Results 2,401 to 2,425 of 3644
-
10-25-2019, 12:18 PM #2401Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,731
You know what Ron? Your insights are so convincing (dare I say revelatory?) that I think you should write your opinions up as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. It will be earthshaking -- you'll really turn thinking on climate upside down.
-
10-25-2019, 12:21 PM #2402Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-25-2019, 12:21 PM #2403Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,731
-
10-25-2019, 12:23 PM #2404Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,731
-
10-25-2019, 12:42 PM #2405
- Good thing Ron wants to leave "the substance of the arguments out of it" because substance it is not. It's an attempt to confound by manufacturing controversy because Ron is essentially arguing against the greenhouse effect every time he disputes CO2's role in regulating temperature.
-- For example, water vapor is the most significant for Earth’s greenhouse effect but water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, it is controlled by the temperature. The greenhouse effect that maintains the Earth’s temperature is controlled mainly by CO2, with smaller contributions from CH4, N2O, and O3. Ron even posted a Wikipedia article with a chart arguing against this concept to support his "cooling force" theory, even though his article directly contradicted his "cooling force" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg
--- Ron also argued against the greenhouse effect saying it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 gas concentration which is the most powerful forcing agent. This position is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.
---- Ron's Eocene article doesn't negate the uplift weathering or hydrolysis explanation from the previous page. Uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of an effect (climate sensitivity) may exist. But as with anthropogenic global warming where the basic radiative physics of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is unassailable, the broad view of the India-Asia collision effects on both regional and global climate are accepted. These big picture macro events happened in our geologic past.Last edited by MultiVerse; 10-25-2019 at 07:11 PM.
-
10-25-2019, 12:52 PM #2406
This is well beyond Ron's mental capacity so a separate post for the Venus, Earth, Mars greenhouse gas (GHG) explanation on the off chance anyone else is interested:
The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a planetary process that happened in the past due to solar radiation, planetary CO2 plus other GHGs, and H2O. If a planet, like Venus, absorbs solar radiation well beyond equilibrium so that the absorbed radiation raises temperatures beyond the planet’s ability trap water vapor in its lower atmosphere, a steam upper atmosphere develops and much the hydrogen in water is lost into space.
With water cooked off, and silicate weathering reactions that extract CO2 from the atmosphere no longer happening, CO2 reaches high concentration levels. As a result, and the opposite of Mars, a thick dense CO2 atmosphere develops. Venus now has a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere, and a surface pressure of nearly 100 Earth atmospheres. This widens its GHG solar heat absorption spectrum raising the ground temperature to ~850 degrees Fahrenheit.
In contrast, even though the surface partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is higher than on Earth, there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the amount of solar radiation Mars receives to raise the temperature to create the water vapor necessary for chemical weathering and increase CO2 concentration. Note for Ron concentration is not the same thing as composition %.
Even though Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in a narrower GHG solar absorption spectrum and so more heat is lost into space.
All of this calculated using Radiative Transfer Equations to get the greenhouse energy for each planet. The equations are based on physical laws that have been verified by experiments on Earth. The math corresponds with observations of Earth, Venus, and Mars.
Infrared radiative transfer theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century, has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the connection between global warming and greenhouse gases.
More here: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
-
10-25-2019, 01:19 PM #2407
-
10-25-2019, 03:54 PM #2408Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 10,525
-
10-25-2019, 04:32 PM #2409
Yeah, I don't know enough about bots to say if Ron is one, but he is a pretty good troll. His goal is to keep the science argument going so that it seems that there really is doubt, even when real climate scientists have none. The fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create the bullshit "science" he keeps going to, so he has a nearly endless supply of it to respond to any real science anyone posts. As long as he has a reply and can cite sources for the bullshit, he will. He doesn't care if it is easy to see through or total bullshit. He just wants to keep the "discussion" going so it seems like the science isn't settled.
He follows the troll playbook pretty well, and thus is a good troll. Spew bullshit. Counter facts with bullshit, claiming it is true even when it doesn't make sense or counter the argument he is attacking. Overwhelm people with the volume of "science" he presents, with hopes people won't actually look into it. When they do, name call and call people stupid to lure them into more bullshit arguments on a personal basis.
He isn't trying to win an argument against MV and other knowlegeable posters as much as he's trying to confuse those who don't follow this issue closely. His goal is to make it seem like this is a real debate, and thus, by extension, that there is a real debate about climate change.
The science is settled, and there is not a real debate among climate scientists about it.
Climate change is real. It is happening.
Human activity is the main cause.
There's scientific consensus on human caused global warming.
The impacts are serious and will be much worse if we don't act.
We have the technology to avoid the worst impacts.
The debate should be about how we solve this problem, but the longer we wait to start the more limited our options become.
