Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,265
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.
    Could your opinion be an example of the bias we were discussing last week? Also I don't see the pointless comparsion that you mention. Could you point it out to me? If you will recall I mentioned that I found it curious how people will automatically accept facts that agree with a preconceived notion and reject out of hand those facts that refute the same preconceived idea.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.
    You are right.

    Increased ice in the Artic is a sign of global warming, not global cooling.

    How could we be so stupid as to not understand that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Betwixt Member Bubba Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In my own private Alamo on The Mountain in Georgia
    Posts
    13,581
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    You are right.

    Increased ice in the Artic is a sign of global warming, not global cooling.

    How could we be so stupid as to not understand that?
    You know Gator, I was thinkin' the same damn thing. I mean, when I want my freezer to make ice, I make the temperature warmer, not colder.

    I mean, Who can argue with science?
    Hey careful man! There's a beverage here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Brandon, FL
    Posts
    314
    OMG The sky is RAISING, the sky is RAISING!!!!!! :D:D

    Owl, I'm afraid someone sold you a bill of goods.

    Now your entitled to believe whatever you want, but a bunch of pencil necked geeks that have their livelihood tied to their findings have absolutely zero creditability, at least with me anyway.
    Last edited by Bongo55; 09-03-2008 at 11:25 PM. Reason: Wanted to see Rudy's speech and got sloppy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    Could your opinion be an example of the bias we were discussing last week? Also I don't see the pointless comparsion that you mention. Could you point it out to me? If you will recall I mentioned that I found it curious how people will automatically accept facts that agree with a preconceived notion and reject out of hand those facts that refute the same preconceived idea.
    From the NSIDC FAQ...

    If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?

    For details concerning why summer of 2008 is shaping up differently than previous summers, please see our ongoing analysis updates.

    A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

    As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. One game during a winning season when the home football team lost badly wouldn’t be indicative of their season as a whole. And comparing that one bad game years ago with a really good game this year, when the team managed to win 28-0 during a terrible losing season, wouldn’t be a fair comparison, either. However, plotting all of the games on a line graph would give an accurate indication of how the team did that year. And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.
    http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 09-03-2008 at 11:06 PM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,265
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    From the NSIDC FAQ...

    If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?

    For details concerning why summer of 2008 is shaping up differently than previous summers, please see our ongoing analysis updates.

    A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

    As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. One game during a winning season when the home football team lost badly wouldn’t be indicative of their season as a whole. And comparing that one bad game years ago with a really good game this year, when the team managed to win 28-0 during a terrible losing season, wouldn’t be a fair comparison, either. However, plotting all of the games on a line graph would give an accurate indication of how the team did that year. And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.
    http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more

    The side of Global Warming jumped on the polar bear extinction just as fast on just as little evidence. The main body of evidence seemed to be some pictures of polar bears leaping from small icebergs in to the ocean and a claim that the polar bears were dying out. Evidence that is currently available suggests that this is not the case. I did not, however, hear you crying out against this misuse and skewing of data in order to prop up the pro global warming side of the argument. Could this be because this data confirmed you preconceived notion? If by chance the images that are in the OP had supported your belief in a shrinking polar cap would you have used them to reinforce your view or would you have cited the above study and asked us to ignore the shrinking ice images?

    For the record, a short term trend may be indicative of a long term trend. Because the data only represents one year over another it is no reason to call it pointless and it doesn't make it wrong. You have assumed that it is wrong because a) it doesn't support your current position and b) the range of data is too small. I personally lean to the side that any global climate change is cyclical in nature but I am open to the possibilities that I am wrong. When I see information that seems to contradict my view I don’t dismiss it out of hand. I look first to see if it is true and then adjust my opinion accordingly. I have noticed that you seem to first seek to discredit information that is contradictory of your view. I may be wrong about this and if so I apologize. It is merely an observation on my part. You don’t like to be wrong once you’ve taken a position and will defend it at all costs. Personally I am interested in the truth and my viewpoint is negligible when the truth of something is up for grabs.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    718
    I'm sorry but anaolgy to sports and those that participate in such activities is not relevant as they are not climatologists. To discuss global warming, you must be a climatologist. Noone other than a climatologist can make relevant observations and conclusion about global warming
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Nubs View Post
    I'm sorry but anaolgy to sports and those that participate in such activities is not relevant as they are not climatologists. To discuss global warming, you must be a climatologist. Noone other than a climatologist can make relevant observations and conclusion about global warming
    There's a difference between using analogy to make a point easier to comprehend and expecting proper credentials from people who claim to be authorities on a subject. In fact, one doesnt really have anything to do with the other. Comparing apples to automobiles...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •