Weather or climate?

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
Seems like a highly legit news source there LOL.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,990
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Seems like a highly legit news source there LOL.
You weren't smart enough to check out the sources they used. Perhaps you should stick to something you may know about, like LensCrafters store hours.
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
You weren't smart enough to check out the sources they used. Perhaps you should stick to something you may know about, like LensCrafters store hours.
5 links. 2 are newspaper articles, one from 1939 and one from 1950. WOW.

My point stands.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,794
Reaction score
808
Points
113
5 links. 2 are newspaper articles, one from 1939 and one from 1950. WOW.

My point stands.
To be fair, the article cited the articles from 1939 and 1950 that they were concerned about melting back then, and then the ice came back. I don't know how these two citations take away the credibility from the article.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,713
Reaction score
1,499
Points
113
To be fair, the article cited the articles from 1939 and 1950 that they were concerned about melting back then, and then the ice came back. I don't know how these two citations take away the credibility from the article.
You don't have to know. You just have to take their word for it.
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
That you have no interest in it if it contradicts what you believe.
Really really lazy answer and disappointing.

Now click the link, and take a look at the website. It'll take you less than 60 seconds to look through.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,990
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Simple facts too much for Dr Nearsighted to comprehend.
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
Simple facts too much for Dr Nearsighted to comprehend.
As long as you are here too, might as well include you on this teachable moment.

What's your take on the website you linked in this thread?
 

Kuato Lives!

Delvin, MN
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
0
Points
36
How long does it take for your WebTV browser to load that site?
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,990
Reaction score
147
Points
63
As long as you are here too, might as well include you on this teachable moment.

What's your take on the website you linked in this thread?
The reason you stay so dumb on science and well, routine issues is that you appear to be unable to rationally assimilate fact and related information. I am not concerned about who the accumulators are, I am concerned about the validity of the content. Now go grind some lens. You aren't going to learn anything.
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
160
Points
63
The reason you stay so dumb on science and well, routine issues is that you appear to be unable to rationally assimilate fact and related information. I am not concerned about who the accumulators are, I am concerned about the validity of the content. Now go grind some lens. You aren't going to learn anything.
Oh look, you're deflecting and lying. Again. :rolleyes: You are pathetic.

You probably should've looked more closely. The anonymous blogger who's post your using here took materials from those sources out of context and misrepresented them. For instance, the article this post links regarding the Greenland ice sheets...how they've been increasing recently. The poster conveniently skips over this passage:

"Overall, initial figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year. If confirmed, this would mark a one-year blip in the long-term trend of year-on-year declines over recent decades.

The unusual year is mainly down to heavy snow and rain in winter and a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season. And the source of that bumper winter snowfall was the remnants of a hurricane that wreaked widespread damage 4,500km away in Bermuda.
"

The hurricane referenced is Hurricane Nicole. This passage negates most of the images used in this post, as it shows the author pulled images for proof, but without considering what other factors were at influence.

The author also only references a single glacier increasing in size to support the claims of the post, while failing to address the endless number of glaciers (also with satellite imagery) that are receding.

Also, you may notice that every post on that website is by the same username...this is nothing more than a personal blog. Notice how there's no description or "about" section located anywhere on the entire website? How...convenient.

Diehard, you really got punked by the post you linked.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
Closed circuit to Gopher Weather Guy:

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
The reason you stay so dumb on science and well, routine issues is that you appear to be unable to rationally assimilate fact and related information. I am not concerned about who the accumulators are, I am concerned about the validity of the content. Now go grind some lens. You aren't going to learn anything.
Science? Do you believe in evolution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,565
Reaction score
496
Points
83
As long as you are here too, might as well include you on this teachable moment.

What's your take on the website you linked in this thread?
Dude, DH has put you in a escape proof box this entire thread. Time to take a couple days off and regroup. IALTO!:clap:
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
12,226
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Sooo.....Two devastating earthquakes in a week and 3 mega hurricanes in the last few weeks.
Yup, things are status quo.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,990
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Oh look, you're deflecting and lying. Again. :rolleyes: You are pathetic.

You probably should've looked more closely. The anonymous blogger who's post your using here took materials from those sources out of context and misrepresented them. For instance, the article this post links regarding the Greenland ice sheets...how they've been increasing recently. The poster conveniently skips over this passage:

"Overall, initial figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year. If confirmed, this would mark a one-year blip in the long-term trend of year-on-year declines over recent decades.

The unusual year is mainly down to heavy snow and rain in winter and a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season. And the source of that bumper winter snowfall was the remnants of a hurricane that wreaked widespread damage 4,500km away in Bermuda.
"

The hurricane referenced is Hurricane Nicole. This passage negates most of the images used in this post, as it shows the author pulled images for proof, but without considering what other factors were at influence.

The author also only references a single glacier increasing in size to support the claims of the post, while failing to address the endless number of glaciers (also with satellite imagery) that are receding.

Also, you may notice that every post on that website is by the same username...this is nothing more than a personal blog. Notice how there's no description or "about" section located anywhere on the entire website? How...convenient.

Diehard, you really got punked by the post you linked.
You do not know it, but you have really embarrassed yourself. Not everyone who reads this is a stupid progressive who buys any fictitious account associated with AGW.

So to the original question. Weather or climate? (Don't worry that one is too much for you.)
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,850
Reaction score
426
Points
83
You do not know it, but you have really embarrassed yourself. Not everyone who reads this is a stupid progressive who buys any fictitious account associated with AGW.

So to the original question. Weather or climate? (Don't worry that one is too much for you.)
If it is so easily refuted, take a shot, Little Stick.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,713
Reaction score
1,499
Points
113
Sooo.....Two devastating earthquakes in a week and 3 mega hurricanes in the last few weeks.
Yup, things are status quo.
I remember the winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15 as two of the coldest in my life time. But we were told by the climate scientists that you can't use short-term, regional weather to evaluate Climate Change.

Then there's this from the scientists that advocate Global Climate Change:

...the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report assigns a rating of “low confidence” to attributing any human contributions (that is, increasing greenhouse gas emissions) to changes in tropical cyclone activity.

Harvey and Irma are the first two Category 3 or above storms to make landfall in the United States since Katrina in 2005. That’s 12 years without a major storm.

From an Op-Ed in the Hill that referenced the UN Intergovernmental Panel:
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...-hurricanes-and-global-warming?rnd=1505497968

Evaluating Climate Change based on short term observations is unwise. Even the Climate Scientists and NOAA are saying that Harvey and Irma aren't the result of climate change.
Not very scientific of you ruppert!
 
Top Bottom