Hate big government and super expensive solutions? Then get on climate action now. Postpone action on climate and the only solution will be big government swooping in to take over industries and force policies that are are very expensive to avoid total collapse.
-
10-25-2019, 04:43 PM #2410
I haven't ignored the attacks you receive, you really can't do anything about them, except try to maintain some class like MV does.
In the past, you have neither acknowledged the ad hominem attacks you make nor made an attempt to understand what other people are saying.
I might agree that most climate change alarmists don't really pay attention to the data. And the alarmists are on both sides of the theory, ron.
Then again, I'll accept your own reason: you're lost in the argument and exhibit all the properties you've listed.Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
10-25-2019, 09:09 PM #2411Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
So are you saying that if we keep all other variables constant, but increase solar output, water vapor won't increase?
It's so funny you keep bringing up your useless chart. How many times do I have to tell you that chart is showing the different radiative forces for year 2005. Year 2005 doesn't represent the whole of history.
How exactly does the article contradict the concept of cooling forces?
--- Ron also argued against the greenhouse effect saying it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 gas concentration which is the most powerful forcing agent. This position is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.
---- Ron's Eocene article doesn't negate the uplift weathering or hydrolysis explanation from the previous page. Uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of an effect (climate sensitivity) may exist. But as with anthropogenic global warming where the basic radiative physics of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is unassailable, the broad view of the India-Asia collision effects on both regional and global climate are accepted. These big picture macro events happened in our geologic past.
"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."
And somehow you try to use my wikipedia article against me because of this one sentence:
"Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years."
Somehow you don't understand that this is a theory, and even if this theory is correct, it doesn't explain everything before 55 million years ago. I'm still waiting for your explanation on what happened 145mm years ago, 290mm years ago, and 439mm years ago.
-
10-25-2019, 09:13 PM #2412Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-25-2019, 09:18 PM #2413Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-25-2019, 09:24 PM #2414Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
It seems you believe money corrupts. So I'm just wondering, why do you think the 100's of millions of dollars that have been spent on climate research by the fossil fuel industry is corrupted, but the billions spent by governments on anthropogenic global warming research each year isn't?
-
10-25-2019, 09:44 PM #2415
That's another lie. Do you consult with Republicans?
Look, I really wonder what your point is. I mean, do you have some mad illusion that you're actually going to convince somebody acting like this? What's the goal? Are you freally trying to learn something?
I get it about the insults people made, lots of assholes out there. But one can never out asshole the assholes. And yeah, the tidy butt types of Hollywood do want to impress that their assholes are cleaner than yours, completely annoying, like the snotty pricks in high school, huh?
But, that's not what this is really about.
Science isn't about being right or wrong, it's about theories and discussions and data and polemics and paradigms. I read the graphs differently than you do, I don't think you're reading them correctly.
But hey, you know, it's OK, I hope eventually the data will convince most people that we are having an impact on our environment and maybe we have just enough hubris to not die in our own waste like colonies of bacteria do.
And if that's not true, we'll get what we deserve.Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
10-25-2019, 10:12 PM #2416
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.
-
10-26-2019, 12:03 AM #2417
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.
-
10-26-2019, 09:05 AM #2418
-
10-26-2019, 01:05 PM #2419
Completely normal. Nothing to see here.
Northern California could experience a "potentially historic" wind event this weekend, according to officials at the National Weather Service -- a development that could have a dangerous effect on the wildfires that are ravaging the area.
Dry winds up to 65 mph could lead to downed trees and power lines, as well as erratic and dangerous fire growth, bringing even more critical fire conditions to parts of the Golden State.
As of Saturday morning, the Kincade Fire in Sonoma and Lake County had burned 25,455 acres and was 10% contained, according to Cal Fire. At least 49 structures had been destroyed, with another 23,500 at risk of being damaged, the agency said
Jonathon Cox, the division chief at Cal Fire, described the wind as having a possible "explosive" effect on the fire.
More than 2,000 people were ordered to evacuate in the community of Geyserville. Residents in Gifford Springs, Whispering Pines, Anderson Springs, Adams Springs, Hobergs and Cobb were issued an evacuation warning.
Authorities asked the public in the affected areas to stay home unless they were being evacuated.
The Kincade Fire started three days ago in the same area that a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) transmission tower broke, according to a report from the company.
Around 1,000 PG&E customers in Sonoma County are still without power, and there is no estimate to when it will be restored, according to the company.
If the wind conditions hit California as expected, PG&E said approximately 850,000 customers could have their power shut off starting Saturday afternoon. The preemptive shutoffs are for safety, the company said, to help prevent fires from sparking.
The Tick Fire, in Southern California, has burned 4,615 acres and was 25% contained as of Saturday morning, after erupting Thursday in Los Angeles County, Cal Fire reported. The fire's containment level was up substantially from Friday evening, when it was only 5% contained.
