• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:320]Bandwagon Of Doom Washed Away By Tidal wave of data.

Buzz badly misreads the data description:



He thinks 12 months means a whole year (all the months), when it was for a SINGLE month September, then for October, but spread out over years of time ( TIME SCALE) from 1895 to 2020.

Look at the charts that were generated from it, clearly based on a single month, of each year.

Please slink away, hopefully your red faced embarrassment will fade away gracefully.

So... you think 12 months is really just 1 month?

:lamo

Did you notice in the graphs that the start and end months are "October-September"? That is 12 months.

Not only do you not know how to read those graphs but the Heartland Institute doesn't either.

:lamo
 
Well, even better than that, is the data reasonable given the understanding of the rest of the world?

For example; Does the figure of 540mm average precipitation for Greenland sound out of order? Given what we know of it, it snows a lot, there are a lot of storms that pass over it and it is so high it only snows not rains, that the ice core research base thing at the top of the place has to keep moving to avoid being burried by snow etc, then we can be OK with that figure.

Does the outflow of the biggerst river in Greenland, 8Gt/yr, the Watson, look out of expectation compared to similar sized rivers around the world? Well given that it does it in 2 months of summer, it looks a bit high but it will do.

Is the area of 2.2 million square kilometers OK? Yes looks OK when you look at a map.

So does the figure of 1100 to 1200 Gt/yr precipitation total that these figures produce and the total high estimate of 200Gt/yr outflow mean that Greenland must be gaining ice mass?

Oh God! Not this stupidity again!

The Watson river is not the largest river in Greenland. There are actually a few larger rivers. And there are hundreds of similar rivers.

You still have no clue what the outflows of water and ice are coming from Greenland.

NO CLUE!
 
Oh God! Not this stupidity again!

The Watson river is not the largest river in Greenland. There are actually a few larger rivers. And there are hundreds of similar rivers.

You still have no clue what the outflows of water and ice are coming from Greenland.

NO CLUE!

OK, which river is larger in Greenland?
 
Oh God! Not this stupidity again!

The Watson river is not the largest river in Greenland. There are actually a few larger rivers. And there are hundreds of similar rivers.

You still have no clue what the outflows of water and ice are coming from Greenland.

NO CLUE!

Direct measurements of meltwater runoff on the Greenland ice sheet surface | PNAS

Direct measurements of meltwater runoff on the Greenland ice sheet surface

The production and transport of meltwater (runoff) is an important hydrological process operating on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS). Total GrIS mass loss from runoff and solid ice dynamics (glacier calving) now exceeds ∼260 Gt/y, contributing >0.7 mm annually to global mean sea level rise (1⇓–3)

So allegedly 260Gt/yr. Ummmmmm, well I can't see it myself but OK. Bit less than the 1100 to 1200 Gt that lands on the place every year though.

Loses 260Gt, gains 1200Gt. Work it out for yourself.
 
So... you think 12 months is really just 1 month?

:lamo

Did you notice in the graphs that the start and end months are "October-September"? That is 12 months.

Not only do you not know how to read those graphs but the Heartland Institute doesn't either.

:lamo

:3oops:

It admit I was wrong, your reply was perfect to my mistake, I had missed the October-September line. You are correct it should have been one month.

Sorry.

:3oops:
 
So allegedly 260Gt/yr. Ummmmmm, well I can't see it myself but OK. Bit less than the 1100 to 1200 Gt that lands on the place every year though.

Loses 260Gt, gains 1200Gt. Work it out for yourself.

Which is larger?

+1200GT

or

- 60GT

Vegas Giants doesn't know, will Buzz?
 
:3oops:

It admit I was wrong, your reply was perfect to my mistake, I had missed the October-September line. You are correct it should have been one month.

Sorry.

:3oops:

Hahahaha
 
Direct measurements of meltwater runoff on the Greenland ice sheet surface | PNAS

So allegedly 260Gt/yr. Ummmmmm, well I can't see it myself but OK. Bit less than the 1100 to 1200 Gt that lands on the place every year though.

Loses 260Gt, gains 1200Gt. Work it out for yourself.

Where are you getting this 1200Gt gain from? Is it another number you pulled from some random or incorrect source like when you used to cite the annual rainfall from Greenland Michigan?

