ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Wow, that's pretty cool! Tell 'em Al sent you! Aye aye Captain! Hard right! I think I see a passage there next to Baffin Island! We gotta make Montreal in 2 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 To be fair, the ice cap did grow significantly in 2013, but only relative its smallest ever recorded size in 2012. Just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 To be fair, the ice cap did grow significantly in 2013, but only relative its smallest ever recorded size in 2012. Just sayin... How did you like Nanker's pictures of the arctic ice above? Guess who took them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 How did you like Nanker's pictures of the arctic ice above? Guess who took them? Probably NASA? My post wasn't disputing Nanker's pictures and the graph I posted supports them. Taken out of context, they seem to prove "global cooling". It's misleading cherry-picking at best. Is the graph I posted really so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Probably NASA? My post wasn't disputing Nanker's pictures and the graph I posted supports them. Taken out of context, they seem to prove "global cooling". It's misleading cherry-picking at best. Cherry-picking like...a graph with a range from 9 to 4, and a domain from 1978 to 2013? C'mon...that graph is sensationalized bull ****. It shows a range purposely chosen to make a ~40% variance look more than twice as bad as it actually is, over a time frame for which there's no valid justification either way for choosing (why not since 1950? Why not since 1995?) illustrating a decline with a linear approximation which may or may not be valid. It's only meaningful to simpletons - gatorman must be loving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Cherry-picking like...a graph with a range from 9 to 4, and a domain from 1978 to 2013? C'mon...that graph is sensationalized bull ****. It shows a range purposely chosen to make a ~40% variance look more than twice as bad as it actually is, over a time frame for which there's no valid justification either way for choosing (why not since 1950? Why not since 1995?) illustrating a decline with a linear approximation which may or may not be valid. It's only meaningful to simpletons - gatorman must be loving it. As opposed to the pretty picture representing a domain of 2012 to 2013? C'mon...that is sensationalized bull ****. It shows a range purposely chosen to make a ~60% variance look grossly worse than it actually is, over a time frame for which there's no valid justification either way for choosing (why not since 1950? Why not since 1995?) illustrating an increase with a linear approximation which may or may not be valid. It's only meaningful to simpletons - gatorman must be loving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Probably NASA? My post wasn't disputing Nanker's pictures and the graph I posted supports them. Taken out of context, they seem to prove "global cooling". It's misleading cherry-picking at best. Is the graph I posted really so hard to understand? NASA had nothing to do with those pictures. They were obviously taken from the heavens. Now guess who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Cherry-picking like...a graph with a range from 9 to 4, and a domain from 1978 to 2013? C'mon...that graph is sensationalized bull ****. It shows a range purposely chosen to make a ~40% variance look more than twice as bad as it actually is, over a time frame for which there's no valid justification either way for choosing (why not since 1950? Why not since 1995?) illustrating a decline with a linear approximation which may or may not be valid. It's only meaningful to simpletons - gatorman must be loving it. Also, apparently satellites have only been monitoring Arctic ice since 1978, which explains the 1978 to 2013 range. NASA had nothing to do with those pictures. They were obviously taken from the heavens. Now guess who? Oh cute, you have no actual response. It's been a while, but it's good to know you remain reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Also, apparently satellites have only been monitoring Arctic ice since 1978, which explains the 1978 to 2013 range. Oh cute, you have no actual response. It's been a while, but it's good to know you remain reliable. I have a lot of responses, in this thread and others. I stay for more than a cup of coffee though........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Also, apparently satellites have only been monitoring Arctic ice since 1978, which explains the 1978 to 2013 range. Oh, so it's not that researchers are cherry-picking a data set, they simply don't have a good one? Yeah, that's a great excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Oh, so it's not that researchers are cherry-picking a data set, they simply don't have a good one? Yeah, that's a great excuse. I'd say they're using the entire dataset, which is arguably the best they can do. I'm not putting this forth as proof of AGW, just as a counter to the ridiculous 2012-2013 pictures many seems so happy to accept as proof of "global cooling". I have a lot of responses, in this thread and others. I stay for more than a cup of coffee though........... Not me! The coffee's getting cold and I have more important things to do than bang my head against the wall. Cya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I'd say they're using the entire dataset, which is arguably the best they can do. I'm not putting this forth as