tacoman25
-
Posts
4,865 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by tacoman25
-
I didn't call anyone out specifically. That wasn't the intent. Just the inconsistence in the general message. It was not based on an assumption, but very clear memories of people claiming the summer min is by far the most important thing to track.
-
I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary. No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand. Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.
-
Sorry man, you were just reading too much into what I said. Made a couple of false assumptions. And you can say nobody claimed that, but I absolutely know they did. Defend yourself sure, but it's silly to say no one here said that. And I'm not a liar.
-
Whole bunch of straw men here. I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline. I simply pointed out that some people on here have claimed in the past that the summer minimum, the max amount of open water, is what matters most. Inconsistent with current claims that record low extent in early November is just as significant as a record low min.
-
By definition, a "denier" is one who denies something. In this context, global warming. Which I never have denied. So, get your facts straight and don't call me a liar. That is unacceptable. Pretty sad that if someone even points out an inconsistency or questions something on here, the witch hunt is on.
-
I don't think you've been on this site nearly as long as I have. I have never once denied global warming. So you 100% don't know what you're talking about. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.
-
100% false.
-
I never said there was. Read it again. I said record fastest freeze, or a high point in the fall, I never said record high extent. You're actually the one playing "gotcha" here, but on a misunderstanding. My point was that several times on here we were told that the summer min is the most important thing, not what happens in fall, winter, etc. But now we have people, probably some of the same ones, claiming this is just as significant as a record low min.
-
I specifically remember members on here claiming, for one reason or another, that the summer min is WAY more meaningful than anything in the fall/winter. I'm afraid you don't speak for everyone, so no, you cannot claim there is no inconsistency.
-
A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters. Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min.
-
If fracking is driving the rise in CH4 since 2010, then what was driving the faster rise from the mid 1980s to early 1990s?
-
Alaska/Western Canada obs and discussion
tacoman25 replied to patrick7032's topic in Central/Western States
Looks like accumulating snow in Anchorage today. Looking back through their records, I think this is unprecedented for this late in May. -
Perhaps you meant to address this post, by Peter M? Please try to follow the conversation. At the AGU week before last Jim Hansen said climate sensitivity has been greater then even predicted 4 years ago. C02 will likely reach the yearly high in mid spring- near 397ppm- but this is in the pipeline- and will not be seen for perhaps 15-20 years. What we are seeing now is the effects of 360-365ppm- from the early 1990's. Its a matter of conjecture what happens when we see today's C02 level.
-
His post seemed to imply more than just Arctic temperatures, referencing Hansen's claim that climate sensitivity was higher than previously thought. If that is the case, it should be influencing more than just the Arctic.
-
Not if you go by global temperatures, which of course is the ultimate measure of global warming. And how exactly are you determining that 15-20 year "pipeline warming" timeline?
-
Interesting...many skeptics have concerns about the simplistic global climate models used, since the actual global climate is much more complex.
-
A lot.
-
Ok...I guess the better question would be why has it slowed down since the mid 1990s? I realize it's just a short term change, but so is the "increasing trend" since 2006 (and that is a shorter term trend even). Per the other chart you posted, there was clearly a sharper rise in methane from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.
-
Do you know why it was rising so fast prior to the mid 1990s?
-
According to climate models and the IPCC, yes.
-
Then why were some earlier posts talking about this ushering in a sudden, severe spike in global temps? I guess you would agree that was a rather clueless overreaction to this article?
-
I just don't understand how rational people can react this way. We don't even know the signficance of this methane release, and yet we have posters saying this means "the shoe has dropped" and we are all going to be climate refugees soon.
-
Right, I understand how greenhouse gases work. I'm just not convinced that just because the Arctic is not receiving energy from the sun right now, the increased methane would not be affecting other parts of the globe that are.
-
Thank you for the response. 1. I understand, but using the phrase "the Arctic is boiling methane" sounded kind of misleading and overly dramatic to me. 2. I understand the math (though it is a rough approximation), but what is that number saying? For one area they have looked at, at one point in time, there was roughly that much more methane being released? It's not like there's a million times more methane being released from the Arctic this year, though you wouldn't know it from the OP. 3. I'm talking about the Independent, that newspaper. They are not exactly an objective source. Alarmists don't like it when skeptic websites or other skeptic-leaning sources are cited. 4. Ok...but that doesn't answer my question. What Arctic records of methane release do we have to compare this to? And how much of area has actually been studied/documented? If we can't answer these questions, we don't know the historical signficance of this occurrence. 5. Wait, so methane release only warms the Arctic? I thought GHGs are distributed throughout the atmosphere, warming the globe?
-
So in other words, you are unable to address my points/questions. The only rationale answer is PANIC!!!