And the study you are quoting says:

Total GrIS mass loss from runoff and solid ice dynamics (glacier calving) now exceeds ∼260 Gt/y, contributing >0.7 mm annually to global mean sea level rise

So... it is saying that the total Greenland ice sheet is losing ∼260 Gt and adding >0.7 mm to the sea levels every year. This includes all the added precipitation that falls on the ice sheet every year.

Sorry, Tim... you still haven't shown any evidence that Greenland is gaining ice every year.
 
:3oops:

It admit I was wrong, your reply was perfect to my mistake, I had missed the October-September line. You are correct it should have been one month.

Sorry.

:3oops:

What is funnier than Sunny's mistake and error-ridden English is the Fact that Jack liked having someone admit that the author of that Heartland article was wrong.

I have to wonder if Jack has any clue about what Sunny has admitted.
 
What is funnier than Sunny's mistake and error-ridden English is the Fact that Jack liked having someone admit that the author of that Heartland article was wrong.

I have to wonder if Jack has any clue about what Sunny has admitted.

I like honesty. That's why we don't get along.
 
I like honesty. That's why we don't get along.

If you like honesty then why do cut and paste dishonesty all the time?

And can you even admit the Heartland article was wrong?
 
I've already said I'll waste no more time on your denial.

You're the one denying that the Heartland article was wrong even though Sunny admits that it was.
 
There is an error in the article. It is inconsequential.

It is not inconsequential. This error makes the last 3 years of dry Septembers and Octobers look wet. The article even says the fall of 2019 was wet when it wasn't.

Like I keep pointing out... you just don't care if the garbage you cut and paste is true or not. And this is just another example in a long list of examples.
 
It is not inconsequential. This error makes the last 3 years of dry Septembers and Octobers look wet. The article even says the fall of 2019 was wet when it wasn't.

Like I keep pointing out... you just don't care if the garbage you cut and paste is true or not. And this is just another example in a long list of examples.

You're clinging to a detail and missing the crushing point. Here it is.

. . . Curiously, the authors ignored the official NOAA data and instead used an unofficial dataset that appears to better suit their argument. Even their cherry-picked dataset, however, contradicts their claim. Does Figure 3, below, look like a 30% decline to you? Take a look at how consistently autumn rainfall has been increasing during the past 30 years. Only by cherry-picking an abnormally wet starting period can a declining trend be argued. And even with the cherry-picked start date, this sure doesn’t look like an ongoing crisis of declining precipitation.
CA-precip-Stanford-study-March-2020-300x212.jpg

[Figure 3: This chart in the authors’ paper shows rainfall has been steadily increasing during the past 30 years, since 1990. Even starting their data during an abnormally wet period and not including the very wet autumn of 2019, the data do not support the claim of a 30% decrease in precipitation. Source: Environmental Research Letters, Accepted Manuscript, March 26, 2020 (Michael Goss et al 2020 Envir. Res. Lett. in press, Climate change is increasing the risk of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California - IOPscience)] . . .
 
You're clinging to a detail and missing the crushing point. Here it is.

. . . Curiously, the authors ignored the official NOAA data and instead used an unofficial dataset that appears to better suit their argument. Even their cherry-picked dataset, however, contradicts their claim. Does Figure 3, below, look like a 30% decline to you? Take a look at how consistently autumn rainfall has been increasing during the past 30 years. Only by cherry-picking an abnormally wet starting period can a declining trend be argued. And even with the cherry-picked start date, this sure doesn’t look like an ongoing crisis of declining precipitation.
CA-precip-Stanford-study-March-2020-300x212.jpg

[Figure 3: This chart in the authors’ paper shows rainfall has been steadily increasing during the past 30 years, since 1990. Even starting their data during an abnormally wet period and not including the very wet autumn of 2019, the data do not support the claim of a 30% decrease in precipitation. Source: Environmental Research Letters, Accepted Manuscript, March 26, 2020 (Michael Goss et al 2020 Envir. Res. Lett. in press, Climate change is increasing the risk of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California - IOPscience)] . . .

Whatever. I addressed the other problems with the Heartland article a few days ago. I'm not going to repeat myself just so you can ignore it again.

At least you admit the Heartland article was wrong. That is almost a miracle in itself. It might be the first time in years.
 
Back
Top Bottom