SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SoylentNews had a story last month about temperatures in the Arctic that were 20°C (36°F) warmer than usual. That was just a warm up.
Richard James, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, found November produced the most anomalously warm Arctic temperatures of any month on record after analyzing data from 19 weather stations.
In the middle of the month, the temperature averaged over the entire Arctic north of 80 degrees latitude spiked to 36 degrees [Fahrenheit] above normal.
Now, storm activity around Greenland has caused a warm spell in the vicinity of the North Pole, with temperatures 50°F (28°C) higher than usual.
As of the morning of Thursday, December 22 (3 a.m. EST), the International Arctic Buoy Programme (IABP), operated out of the University of Washington, recorded temperatures from these buoy[s] up to 0°C or slightly higher.
There was a similar pattern of unusually warm weather in the Arctic in November and December of 2015.
The warm spell [...] marks the second straight December of freakish warmth spreading across the Arctic due to weird weather patterns.
additional coverage:
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday December 28 2016, @01:05PM
Strong statements require strong evidence. Let's start with your first para:
As you seem so convinced of your case, you no doubt have those figures at your ready.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:13PM
One problem is most of those figures will be fake or bent and I'm not sure anyone could create unbiased figures.
Famously WRT money "given" to energy producers by .gov, when you research it, its stuff like the IRS depreciation curve for a drill bit is faster than for a laser printer so by allowing energy companies to write off things that wear out faster, the government has "given" them a tax break equivalent to $X and similar such forms of nonsense.
Likewise WRT money "given" to green energy, a classic is the EPA gives coal burning power plants a bunch of expensive trouble about burnt sulfur emissions but lets solar panel plants off the hook (because solar plants not burning sulfurous coal means they emit no sulfur dioxide thus needing no scrubbers or monitoring) therefore the other side loves to declare every penny spent on sulfur dioxide scrubbers and monitoring as a financial break the .gov gives to solar plants, as if solar plants should have to install sulfur dioxide monitoring stations to test for and regulate their non-existent coal burning emissions.
For better or mostly worse, we like in a soviet style centrally controlled economy. We're just a little more hands off than the Russians were, but only a little. The overwhelming impact of total government control makes it nearly impossible to sensibly discuss policy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 28 2016, @02:31PM
As to items 3 and 4, I believe climate change propaganda is on the order of billions per year compared to tens of millions a year for anti-climate change propaganda. For example, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace International have almost half a billion dollars spent between the two.
As you seem so convinced of your case, you no doubt have those figures at your ready.
Just like you?
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday December 31 2016, @08:06AM
Let's do a little mental game.
I will prove to you that renewables are Big Energy and that, in practice, there is considerably more money spent on climate change propaganda than its negation.
You, in turn, will attempt to disprove me, while arguing that the Big Oil lobby is far more powerful than the climate change propagandist movement.
Each post exchanged will consist of 2 para's: one negating the counterparty's last point, and one putting forward an argument supporting the position taken. Each point must be supported by one link to a directly accessible web resource only, making 2 documentation links per post.
VLM seems to have a healthy cynicism towards data sources, so -- if he agrees -- we'll let him decide after each exchange of posts who has won the argument, in his view. We'll exchange 10 posts each, with an interval of 24 hours between each exchange.
In the end, the total score is made up; who has lost, will send the other party (and VLM) a beer.
Do you wanna play?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 31 2016, @12:27PM
You, in turn, will attempt to disprove me, while arguing that the Big Oil lobby is far more powerful than the climate change propagandist movement.
Lobbying isn't propaganda. The former is oriented towards influencing lawmakers, the latter towards influencing the public. So right there, the argument is fundamentally broken in a way that can't be fixed with argument. Meanwhile the other side merely needs to look for funding of groups claimed to be "climate denialists" and compare it to the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that large pro-climate change groups get.
So I get to argue the broken position and you get to argue the good position? Not feeling it here.