At least nine structures have been destroyed as a result of that wildfire, according to Cal Fire.
Evacuation orders were issued, but some residents have since been allowed to return home.
High pressure building across the Pacific will nudge eastward beginning Saturday and through the next few days, bringing dry north to northeasterly winds into parts of the West.
In Northern California, wind gusts will gradually increase throughout Saturday then peak on Sunday. Relative humidity could be as low as 8%, bringing extremely critical fire weather on Sunday, such that any fire that ignites could rapidly spread out of control.
PG&E to Shut Off Power for Nearly 1 Million Customers as Californians Flee Fires
HEALDSBURG, Calif. — Officials said Saturday that they would be shutting off power for almost a million customers in Northern California amid fears that the Kincade Fire would spread because of intensifying winds. They also issued a mandatory evacuation order for about 50,000 residents in Sonoma County.
The power shut-off by PG&E, an attempt to avoid more fires, would be the largest for a wildfire prevention measure in California history. The utility said shut-offs to 940,000 homes and businesses — which could affect millions of people — would begin on Saturday afternoon and last as long as two days.
Cal Fire officials said on Saturday that by preparing for the “worst-case scenario,” they were hoping to avoid the devastation that the Tubbs Fire wrought in the region in 2017, killing 22 people and destroying 5,600 buildings.
“This is a life-threatening situation and a danger to our entire town,” said Dominic Foppoli, the mayor of the Town of Windsor, which is about 60 miles north of San Francisco and whose nearly 28,000 residents were ordered to evacuate. Officials also ordered the evacuations of all 12,000 residents of Healdsburg, a nearby city.
The Kincade blaze, which has consumed 25,455 acres, started Wednesday and has been fueled by the steep topography of the densely forested area. It was 10 percent contained on Saturday morning and had forced 2,000 people to evacuate earlier in the week.
Winds are forecast to reach 80 miles per hour and are expected to pick up Saturday evening, with some of the strongest winds blowing through between 3 a.m. and 10 a.m. Sunday.
Anxiety was growing on Saturday, as local governments tried to calm those whose lights will go out — again — just as the sun begins to fade.
“You can imagine there’s frustration,” said Molly Rattigan, a spokeswoman for Napa County, where 9,500 utility customers could lose power. “For some of those impacted, this is the third time that their power will be turned off. The third time in two weeks.”
County officials have been trying to emphasize to residents that PG&E is calling the shots. The utility pre-emptively shut off power to more than 27,000 customers in Sonoma County this past week as part of an effort to prevent sparks from its equipment during dry and windy conditions. While a state investigation will be required to determine the cause of the Kincade Fire, the utility has said a transmission tower nearby malfunctioned shortly before it began.
Andy Vesey, PG&E’s chief executive for utility operations, said drought, dead trees, high winds and low humidity had combined for a potential disaster even more severe than some other recent fires.
“These places we all love have effectively become tinder boxes,” Mr. Vesey said. “This is an extraordinary change that we’re living through. At this moment it is part of our lives in California and part of keeping us safe.”
Some of the people who previously evacuated had stayed at a Red Cross shelter in Healdsburg, which volunteers said housed 156 people on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
Emir Ruiz was one of the many workers from nearby vineyards who had come to the shelter with little more than a white trash bag holding some spare clothes.
By Friday afternoon, he also had a mask to help stave off the smoke. But Mr. Ruiz, who is from the Mexican state of Guanajuato, said he and his co-workers were unsure when they might be able to return home.
Cristian Calvillo, 19, was nearing the 24-hour mark as a Red Cross volunteer at the shelter on Friday. He and his family had to evacuate during the Wine Country fires in 2017, which inspired him to prepare to help others during another disaster.
“It’s scary,” Mr. Calvillo said. “It’s not too long ago, what happened, and now they’re back in the same situation moving out of their houses. Some people will lose their houses.”
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
10-26-2019, 02:35 PM #2420Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
If you don't believe me go back and look at our post history. MV confirms as much.
The only thing I have been trying to do with my involvement in this thread is to pushback on the blatantly false propaganda that I was seeing getting posted in here all the time. I have never been trying to convince anyone global warming is fake or whatever, or what is going to happen in the future. I have my own opinions, but I'm not trying to force them on anyone. I have certainly questioned why I even bother, given it seems no one cares about the truth, only what fits their world view.
And yes, I have learned from this discussion.
-
10-26-2019, 02:38 PM #2421Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
10-26-2019, 02:50 PM #2422Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
10-26-2019, 02:53 PM #2423Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-26-2019, 05:41 PM #2424
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
-
10-27-2019, 10:26 AM #2425
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.
Bookmarks