When was the last time a chick in her 20’s was interested in you?

Sorry, Solstice or whatever you call that Pontiac convertible abomination.

Your writing style, if one can call that word and ; salad a writing a style, counters your claim of education. Along with your inability to grasp basic concepts. Only an ignorant or stupid person would make the claims you do. Take your pick.

[neufox47]

I would agree with sports is not end all be all, but for some it is, he quit on them, his players and coaches; no pass on that for me.

and I quit buying tickets to all sporting events with the occasional exception of a game maybe once a season years ago; so I contribute nothing to their player salaries; so good for me too.

Skougs take on Andrew Luck retiring. This was one of my favs. Tell us more about how smart and educated you are.

[ron johnson]

This goes double for many of Ron's posts. Ron and his sources are constantly exaggerating, conflating, and straight up lying.

On this page, for example, Ron's chart of the MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent) plays games with the trendline. When I download the data and charted it in Excel (which took about a minute ) there was small downward trend.


The point, however, is not to look at the trend because the big picture shows a steep decades long decline in thick ice. Even though the Arctic sea ice extent appears to be only slowly trending downwards in recent years the proportions of what was once thick perennial ice has changed in favor of the new seasonal ice.

Because the thick multiyear ice is disappearing, Arctic sea ice changes more slowly. The thinner ice is more vulnerable to weather and wind so the observed changes are now more variable, not just dominated by warming.

The MASIE graph was posted in response to SumJong's link about how the Arctic ecosystem is collapsing from a loss of sea ice extent. They weren't claiming the ecosystem was collapsing due to a lack of thicker ice.

[MultiVerse]

The MASIE graph was posted in response to SumJong's link about how the Arctic ecosystem is collapsing from a loss of sea ice extent. They weren't claiming the ecosystem was collapsing due to a lack of thicker ice.

I read SumJong's link before responding to your post and the article does in fact raise concerns over thin ice as well as ice formed late in the season:

Other dangers facing the Arctic were highlighted by Professor Julienne Stroeve, of University College London. “Consider the example of harp seals,” she said. “They often give birth on snow mounds on sea ice. But if that sea ice is thin or formed late it breaks and the seal pups are dumped into the ocean and they drown.” In addition, Stroeve pointed to the problem of increasing numbers of warm spells during which rain falls instead of snow. “That rain then freezes on the ground and forms a hard coating that prevents reindeer and caribou from finding food under the snow,” she added.

....

It is a problem of synchronicity. The alignment of different lifecycles is being disrupted by sea ice loss and it is affecting animals on both land and in the ocean.

Off topic, and more weather than climate, but touring sucks when it rains at elevation and then freezes. It's a lot sketchier especially when skinning compared with a typical overnight refreeze.

[ron johnson]

While I already established that you can’t read basic graphs, have no understanding of statistics, now you use this paragraph to dispute that extreme rainfall events aren’t increasing. Can you even read at an 8th grade level?

For heavy precipitation, AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013) assessed that observed trends displayed more areas with increases than decreases in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (likely). In addition, for land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for evaluation, it was assessed that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century (Bindoff et al., 2013a)

Sorry, but I don't equate extreme rainfall events with vague heavy precipitation trends. "More areas with increases than decreases in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (likely)" - What does that even mean? is it 65/35? 55/45? And when the IPCC says likely, it means it has a >66% likelihood.

However, I do consider monsoons to be extreme rainfall events, and they say, "there is, in particular, low confidence regarding observed trends in precipitation in monsoon regions."

Further, I would expect to find worsening flooding events with more extreme rainfall events, but thats not happening either.