- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Myth of arctic meltdown: Satellite images show summer ice cap growing
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:54 am to L.A.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 9:54 am to L.A.
Imagine if we could all devise schemes like Gore to parlay inaccurate stats and make millions knowing full well there would be no possible way in our lifetimes to disprove our contentions.
0
Posted on 8/31/14 at 11:56 am to L.A.
Seriously can you people stop using the DailyMailUk for information on global warming. They are really bad and make you look like a lazy idiot.
here ill show, real data you know from the National Ice Data Center
so yes the ice extent is up from the all time low of 2012 buts its still below all average and almost outside of the standard deviation.
here ill show, real data you know from the National Ice Data Center
so yes the ice extent is up from the all time low of 2012 buts its still below all average and almost outside of the standard deviation.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:05 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:2 std deviations.
almost outside of the standard deviation.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Forbes and others
, another failed attempt at sourcing, probably talking about the oreske effort reviewed by 'friends of science'. here Ill give you a link to consensus debunked
consensus debunked-archetype article
and heres a rebuttal to that
once again real data
see the difference in the sources within the article, one uses 'friends of science' and a pr piece one uses actual scientific research like below, the actual video abstract with, color me shocked, actual information about the science literature and the actual consensus.
Paper author presents abstract on 'is there a consensus'
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:14 pm to Cruiserhog
To me, the graph highlights that many on both sides have hunkered down and lost objectivity. The doomsday-type predictions (e.g., children will never see snow again in Britain) were just like any other doomsday prediction (e.g., The Population Boom), premature and overstated. Likewise, the declarations that everything is all better now is also premature and overstated. Logic and reason is becoming the exception in this debate.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:19 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
2 std deviations.
nearly 2 million square kilometers of ice extent, so I guess your cheers emote was some sort of lame attempt at sarcasm.
not the point anyway, ARTIC ICE IS BACK AND BETTER THAN EVER, another gotcha warmist article from Daily Mail when clearly they lie, and its spread like wildfire among the right wing blogosphere and the ill informed gullible public vacuum it up
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:27 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:.
To me, the graph highlights that many on both sides have hunkered down and lost objectivity
how so, its just data measurements. how does one lose objectivity presenting facts whereas one side blatantly twist/cherry picks that information and then presents it as facts.
which side would rather believe, the side that is actually concerned about where our planet is headed or business interests
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:27 pm to Cruiserhog
The article was mostly about Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 2008 when he said "‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
How many warmists on the left ate that shite up and used it as a sledgehammer to 'doom and gloom' us all into capitulation? The "gullible public" is on the left, not the right. The right called his bullshite out and after 7 years we know they were correct.
How many warmists on the left ate that shite up and used it as a sledgehammer to 'doom and gloom' us all into capitulation? The "gullible public" is on the left, not the right. The right called his bullshite out and after 7 years we know they were correct.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:39 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:\
see the difference in the sources within the article, one uses 'friends of science' and a pr piece one uses actual scientific research like below, the actual video abstract with, color me shocked, actual information about the science literature and the actual consensus.
It's obvious that most scientists believe that the earth is warming and that some can be attributed to human beings; that's a pretty reasonable premise.
But this whole 97% consensus number is problematic for a number of reasons.
First, the premise is that A. Earth has been warming and B. humans played some role. This is a pretty easy standard to reach, but more importantly, that allows for a huge discrepancy within that "consensus" (i.e., humans could have caused anything above 0%).
Second, the consensus of humans should not be evidence of scientific truths. It doesn't matter if 0% or 100% of scientists believe one thing or another, that doesn't make it so. Sure the more evidence there is, the more they should subscribe to a hypothesis or theory; however, subscribing to the theory does not strengthen the evidence of that theory.
Finally, the methodology of the consensus studies are suspect. This is social science research and their survey methods and analyses as well as rating methods are not anywhere near best practice. Furthermore, there are a number of statistical techniques grounded in psychometric theory that they could have used to account for these flaws but they chose not to use these. It was pretty poor research on their part.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:41 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
how so, its just data measurements. how does one lose objectivity presenting facts whereas one side blatantly twist/cherry picks that information and then presents it as facts.
which side would rather believe, the side that is actually concerned about where our planet is headed or business interests
If you can't see the lack of objectivity from both sides, then I don't know what to tell you. Sure one side may have more evidence, but that does not exclude one from losing objectivity and extrapolating beyond the data.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 12:51 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
so yes the ice extent is up from the all time low of 2012 buts its still below all average and almost outside of the standard deviation.
LOL...It's a mere million or so lower and increasing rapidly the last 2 years. Its NOT outside of the deviation. DO you know the point of the deviation? It means with errors back then and also today, it could actually be equal or higher than those years.
Give it another 2 years and you'll have exactly what everyone thought, it's simply going to average out more closely to the average in the group of years.
Question, I know you guys came up with "climate change" to explain weather, what will you use to explain the growing ice cap where there has always been ice? Is it global warming and climate change combined making the ice re-form around the ice cap?
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:28 pm to L.A.
quote:So, the long-term trend still shows a decline, and the last five monthly averages show a decline, but if you compare the results on a curiously specific date (which I am sure was not cherry-picked to match the minimum extent date of a previous year, the Mail would never do anything like that), and put your thumb just so to obscure the long-term trend, it's recovering.
These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:29 pm to L.A.
quote:
Myth of arctic meltdown
You stupid denier. It's incredibly foolish to use isolated weather events....
quote:
Satellite images show summer ice cap growing
shite nevermind.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:30 pm to GeeOH
Before they were global warming alarmists, they were global cooling alarmists. Until they can make more specific predictions that come true (just saying "it's going to get warmer" isn't a valid prediction since we have been warming since the Little Ice Age, that's like saying rains in a rain forest are proof that a new Noah-level flood is coming), I'll continue to take the hype with a huge grain of salt.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:34 pm to Bard
quote:Warming papers always outnumbered cooling papers, even in the 1970s.
Before they were global warming alarmists, they were global cooling alarmists.
LINK
"Global cooling," insofar as it was ever a thing, was a creation of dumb journalists, not science.
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:35 pm to Bard
quote:
Before they were global warming alarmists, they were global cooling alarmists.
There has always been people screaming at the rooftops that the sky was falling.
Posted on 8/31/14 at 1:48 pm to L.A.
Simple fact: plate tectonics will kill us all one day. And they will decide if the earth cools or heats up
Posted on 8/31/14 at 2:02 pm to Iosh
quote:
So, the long-term trend still shows a decline, and the last five monthly averages show a decline
Simple question, how significant is a 30 year time frame in regards to the Earth's history and what conclusions should we draw with such a time span?
Posted on 8/31/14 at 3:50 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
here's more Arctic ice
quote:
record low
what happened to global warming?
Posted on 8/31/14 at 4:26 pm to BobRoss
And what the hell is the New York Times and Time magazine but propaganda news?
I love how people attack the messenger, but only the ones they disagree with.
I love how people attack the messenger, but only the ones they disagree with.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News