More on global warming

karenmansker said:
Meanwhile . . . back at the ranch! . . . . sorry to members for not participaating recently. I was banned on Jun 5 by Kittmaru for posting my opinions and requests for additional information. During my hiatus, however, I found this interesting tid-bit that seems to support my position(s):

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/new-scientific-study-demolishes-liberal-climate-change-arguments
Click to expand...

Hmm, let's spot check their claims.

"Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C."

Current temperature in Barrow, Alaska (northernmost point in Alaska) - 46F.
Temperature on Jan 1 2017 - from a low of 19F to a high of 36F. (Source - https://www.wunderground.com/histor..._statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo)

First claim - BUSTED.

"In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago."

Arctic ice extent April 1, 2004 - 14.798 million km^2.
Arctic ice extent April 1, 2017 - 14.175 million km^2. (Source - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/)

Second claim - BUSTED.

"Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick."

If that's true, then total volume must be larger (similar ice coverage, thicker ice.) What's the reality?

2010 volume in April -25000 km^3 (earliest year they have data for)
2017 volume in March - 21000 km^3

And the data shows a steady decline. (Source - http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/volume-and-concentration/)

Third claim - BUSTED.

OK so the first three claims are false. What's going on here? What is this source you used? The Federalist Papers?

From MediaBiasFactCheck: "The Federalist Papers Project has overt right wing bias in reporting. It often publishes misleading news stories and conspiracies that amount to fake news. Has a horrible track record with fact checking."

From MediaMatters:
==========
The Federalist Papers Project is a hyperpartisan right-wing website that traffics in clickbait headlines, racist content, and misleading stories. . . .

The hyperpartisan right-wing website regularly pushes outlandish articles that border on fake news. Similar to websites known as fake news purveyors that share a combination of fake news and other types of content -- like real news or misleading information -- the Federalist Papers Project publishes its stories with exaggerated clickbait headlines, out-of-context quotes, and racist themes.
=======

Sounds about right.
 
billvon said:
Hmm, let's spot check their claims.

"Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C."

Current temperature in Barrow, Alaska (northernmost point in Alaska) - 46F.
Temperature on Jan 1 2017 - from a low of 19F to a high of 36F. (Source - https://www.wunderground.com/histor..._statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo)

First claim - BUSTED.

"In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago."

Arctic ice extent April 1, 2004 - 14.798 million km^2.
Arctic ice extent April 1, 2017 - 14.175 million km^2. (Source - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/)

Second claim - BUSTED.

"Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick."

If that's true, then total volume must be larger (similar ice coverage, thicker ice.) What's the reality?

2010 volume in April -25000 km^3 (earliest year they have data for)
2017 volume in March - 21000 km^3

And the data shows a steady decline. (Source - http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/volume-and-concentration/)

Third claim - BUSTED.

OK so the first three claims are false. What's going on here? What is this source you used? The Federalist Papers?

From MediaBiasFactCheck: "The Federalist Papers Project has overt right wing bias in reporting. It often publishes misleading news stories and conspiracies that amount to fake news. Has a horrible track record with fact checking."

From MediaMatters:
==========
The Federalist Papers Project is a hyperpartisan right-wing website that traffics in clickbait headlines, racist content, and misleading stories. . . .

The hyperpartisan right-wing website regularly pushes outlandish articles that border on fake news. Similar to websites known as fake news purveyors that share a combination of fake news and other types of content -- like real news or misleading information -- the Federalist Papers Project publishes its stories with exaggerated clickbait headlines, out-of-context quotes, and racist themes.
=======

Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Sorry to upset you billvon . . . . I'm just the messenger who provided the MSN link . . . no one is requiring that you take it as gospel. Believe what you will.
 
BTW Kittmaru, if you can recall, I sent you a messsage during my recent ban stating that I was indeed CORRECT in my suspicion that another member (Joe, I think) was not accurately representing Con Ed's opinion that "wind power is considered by them to be a viable profitable energy source" alternative. I actually contacted a Con Ed VP via email and she stated that they had NEVER said what was claimed by Joe. Just wanted to - in all fairness - remind you of this FACT regarding your stated reason(s) for my ban.
 
karenmansker said:
Sorry to upset you billvon . . . . I'm just the messenger who provided the MSN link . . . no one is requiring that you take it as gospel. Believe what you will
Click to expand...
You posted a link to falsehood and politically motivated, political agenda aligned, bs, and described it as supporting your opinions.

Are your opinions well and truly supported by falsehood and political bs? Is that source typical of the sources you rely on for factual information - along with anonymous power company executives, of course? http://www.elp.com/articles/2017/02/con-edison-creates-new-energy-company.html
 
karenmansker said:
Sorry to upset you billvon . . . . I'm just the messenger who provided the MSN link . . . no one is requiring that you take it as gospel. Believe what you will.
Click to expand...
You are not "just the messenger". You told us you are citing that information source in support of a position you have taken. So you endorse it.

