Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Group9

We kind of had a similar thing down here after Katrina. While national publications were attributing hurricane Katrina's strength to global warming and touting the scientific "fact" that hurricanes were getting stronger, as evidenced by Katrina, our local paper, just out of a local interest story, had tracked down a history book, published before Katrina, that detailed from meticulous Spanish record keeping, a hurricane, that appeared to be more powerful than Katrina, that hit the same area, in the 1600's (I can't remember the exact year), and another one, almost as powerful, that hit the year after.

They published Spanish reports of galleons found 15 miles ashore the next year by the visiting Spanish inspector (who was sent to see why no ships were arriving from that area). Tree rings in those areas, showing salt water immersion bear this out.

And, you still hear from people that hurricanes are getting worse, when the historical records show there have been a lot of equally strong ones in the distant pre-industrial past.

But, anyone trying to separate the facts from the hysteria, is automatically a "Denier", whatever the hell that is.

Sometimes, I think humans just need conflict, and since most physical conflict has been eliminated from our lives, we argue a lot to compensate for that.

Seems to be a common response:
- When it supports global warming, a run of the mill late afternoon summer thunderstorm is proof of climate change. The faithful will all get in line and chant "proof of climate change" repeatedly.
- When there is a record cold snap, you get a lecture about how weather and climate are not the same.

Of course, they went with Global Warming after Global Cooling didn't work out...now they have switched to Climate change after Global Warming proved problematic. Makes a nice catch all, warm, cold, wet, dry...it's all change so any change is proof.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your argument falls down before the first hurdle;

• it's not individuals being "chastised", it's the system
• our present CO2 and pollution problems CANNOT be solved by individual actions alone.

AlGoraphobia is just an excuse. Be honest; there's no amount of his bicycle-riding or cave-dwelling that would ever compel you to take him seriously. That tribal thing.

In China that might have a thread of truth (but weak argument even there).

In a democratic country, changes are affected by impacts to individuals and with climate change, it's mostly chastisement based.

I'd talk Gore a whole lot more seriously, if he practiced what he preached. Of course, if he was the only vocal celebrity doing this, it would be easy to shrug his hypocritical actions off...but it's actually very much the norm for the eco leaders to talk a good game while ignoring it once the cameras are off.

[uptickguru]

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

Well, to be fair, you are in the "off-topic forum."

Actually, I was going to start a favorite whiskey thread. I may go do that.

Cheers, I am totally open to that as almost every sailor I know has a favorite. And I have learned a lot of sailing knowledge while we shared that whiskey and our love of sailing. Fair Winds!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'd talk Gore a whole lot more seriously, if he practiced what he preached. Of course, if he was the only vocal celebrity doing this, it would be easy to shrug his hypocritical actions off.

Ok fine. Stage is yours; Tell us how Al and fellow celebs should comport themselves to be taken seriously by you.

If you respond at all, I suspect there will be a stream of misconceptions about how he makes his money, where he's invested, exactly how wasteful he is, etc etc, but what the heck.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Red herring. We were talking about L Ontario, not the others. Obviously fuller lakes upstream means more water overall in the Great Lakes system. I did mention Erie...

Of course if Ontario's height is controlled by dams, it doesn't explain record highs and lows unless the operators are purposely causing the records. This is unlike say Lake Mead where it is chronically low (of course, that is simple overuse of a far more limited source).

Of course, we could always change the discussion to the upper lakes which also show highs and lows in a similar pattern.

[Mike OReilly]

The Great Lakes is part of a huge, and complex watershed. There is no one single factor which explains all the highs and lows across these inland seas. Human interference (dams, destruction of watersheds, etc.) are clearly one factor. Unusual weather patterns is another, which is consistent with (but does not prove) climate change.

The primary reason for the current high levels on all the Lakes is ... drum roll please ... because the watershed has received more moisture than 'normal' over the last few years.

From the US Corps of Engineers (the folks charged with managing the watershed):

Water levels are primarily determined by regional climatic conditions, which influence the net basin supply (NBS) of water to each lake. NBS represents the net influence of precipitation over the lake, runoff from a lake’s watershed into the lake, and evaporation from the lake’s surface. Over the past several years, the NBS has, more often than not, been above average on all lakes.

https://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/Great-Lakes-Information/Great-Lakes-Water-Level-Future-Scenarios/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Of course if Ontario's height is controlled by dams, it doesn't explain record highs and lows unless the operators are purposely causing the records.

To explain just one record high on L Ontario, the amount of water expected to enter the system in the spring was underestimated, and when they finally had a handle on it, it was not possible to release water quickly enough, due to shipping and the possibility of causing serious flooding downstream.


