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
If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more
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.
Last edited by The Night Owl; 09-03-2008 at 11:06 PM.
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'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
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|