And you have chosen a biased source with no credibility.
 
karenmansker said:
At least NOW I know that: "At least now you know it's fake news" is your (and some others!) biased opinion!
Click to expand...
It would be more impressive if you could quote a source that we might all be able to agree was reliable. A reputable newspaper, TV channel magazine or scientific journal would do nicely.
 
sculptor said:
In considering a warmer world:
Don't forget mis 11
Click to expand...
Nobody is forgetting the warmings of the past. Many researchers are - in the US a bit desperately, even, and with Republican funding cuts looming - mining them for clues as to what may be in store from AGW.

1) We aren't considering "a warmer world" - the new equilibrium, if any, is a thousand years away. We're considering a rapidly warming world, from unprecedented greenhouse gas forcing.
2) MIS 11 was apparently a Milankovitch warm spell - a slow, gentle, moderate warming that did not disproportionately affect winter nights or high latitudes. Nevertheless, its sea level rises appear to have been a meter or more per century at their quickest - a warning. http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/rohling10epsl_72104.pdf
3) The northern hemisphere winter nights during MIS 11 were apparently cooler than the winter nights now, even in the middle of its 50 thousand year run - and they are still rapidly warming now. Several such factors separate a greenhouse gas driven warming from the insolation driven warmings of the past. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213009622
Note the overall slow and gentle nature of Milankovitch warming did not preclude sudden and major changes in climate over areas significant to human agriculture now:
The overall picture is that MIS 11 was a relatively warm interglacial in comparison to preindustrial, with Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer temperatures early in MIS 11 (416–410 ka) warmer than preindustrial, though winters were cooler. Later in MIS 11, especially around 400 ka, conditions were cooler in the NH summer, mainly in the high latitudes. Climate changes simulated by the models were mainly driven by insolation changes, with the exception of two local feedbacks that amplify climate changes. Here, the NH high latitudes, where reductions in sea ice cover lead to a winter warming early in MIS 11, as well as the tropics, where monsoon changes lead to stronger climate variations than one would expect on the basis of latitudinal mean insolation change alone, are especially prominent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
karenmansker said:
At least NOW I know that: "At least now you know it's fake news" is your (and some others!) biased opinion!
Click to expand...
Well then go to the source. Thefederlistpapers.com cited the 'most recent findings' from the DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute). The DMI site does not seem to have any of those findings, what it does have is a lot of information supporting global warming.

So thefederlistpapers.com did not accurately reflect what the most recent findings of the DMI was. So either the thefederlistpapers.com website is putting out fake news or they are just illiterate morons.

It doesn't matter anyway, you will believe what you want to believe - facts are simply annoyances that can be ignored.
 
karenmansker said:
At least NOW I know that: "At least now you know it's fake news" is your (and some others!) biased opinion!
Click to expand...
Uh - no. I proved it was fake using data from three different sources. When a news article is contradicted by actual facts, it's fake news.

So now you know it's fake. (Unless politics is more important than facts to you.)
 
karenmansker said:
Meanwhile . . . back at the ranch! . . . . sorry to members for not participaating recently. I was banned on Jun 5 by Kittmaru for posting my opinions and requests for additional information. During my hiatus, however, I found this interesting tid-bit that seems to support my position(s):

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/new-scientific-study-demolishes-liberal-climate-change-arguments
Click to expand...
From the DMI (danish meteorological institute) website:

This switch to new algorithms has led to small changes in the trends of sea ice extent since the first year of the data set, but it has not changed the general picture of ice extent decline.

Also:

Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.
 
300px-Ice_Age_Temperature.png


consider that warming seems to have always been much faster than cooling?
(The nature of the beast?)
 
karenmansker said:
But . . . .but . . . . but . . . . I found it on the internet! . . . so, it MUST be TRUE!! . . . . . . HAHAHA! (<---Humor here!!)
Click to expand...
You must be Magical Realist's long-lost twin. That's what he does: put something forward seriously and then make out it was a joke when the source is exposed as false.
 
sculptor said:
consider that warming seems to have always been much faster than cooling?
(The nature of the beast?)
Click to expand...
Yep - the pros seem to think that's one of the effects of ice melt and CO2 increases, which feed back into the Milankovitch insolation changes.

Of course, skipping the insolation increase and leading off with an even larger and quicker CO2 boost (and consequent ice melt) accentuates that. So whatever happened back then is likely to hit much harder, as well as faster, now.

And it will take at least as long to recover.
 
karenmansker:

karenmansker said:
Sorry to upset you billvon . . . . I'm just the messenger who provided the MSN link . . . no one is requiring that you take it as gospel. Believe what you will.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this right.

You decided to post a link to something you just happened to find on the internet. It isn't anything you think is true yourself, and you don't "take it as gospel" yourself. And it's not important to you whether the information in the link you provided is true or false.

Is that a correct assessment of your post?
 
I find it interesting that one can usually predict other's views on global warming/anthropogenic global warming/climate change based on their political leanings.

curious, that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top