(and what Mike said)

[Mike OReilly]

And to further follow on LE's comments, while the Great Lakes do have control dams, there really are only two* significant locations, and they can only do so much. There is the Moses-Saunders Power Dam near Cornwall that manages the outflows from Lake Ontario, and there is the dam at the top of the St. Mary's River on Lake Superior. The rest is essentially uncontrolled waters.

The Cornwall dam can exert some control over Lake Ontario levels, and indeed since it was finished the Lake levels have been more stable compared to historic patterns. But even that dam can only do so much. And it also has to manage competing interests; let too much out and you flood Montreal, let too little out and Lake Ontario shores suffer.

One can always blame poor planning and the inability to predict increased moisture levels, but diminished predictability is exactly what is expected in these days of rapid climate change.

*Three if you include the Brandon dam at the bottom of L. Michigan, but it has only limited impacts.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A lovely little anecdote, but not true. .

Not sure who said it was true in this conversation but it sure wasn't me. My entire point was related to the fact that it was portrayed to me (by different people ) that both effects had the same cause.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Not sure who said it was true in this conversation but it sure wasn't me. My entire point was related to the fact that it was portrayed to me (by different people ) that both effects had the same cause.

I did get that; sorry if my poor wording implied that you were at fault. My point in responding was just to show the complexity of nailing the cause if the levels problem. I don't myself know anyone credible who attributed either the high or the low solely to "climate change"... yet we also can't ignore changes in the precipitation and temperatures... from whatever cause.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I did get that; sorry if my poor wording implied that you were at fault. My point in responding was just to show the complexity of nailing the cause if the levels problem. I don't myself know anyone credible who attributed either the high or the low solely to "climate change"... yet we also can't ignore changes in the precipitation and temperatures... from whatever cause.

No problem. I, and it appears you, want to gnaw away at the knee jerk responses little by little with real discussion.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Red herring. We were talking about L Ontario, not the others. Obviously fuller lakes upstream means more water overall in the Great Lakes system. I did mention Erie...

btw, you're preaching to the choir here about changing climate patterns.

Lake-Effect...the point was the fluctuating water levels of the Great Lakes over time. What you posted twisted and shaded the point by using L. Ontario as the example pretending that it's all about man's control of the water levels thus erasing any climate change connection. You did this because it doesn't fit in with your climate change narrative. Also, I am sure you know better about Great Lakes water levels.

As you have beat the climate change drum for years on this forum with tons of parroted information it's fitting when the subject is specifically about something I definitively know, your words are hollow.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Lake-Effect...the point was the fluctuating water levels of the Great Lakes over time. What you posted twisted and shaded the point by using L. Ontario as the example pretending that it's all about man's control of the water levels thus erasing any climate change connection. You did this because it doesn't fit in with your climate change narrative. Also, I am sure you know better about Great Lakes water levels.

As you have beat the climate change drum for years on this forum with tons of parroted information it's fitting when the subject is specifically about something I definitively know, your words are hollow.

Well, I'd call what I've been repeating or advocating for - "the scientific consensus", when it comes to CC. But anyway...

The point that i initially responded to was about Lake Ontario levels: both record highs and record lows being separately blamed on "climate change". I pointed out the complexity of managing L Ontario levels... including inflow from L Erie. You made reference to my bathwater and the levels in other Great Lakes, like I'd somehow missed that (L Erie, hellooo?). You are mistaken if you think I broke any connection between climate change and Great Lakes water levels.

Regardless, if Great Lakes water levels are something you are knowledgeable about, please enlighten us. Bathwater, not so much.

[Mike OReilly]

Climate change, driven by global warming, has two major ways it impacts Great Lakes water levels. One is that warmer air carries more moisture, which results in greater amounts dumping into the GL basin. But warmer temperatures also mean more evaporation, especially in the winter when reduced ice coverage keeps water open when in the past it was covered.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Climate change, driven by global warming, has two major ways it impacts Great Lakes water levels. One is that warmer air carries more moisture, which results in greater amounts dumping into the GL basin. But warmer temperatures also mean more evaporation, especially in the winter when reduced ice coverage keeps water open when in the past it was covered.

Mike, do you have any sense how either has impacted our recent results water level wise?

Recent discussion and news certainly indicates to me that the ability of the dam at the bottom of Lake Ontario to control the levels is quite limited. It can only reduce the levels so much without being a hazard to homes and navigation below the dam and it needs to flow some limiting its ability to raise the lake levels.