proof of AGW, just as a counter to the ridiculous 2012-2013 pictures many seems so happy to accept as proof of "global cooling". It is proof, however, that the alarmist predictions from NASA were full of crap, by NASA's own (albeit indirect) admission. Which is central to the argument that the vast majority of global warming research is one great big pile of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I'd say they're using the entire dataset, which is arguably the best they can do. I'm not putting this forth as proof of AGW, just as a counter to the ridiculous 2012-2013 pictures many seems so happy to accept as proof of "global cooling". Not me! The coffee's getting cold and I have more important things to do than bang my head against the wall. Cya! Well, the coffee wouldn't get cold if you drank it and the banging the head against the wall is believable---very believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate By S. Fred Singer The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man. Watch for it: We may be on the threshold of a tipping point in climate history. No, I’m not talking about a tipping point in the sense that the Earth will be covered with ice or become hellishly hot. I’m talking about a tipping point in our views of what controls the climate -- whether it’s mainly humans or whether it’s mainly natural. It makes an enormous difference in climate policy: Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes -- as our ancestors did for many millennia? Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the “microwave background radiation,” which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more. The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.” These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge -- in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world. For example, the conversion into ethanol fuel of a substantial portion of the US corn crop raised the price of tortillas in Mexico and caused food riots. http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_coming_paradigm_shift_on_climate_.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_coming_paradigm_shift_on_climate_.html So a graph with actual data and math gets skewered - but a cut and paste article from a propaganda site is cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 It is proof, however, that the alarmist predictions from NASA were full of crap, by NASA's own (albeit indirect) admission. Which is central to the argument that the vast majority of global warming research is one great big pile of crap. Tom, I've known you to be pretty rational most of the time about most things. For you to so enthusiastically skewer hard data collected over a period of 34 years while going completely crickets on the image touting "global cooling" based on 2 data points should make you consider that you might not be completely objective on this particular issue. I'm sure you'll try blasting me for this, but I'm convinced you're favoring one side based on your political leanings here. So a graph with actual data and math gets skewered - but a cut and paste article from a propaganda site is cool? Welcome to PPP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 So a graph with actual data and math gets skewered - but a cut and paste article from a propaganda site is cool? Ordinarily I ignore childish responses such as these, but if you want any respect around here you realy, really should think (and check) before you respond. I post opinion pieces from respected authors and sites. If you cannot handle that, then its just too bad for you here is the author of my last post. S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. I think I will read and defer to his opinions rather than yours . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 , but I'm convinced you're favoring one side based on your political leanings here. No, not Tom!?!? He's objective! Ordinarily I ignore childish responses such as these, but if you want any respect around here you realy, really should think (and check) before you respond. I post opinion pieces from respected authors and sites. If you cannot handle that, then its just too bad for you here is the author of my last post. S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. I think I will read and defer to his opinions rather than yours . I bet you do. You are a complete idiot! That's the guy who worked for the tobacco industry and said second hand smoke doesn't hurt anyone. He gets paid to claim all science that says pollution is bad is junk science. You are a little propaganda bot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) you're favoring one side based on your political leanings here. I'm not. I do agree, it is silly to suggest global cooling. We are just going to see how the data in the next 15-20 years shakes out. I am not denying anything, I do agree with the conservatives here on human influence. This doesn't mean we go out and pollute and say: "To heck, it is all nature anyway." I am just not worried about it, I am not worried about it for future generations. IMO, we take our resources and adapt to the changes on the fly and stop worrying who's causing what. For now... Everybody get away from the coasts... And stay outta the flood plains and off the volcano... ;-) ;-) Edited March 27, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Today it's warmer than yesterday. Tomorrow's supposed to be warmer than today. Proof positive, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts