Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:59 AM GMT on March 09, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.

In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?

When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.

I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.

One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.

Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?

Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?

So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.

Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?

Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?

There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.

If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

That’s how I would look at that discussion.

r



Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.

If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).

PDF

PPS


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 550 - 500

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting martinitony:


Patterns, correlation and regression.

The Earth has been cooling for billions of years.

The Earth has been warming for Hundreds of years.

The Earth has been stable, temperature wise, for about a dozen years.

The above statements, I think you will agree are all true.

I walk down the street. I observe cracks in the sidewalk. The sun is shining. Cracks in the sidewalk cause the sun to shine.(From my statistics professor, 1967) The cracks are still there and the sun still shines. Confirmation from me today.

Okay, I think you get my drift. If you are honest you will not take exception to the above statements to discredit what I am about to say, because what's above is not really at dispute. There is no straw man here. There is just a simple argument that perhaps the warming trend has no relation (or very little relation) in fact to anything that man is doing but rather that the ups, downs and flat areas are part of a much bigger picture that we can't or won't see.

I have learned that correlation is not proof of anything. You need to determine regression which means a function. Yes, it is possible that ice can be melting in one place and not another and that in total the system is warming, but it is also possible that the opposite is true, a cooling system with ice melting in some part of it.

Using terms such as denialist to discredit what I have just said only suggests to me that the argument being presented by that person is inferior. There are far too many PHDs skeptical of AGW for me to blindly accept many of the arguments presented so far. The denialist will claim that these skeptics are paid shills. I know that is not true and I know far more money is pouring into the "green" promotors from this government than the energy industry.

Therefore, make your arguments and answer the skeptics challenges without claims of denialism.




I can't beleive I'm replying.. but since I am stuck here for 10 mintues:

Your point about causation and correlation is well known and applies to anything. Stretching your point to cover the statistical well known correlations between evidence and global warming theory is simply the wrong use of the correlation/causation argument. Else, there is never causation and no theory is possible.

Second I referred to denialists as denialists ebcause i thought that was the PCI term. Call it whatever you want. Not interested.

Third, you have not answered any of the points above, namely what is the mechanism for all the melting ice and other myriad physical evidence of global warming.

Fourth, yes the earth has seen many swings and cycles. NONE have been this fast and NONE when the population was so internetworked and living at the edge of the ecosystem envelope.

Finally, so in the end, based on your rebuttal, I take it that you admit your post of the graphic and your prior arguments are void. (You have admitted that at least twice yourself if you go back and read your posts carefully.)

Now, I don't even lurk anymore, seeing as I can't resist answering.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting cyclonebuster:



No way! The red dots have it..........



The charts I posted show the exact opposite of NOAA's questionable data. When scientists can't even agree on the basic data, it ain't science, my friend.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
In collaboration with KUT's State Impact Texas, the PBS NewsHour takes a closer look at the struggle for water in two Texas towns and how the state plans to meet a drier future.



Texas Drought Cost $2 Billion More Than Previously Thought
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting greentortuloni:


Ok, this really will be my last post for a while. I just got another contract and now I am really in the weeds.

But since we had a little discussion and the latest response, while errant, was in good faith, I'll respond - also to indulge myself and close this out.

The gist of what you are saying is: since temperature is going up, how can ice be increasing anywhere?

Your explanation is essentially correct: ice loss is not due to one factor. The linked second statement is not not true: that since there is more than one factor, it logically it leads me into a place I don't want to be.

So let me explain: the ice in the Arctic is a system and something that affects one part of a system affects the other parts of the system. This leads to a lot of noice in the data and yes it does make deriving a 100% conclusion very difficult.

Suppose, for example, that there was an independent factor altering the currents, maybe someone (no names) built a tunnel system to transport the gulf stream to the arctic. The result of that water entering the arctic would be to melt the ice and would have nothing to do with global warming. Point taken, there other ways that the arctic ice could be melting than temperature increases.

A more realistic example might be that the normal currents in the Arctic changed and now wind was pushing large chunks of ice through the straights South on one side and simultaneously pushing warm water North on the opposite side of the Arctic. This would lead to ice loss on both sides of the Arctic.

That example isn't happening obviously because of ice growth in the pacific. But in reality the system is too complex to deny that some non global warming event could cause the effects you describe. (Note that this also takes away the counter argument since it just renders any growth as coincedental possibly. This is what the first reaction of most non-denialists is: menaing less temporary weather patterns create a short term meaningless increase in ice.) In other words, even if global warming were to cause an increase of 10 degrees globally on average, it is not obvious that this would cause a decrease in ice - I can imagine for example that a certain increase in temperatures could create weather patterns that isolate the arctic from the rest of the world and so an 'averge' increase would actually increase ice.

So if the system is too complex for any one data point to be meaningful in terms of proving causation between global warming and amount of ice, how can the system be analysed in light of global warming?

There are a couple of ways:

1. Correlation with long term trends. As you noted, sea ice extent is the highest it has been in several years. However that is still much below what is normal. Correlation is not causation. Noted. However, the sea ice volume which you disparage is dropping rapidly.

2. Mechanism. Sir Maelstrom was on here a few days ago claiming that without continuous measurements, there is the mathematical chance that the measurements are just missing data. (This is well known in statistics hence the gaussian, et al models that statistics backs out to.) But what SM never provided was mechanism. Global warming provides many mechanisms for the results you are seeing. The heated permafrost is changing weather patterns, which changes winds and so on as well as the temperatures in the arctic. These provide the mechanism.

3. Pattern. Ever watch a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't melt around the edges and then dissapear, mostly the ice gets thin for a while first and holes develop and then leaves a few islands of thin ice that rapidly disapeear. This is similar to what is happening in the arctic. A little bit of rotten ice at the edges doesn't make for skatable ice. As Oss noted in his video (unless it ran backwards? I assumed it ran in normal date direction) the ice is rapidly growing thinner and less stable.

In short, the graph you pasted was meaningless at best, showing only a short term weather related increase in a relatively meaningless statisitic. At the same time, it was in line with the mechanisms of not only global warming but also teh conclusions of drastic ice loss soon.

Finally, as Birthmark noted: "You are missing at least one very important point, no matter what you're trying to say. That point is that in not too many years, Arctic Sea Ice will be gone completely at least part of the time. The sea ice surface area at that point will be zero." Saying that a wee statistic voids the arctic ice - global warming link not only isn't true but begs the question: so what is causing the ice to disapear?



Patterns, correlation and regression.

The Earth has been cooling for billions of years.

The Earth has been warming for Hundreds of years.

The Earth has been stable, temperature wise, for about a dozen years.

The above statements, I think you will agree are all true.

I walk down the street. I observe cracks in the sidewalk. The sun is shining. Cracks in the sidewalk cause the sun to shine.(From my statistics professor, 1967) The cracks are still there and the sun still shines. Confirmation from me today.

Okay, I think you get my drift. If you are honest you will not take exception to the above statements to discredit what I am about to say, because what's above is not really at dispute. There is no straw man here. There is just a simple argument that perhaps the warming trend has no relation (or very little relation) in fact to anything that man is doing but rather that the ups, downs and flat areas are part of a much bigger picture that we can't or won't see.

I have learned that correlation is not proof of anything. You need to determine regression which means a function. Yes, it is possible that ice can be melting in one place and not another and that in total the system is warming, but it is also possible that the opposite is true, a cooling system with ice melting in some part of it.

Using terms such as denialist to discredit what I have just said only suggests to me that the argument being presented by that person is inferior. There are far too many PHDs skeptical of AGW for me to blindly accept many of the arguments presented so far. The denialist will claim that these skeptics are paid shills. I know that is not true and I know far more money is pouring into the "green" promotors from this government than the energy industry.

Therefore, make your arguments and answer the skeptics challenges without claims of denialism.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And with that long self indulgent post, i am out of here for a while until I dig myself out from under.

Ciao a tutti.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


The point is you can't explain all the ice loss by temperature increases only. If warming was all that mattered, then the Pacific side and even more interesting, the Antarctic would show comparable ice losses. They don't. The Antarctic has increases.
Now you will try to explain this by currents, by aerosols etc...Maybe that is even true, but then you can't say the ice loss is all do to one factor, namely warming, can you?
That dilemma leads you to a place you don't want to be, an inexplicable situation. If one part of the equation is inexplicable then maybe the part you are so certain of doesn't deserve that certainty.


Ok, this really will be my last post for a while. I just got another contract and now I am really in the weeds.

But since we had a little discussion and the latest response, while errant, was in good faith, I'll respond - also to indulge myself and close this out.

The gist of what you are saying is: since temperature is going up, how can ice be increasing anywhere?

Your explanation is essentially correct: ice loss is not due to one factor. The linked second statement is not not true: that since there is more than one factor, it logically it leads me into a place I don't want to be.

So let me explain: the ice in the Arctic is a system and something that affects one part of a system affects the other parts of the system. This leads to a lot of noice in the data and yes it does make deriving a 100% conclusion very difficult.

Suppose, for example, that there was an independent factor altering the currents, maybe someone (no names) built a tunnel system to transport the gulf stream to the arctic. The result of that water entering the arctic would be to melt the ice and would have nothing to do with global warming. Point taken, there other ways that the arctic ice could be melting than temperature increases.

A more realistic example might be that the normal currents in the Arctic changed and now wind was pushing large chunks of ice through the straights South on one side and simultaneously pushing warm water North on the opposite side of the Arctic. This would lead to ice loss on both sides of the Arctic.

That example isn't happening obviously because of ice growth in the pacific. But in reality the system is too complex to deny that some non global warming event could cause the effects you describe. (Note that this also takes away the counter argument since it just renders any growth as coincedental possibly. This is what the first reaction of most non-denialists is: menaing less temporary weather patterns create a short term meaningless increase in ice.) In other words, even if global warming were to cause an increase of 10 degrees globally on average, it is not obvious that this would cause a decrease in ice - I can imagine for example that a certain increase in temperatures could create weather patterns that isolate the arctic from the rest of the world and so an 'averge' increase would actually increase ice.

So if the system is too complex for any one data point to be meaningful in terms of proving causation between global warming and amount of ice, how can the system be analysed in light of global warming?

There are a couple of ways:

1. Correlation with long term trends. As you noted, sea ice extent is the highest it has been in several years. However that is still much below what is normal. Correlation is not causation. Noted. However, the sea ice volume which you disparage is dropping rapidly.

2. Mechanism. Sir Maelstrom was on here a few days ago claiming that without continuous measurements, there is the mathematical chance that the measurements are just missing data. (This is well known in statistics hence the gaussian, et al models that statistics backs out to.) But what SM never provided was mechanism. Global warming provides many mechanisms for the results you are seeing. The heated permafrost is changing weather patterns, which changes winds and so on as well as the temperatures in the arctic. These provide the mechanism.

3. Pattern. Ever watch a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't melt around the edges and then dissapear, mostly the ice gets thin for a while first and holes develop and then leaves a few islands of thin ice that rapidly disapeear. This is similar to what is happening in the arctic. A little bit of rotten ice at the edges doesn't make for skatable ice. As Oss noted in his video (unless it ran backwards? I assumed it ran in normal date direction) the ice is rapidly growing thinner and less stable.

In short, the graph you pasted was meaningless at best, showing only a short term weather related increase in a relatively meaningless statisitic. At the same time, it was in line with the mechanisms of not only global warming but also teh conclusions of drastic ice loss soon.

Finally, as Birthmark noted: "You are missing at least one very important point, no matter what you're trying to say. That point is that in not too many years, Arctic Sea Ice will be gone completely at least part of the time. The sea ice surface area at that point will be zero." Saying that a wee statistic voids the arctic ice - global warming link not only isn't true but begs the question: so what is causing the ice to disapear?

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I see all of the warmists pointing to the US current WEATHER as indicative of supposed global warming while ignoring the rest of the world. It's interesting to note that the rest of the EARTH is experiencing below normal temps. Remember the focus should be on climate not weather:

Link



No way! The red dots have it..........

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
I see all of the warmists pointing to the US current WEATHER as indicative of supposed global warming while ignoring the rest of the world. It's interesting to note that the rest of the EARTH is experiencing below normal temps. Remember the focus should be on climate not weather:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Xandra:


Renewable Energy Can Power the World

Solar Power



So can these power the world:

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393


Renewable Energy Can Power the World

Solar Power
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Global Warming. It threatens to unleash unprecedented droughts, storms, and sea level rise.

But wait there's more! Looks like the heat is ruining Buffalo NY's pussy willow festival!

Oh no! Not the pussy willow festival!

Seriously it is a shame that the pussy willows are being ruined. I have a feeling a lot of festivals like this will be ruined in our lifetime.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow, still another GBCW post from Oss?

Anyway, found this at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog:

Warmest astronomical winter on record in Washington, D.C.

The winter of 2011-2012, by the astronomical definition, was the warmest on record in Washington, D.C. according to the National Weather Service.

The average temperature was 45.6 degrees, nearly two degrees above the previous record holder of 1989-90, when the average temperature was 43.7 degrees. Records have been maintained since 1871.

Remarkably, Washington only logged 24 days when temperatures reached 32 or lower, the fewest such days on record.

- - -

The exceptionally warm winter follows a number of other notably warm seasons in Washington in the last two years:

* Astronomical spring in 2010 was the warmest on record

* Meteorological summer in 2010 was the hottest on record

* Astronomical summer in 2010 was the second hottest on record

* Meteorological summer in 2011 was the second hottest on record
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13462
Quoting Ossqss:


Well, I must admit you are correct on my account.

I have indeed fallen victim to blog environmental pollution. Take a look at the majority of the posts on this blog as they contain some type of pejorative. Perpetuating such was inappropriate, and regrettable on my part.

Just look for yourself.

It ain't healthy no matter how you look at it.

Rhetoric is indeed contained in most of the posts here though. So most of us have indeed typed blog topic related posts by default. LOL

With respect to the insulting posts related to the paper I provided on wind driven ice, Once again, you don't read what is provided. Cliff notes from web sites are no substitute for actual understanding of weather patters vs. climate. (I have actually read nearly 300 papers on climate related subjects, how many have you?) Reading of the weather and wind patterns over the Arctic for 10 years plus is quite interesting. You should really check it out.

No matter, see most of you in many moons from now.

Good luck and cheers to you all!

And gone >>>>>>





Ossqss, I never said that you do not read any articles nor did I suggest that you did not properly interpret other articles. What I suggested is that you either did not read this article or you did not correctly interpret what it is saying.

The article discusses a different technique being used to show that more sea ice was flowing through the Fram Strait than previous studies had indicated that there would be.

Page 1320
"Using the cyclone track data set (Sorteberg and Walsh, 2008) we found a link between the wintertime local pressure gradient trend and the intensification of cyclones over the Nordic Seas 20 (intensity measure was relative vorticity in 850 hPa). The correlation between the local winter pressure difference and the intensity of the Nordic Seas (60–85 N and 20W– 30 E) cyclones (rcyclone = 0.75) indicates that the local pressure difference is strongly related to cyclonic activity in the Nordic Seas. In addition, a significant wintertime trend in Nordic Sea cyclone intensity of 2.6 % per decade is accordant with the long-term 25 trend in the local pressure difference."

Page 1321
"A trend in Fram Strait sea ice area export has not been detected by most previous studies. Vinje (2001) found no visible trend for the period 1950–2000, but based on our relation between pressure difference and area export (Eq. 3) we get a trend of ~3% per decade for the years 1957–2000. Kwok (2009) did also not find a trend for the 10 period 1979–2007. Using our data we find a trend of ~4% per decade for these years. Overall we find a robust trend for 1957–2010 with a magnitude of 5 % per decade, and similar trends onwards from 1970, 1980 and 1990. This indicates a gradually
increasing ice export over the last 50 years. The trend is a direct change in boundary conditions to the Arctic sea ice. It is likely that the low export during the 1960’s (Fig. 7) 15 contributed directly to a thicker ice cover during that decade than for the long-term average Kwok and Rothrock (2009). The seemingly constant Arctic sea ice thickness
during the 1990’s (Winsor, 2001) is consistent with the low export between 1996 and 1999 (Fig. 7). Recent thinning and smaller sea ice cover reflects the increasing export onwards from 2003."


Pages 1322 and 1323
"Year to year variability of the summer ice cover could be produced within the Arctic
Ocean by winter growth, summer melt, or ridging, or by ice export at the boundary 25 (Perovich et al., 2008; Kwok and Cunningham, 2010; Ogi et al., 2008, 2010). Figure 7 shows that the annual variability in ice export is ~0.1 millkm2, about 20 % of the variability in summer sea ice area (~0.5 millkm2) (Stroeve and Meier, 2010). For 2005–2008 the annual ice export was high for four consecutive years, with values above 0.9 millkm2 each year. This is unique over the last 50 years, is consistent with recent large scale wind shifts (Ogi et al., 2010), and must have contributed to the recent low summer sea ice covers. .... The summer export is normally less than half of that during the spring (Fig. 3). Previous to the historical minimum in 2007 the autumn and winter export stayed almost constant, but the spring and summer export doubled (2005: 0.183 millkm2, 2006: 0.309 mill km2 and 2007: 0.402 millkm2). In 2008, when the summer minimum re-bounced, the spring and summer area export did not increase further 15 (0.405mill km2). The last two years both annual (Fig. 7) as well as spring and summer export (2009: 0.381 millkm2 and 2010: 0.321 millkm2) ended up lower than 2007. A new record in September minima for 2009 and 2010 was thus not expected based on the sea ice export forcing."


Page 1324
"High correlations between the ice drift and geostrophic winds from atmospheric reanalysis
data allowed for calculations of the sea ice area export back to the 1950’s. Our long term mean value (1957–2010) is 0.771 mill km2, 10 % higher than the earlier estimate (Kwok, 2009). We found a robust trend for 1957–2010 with a magnitude of 5 5 % per decade, and similar trends onwards from 1970, 1980 and 1990. This indicates a gradually increasing ice export over the last 50 years, and is a direct change in boundary conditions to the Arctic sea ice. The positive trend is produced by a trend in the local pressure gradient, related to intensification of cyclones over the Nordic Seas.
The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is thus only partly caused by increased long-wave radiation related to ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase (Smedsrud et al., 2008). A number of feedback effects have contributed once the ice thickness decreased (Perovich et al., 2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010), but as demonstrated by the General Circulation Models, additional forcing is needed to explain ongoing changes. Contrary to previous conclusions (Vinje, 2001; Kwok, 2009), 15 the ice export has likely been an effective contributor to Arctic ice loss since the 1960’s."


This article is explaining a new method being used to show that there was more outflow of Arctic sea ice through the Fram Strait than was originally thought to be from previous studies. When you read the article it also saying a decrease in Arctic sea ice thickness was brought on by an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The increased atmospheric CO2 levels also induced feedback mechanisms. More sea ice flowing through the Fram Strait and thus helping to reduce the overall sea ice. Increased Nordic Sea cyclonic activity is very probably the result of climate change. The warming North Atlantic currents is also very probably the result of climate change. The article even goes on to show that additional forcing is needed to explain the ongoing changes. The article also shows that certain tipping points have probably already been crossed and that more tipping points are on the horizon. ... What do read from all of this? Do you only read that there is less Arctic sea ice simply because there is more Arctic sea ice flowing through the Fram Strait than originally thought? What do you think caused these changes to begin with? What changed the pressure gradients in the Arctic? What caused the warmer North Atlantic currents? What caused the increased Nordic Sea cyclonic activity? ... A butterfly flapped it wings over the African Savannah.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting iceagecoming:
Link
Date sidc Smoothed #
2010.12 84.2 14.4 28.8 (+2.3) 4.35
2011.01 83.6 19.1 31.0 (+2.2) 5.51
2011.02 94.6 29.4 33.4 (+2.4) 6.44
2011.03 115.0 56.2 36.9 (+3.5) 8.18
2011.04 112.6 54.4 41.8 (+4.9) 8.83
2011.05 95.8 41.6 47.6 (+5.8) 8.94
2011.06 95.8 37.0 53.2 (+5.6) 8.06
2011.07 94.2 43.9 57.2 (+4.0) 8.16
2011.08 101.7 50.6 59.0 (+1.8) 7.26
2011.09 133.8 78.0 (59.2 projected, +0.2) 12.27
2011.10 137.3 88.0 (59.4 projected, +0.2) 8.28
2011.11 153.5 96.7 (60.8 projected, +1.4) 5.55
2011.12 141.3 73.0 (63.6 projected, +2.8) 3.78
2012.01 132.5 58.3 (67.1 projected, +3.5) 7.15
2012.02 106.5 33.1 (71.0 projected, +3.9) 8.81
2012.03 120.9 (1) 47.8 (2A) / 77.9 (2B) (73.2 projected, +2.2) (26.67


Not looking good, cold is coming.

We puttin' money on this? ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting drought:
In the week I've been here I've seen Neapolitan post a lot of good information. He's posted nothing deceptive as far as I know.

The worst deception in here was when Ossqss slandered Birthmark.



Well, I must admit you are correct on my account.

I have indeed fallen victim to blog environmental pollution. Take a look at the majority of the posts on this blog as they contain some type of pejorative. Perpetuating such was inappropriate, and regrettable on my part.

Just look for yourself.

It ain't healthy no matter how you look at it.

Rhetoric is indeed contained in most of the posts here though. So most of us have indeed typed blog topic related posts by default. LOL

With respect to the insulting posts related to the paper I provided on wind driven ice, Once again, you don't read what is provided. Cliff notes from web sites are no substitute for actual understanding of weather patters vs. climate. (I have actually read nearly 300 papers on climate related subjects, how many have you?) Reading of the weather and wind patterns over the Arctic for 10 years plus is quite interesting. You should really check it out.

No matter, see most of you in many moons from now.

Good luck and cheers to you all!

And gone >>>>>>



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Link
Date sidc Smoothed #
2010.12 84.2 14.4 28.8 (+2.3) 4.35
2011.01 83.6 19.1 31.0 (+2.2) 5.51
2011.02 94.6 29.4 33.4 (+2.4) 6.44
2011.03 115.0 56.2 36.9 (+3.5) 8.18
2011.04 112.6 54.4 41.8 (+4.9) 8.83
2011.05 95.8 41.6 47.6 (+5.8) 8.94
2011.06 95.8 37.0 53.2 (+5.6) 8.06
2011.07 94.2 43.9 57.2 (+4.0) 8.16
2011.08 101.7 50.6 59.0 (+1.8) 7.26
2011.09 133.8 78.0 (59.2 projected, +0.2) 12.27
2011.10 137.3 88.0 (59.4 projected, +0.2) 8.28
2011.11 153.5 96.7 (60.8 projected, +1.4) 5.55
2011.12 141.3 73.0 (63.6 projected, +2.8) 3.78
2012.01 132.5 58.3 (67.1 projected, +3.5) 7.15
2012.02 106.5 33.1 (71.0 projected, +3.9) 8.81
2012.03 120.9 (1) 47.8 (2A) / 77.9 (2B) (73.2 projected, +2.2) (26.67


Not looking good, cold is coming.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Interview with James Balog, founder of the Extreme Ice Survey (EIS), a project which uses time-lapse photography in Greenland, Alaska, the Himalayas and elsewhere to bring to audiences the story of how glaciers around the world continue to change.

Extreme Ice Survey – Seeing is believing

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Birthmark:

Know how I can tell that you either didn't watch that or that you don't know what it means? lol


My guess is that he did not read the article or he does not know how to interpret it. I believe that ossqss only read the title and had an, "AHA! moment. ... Could be. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
While looking through the USGS site for earthquake info I came across this paper released yesterday from the USGS about confidence in temperature records.

Confidence in Climate Data: Using 3 Million-Year-Old Records


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pay no attention to this post.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Study: 5 million face increased flooding risk
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


The point is you can't explain all the ice loss by temperature increases only. If warming was all that mattered, then the Pacific side and even more interesting, the Antarctic would show comparable ice losses. They don't. The Antarctic has increases.
Now you will try to explain this by currents, by aerosols etc...Maybe that is even true, but then you can't say the ice loss is all do to one factor, namely warming, can you?
That dilemma leads you to a place you don't want to be, an inexplicable situation. If one part of the equation is inexplicable then maybe the part you are so certain of doesn't deserve that certainty.

You are setting up a straw man. You are using data out of context and with unfounded assumptions. And you are possibly wrong, though the part of your post pertaining to Antarctica.

First, I'll deal with the straw man argument. It is well known that black carbon also plays a role in Arctic sea ice melting. It is also known that many factors are involved in the extent and area figures. So, your statement "temperature only" applies to nothing. You are arguing against a ghost of your own devising.

Your statement that "the Antarctic would show comparable ice losses" is based on nothing in science. The Antarctic is far different from the Arctic, starting with the fact that the Antarctic is land that is surrounded by sea. The Arctic is sea largely surrounded by land. Expecting them to act the same way is absurd and a bit of straw man itself. There is nothing in the scientific literature that says Antarctica would lose sea ice as fast as the Arctic. On the contrary, some expansion of Antarctic sea ice was (and is) expected.

Further, if your "comparable losses" means the ice sheet on Arctica, well, guess what? The Antarctic ice sheet is indeed losing mass.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Here are sentences from the abstract of the paper Ossqss cited.

"Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate."

"Arctic sea ice area has decreased since the 1990s (Gloersen and Campbell, 1991). Regardless of the definition of the summer minimum sea ice area (average sea ice extent for September, minimum of daily sea ice area, or the local temporal minimum), the trend is now close to −9 % per decade."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


NEO, which part of that ice and snow reflects sunlight. Would I need calculus to determine its thickness? See, that's a trick question because the thickness of the surface of a solid approaches zero, doesn't it? You've taken plenty of calculus, haven't you, being scientific and all?

What is it that you're trying to say, or are you simply babbling and grasping at straws, as I suspect?

You are missing at least one very important point, no matter what you're trying to say. That point is that in not too many years, Arctic Sea Ice will be gone completely at least part of the time. The sea ice surface area at that point will be zero.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss:
Most would have you believe the Arctic is above freezing and just melting in place. That could not be further from the truth. Have a timelapse look for yourselves :)

Have fun >


http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011 /tcd-5-1311-2011.pdf



Know how I can tell that you either didn't watch that or that you don't know what it means? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
In the week I've been here I've seen Neapolitan post a lot of good information. He's posted nothing deceptive as far as I know.

The worst deception in here was when Ossqss slandered Birthmark.

Quoting martinitony:


You are the one that uses tactics. You spend your life here practicing classical expediency to convince others of what you want them to believe. You are a little too quick with your graphs and exhibits for one not to believe you are a pro at the deception you accuse others of. You are actually amusing and disgusting at the same time. I hope you take this personally because it is. It is not science, just my opinion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


What? Now you are claiming ice isn't related to temperature?

I am not claiming that I understand the dynamics of artic ice well but yeah I know about ice loss through currents carrying it South and how the winds play a role in that. I know there are a lot of other variables involved as well, from currents, to pressure systems, etc.. If you want to know these, better you learn from a real source than from me.

However, since you asked, I would guess that the difference in Pacific v. Artic ice is a combination of sea currents and changing arctic weather patterns. The changing sea currents and weather patterns could be due to a variety of things:

-changing salinity as the ice melts
-changes in land temperatures, especially over Siberia as global warming melts the tundra
-changing currents as the worlds weather changes to new patterns
-just a fluke

I did my best. Now I ask you: Q1: what is the point of that question?

I return to the fact that you are posting a graph that is meaningless in terms of demonstrating the stoppage of ice loss and yet seem to be claiming just that. Q2: Is that what you are claiming? Q2B: if not that, then what?

Further, you are ignoring the fact that the graph IS showing changing patterns which could be representative of huge losses in the coming year. Q3: are you claiming that ice will return to normal this year? That it will be higher than the last few years? What are you claiming?

Q4: can you explain what model you are using? (I realize you have an aversion to models but it helps the rest of us understand your points.)

Q5: Do you think the much higher variability of the ice is indicitave of likely melt instead of likely return to normal. Why?



The point is you can't explain all the ice loss by temperature increases only. If warming was all that mattered, then the Pacific side and even more interesting, the Antarctic would show comparable ice losses. They don't. The Antarctic has increases.
Now you will try to explain this by currents, by aerosols etc...Maybe that is even true, but then you can't say the ice loss is all do to one factor, namely warming, can you?
That dilemma leads you to a place you don't want to be, an inexplicable situation. If one part of the equation is inexplicable then maybe the part you are so certain of doesn't deserve that certainty.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
"Thickness is interesting, but matters little to cooling." I see. I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks a hundred $1 bills is more money than ten $20 bills, aren't you? ;-) This from the PIOMAS website:

"Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. "

See that? "More directly tied to climate forcing". IOW, beyond "interesting".

Again, you've repeated the falsehood that PIOMAS data is "just models", as if that implies it's nothing but a bunch of randomly-generated numbers with no basis in reality.

That's wrong, of course.

PIOMAS incorporates thousands of data points from actual ice thickness observations, sea surface temperatures, and the like. And it's valid. This, too, from the PIOMAS website:

"PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered."

Bottom line: the Arctic ice cap continues to progressively shrink with each passing year, and it's now the smallest it's been in thousands and thousands of years. It will disappear entirely in summer within the next five years or so; I almost can't wait to hear the denialist stance then. (My guess is we'll hear that there's still ice on Greenland and in Antarctica, so nothing's changed.)


NEO, which part of that ice and snow reflects sunlight. Would I need calculus to determine its thickness? See, that's a trick question because the thickness of the surface of a solid approaches zero, doesn't it? You've taken plenty of calculus, haven't you, being scientific and all?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Others here will point to ice volume charts which are just models and don't depict any actual data. They are bullsh*t. Don't accept them as meaningful at this point. What matters in regard to Arctic ice and snow cover is the duration and extent. We need the ice and snow cover to reflect sunlight as that is its benefit from a cooling standpoint. Thickness is interesting, but matters little to cooling.
"Thickness is interesting, but matters little to cooling." I see. I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks a hundred $1 bills is more money than ten $20 bills, aren't you? ;-) This from the PIOMAS website:

"Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. "

See that? "More directly tied to climate forcing". IOW, beyond "interesting".

Again, you've repeated the falsehood that PIOMAS data is "just models", as if that implies it's nothing but a bunch of randomly-generated numbers with no basis in reality.

That's wrong, of course.

PIOMAS incorporates thousands of data points from actual ice thickness observations, sea surface temperatures, and the like. And it's valid. This, too, from the PIOMAS website:

"PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered."

Bottom line: the Arctic ice cap continues to progressively shrink with each passing year, and it's now the smallest it's been in thousands and thousands of years. It will disappear entirely in summer within the next five years or so; I almost can't wait to hear the denialist stance then. (My guess is we'll hear that there's still ice on Greenland and in Antarctica, so nothing's changed.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13462
"When ice gets sufficiently warm it melts. Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, and listens to no debates. It is not burdened by ideology and carries no political agendas. It just melts."

~ Dr. Henry Pollack, professor of Geophysics at University of Michigan ~
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Most would have you believe the Arctic is above freezing and just melting in place. That could not be further from the truth. Have a timelapse look for yourselves :)

Have fun >


http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011 /tcd-5-1311-2011.pdf


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Anyway, all you donkeys and crickets on the denialist side and clear minded rational people who are fighting the good fight, I may be signing off for a while.

Ta!
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


You mention the effect of temperature on ice extent. I am wondering if you know much about winds and ice outflows etc. Also, if it's so much about temperature, how would you explain the greater ice extent in the north Pacific versus the lower in the North Atlantic and that situation, more or less, going on for several seasons?


What? Now you are claiming ice isn't related to temperature?

I am not claiming that I understand the dynamics of artic ice well but yeah I know about ice loss through currents carrying it South and how the winds play a role in that. I know there are a lot of other variables involved as well, from currents, to pressure systems, etc.. If you want to know these, better you learn from a real source than from me.

However, since you asked, I would guess that the difference in Pacific v. Artic ice is a combination of sea currents and changing arctic weather patterns. The changing sea currents and weather patterns could be due to a variety of things:

-changing salinity as the ice melts
-changes in land temperatures, especially over Siberia as global warming melts the tundra
-changing currents as the worlds weather changes to new patterns
-just a fluke

I did my best. Now I ask you: Q1: what is the point of that question?

I return to the fact that you are posting a graph that is meaningless in terms of demonstrating the stoppage of ice loss and yet seem to be claiming just that. Q2: Is that what you are claiming? Q2B: if not that, then what?

Further, you are ignoring the fact that the graph IS showing changing patterns which could be representative of huge losses in the coming year. Q3: are you claiming that ice will return to normal this year? That it will be higher than the last few years? What are you claiming?

Q4: can you explain what model you are using? (I realize you have an aversion to models but it helps the rest of us understand your points.)

Q5: Do you think the much higher variability of the ice is indicitave of likely melt instead of likely return to normal. Why?

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


See, here's how it works when we look for trends and observe graphs over time. If the graphic cycles tend to show higher lows and higher highs, that would depict a trend that is going higher. Although these graphs are not perfect in that regard, i..e. each successive low and high higher than the previous, there does appear to be a clear trend toward the higher of each successive high and low.

Now you can choose to discuss something else now if that serves your purposes, but this graph really won't help your argument.


Your chart shows a period of 5 years of data. Are you prone to using just 5 years of data as "trends"? How short of a time period are you willing to use an example of a trend? Let us say that the coming summer's Arctic sea melt is 50% stronger than last year's Arctic sea ice melt. Is this a long enough time period for you to declare that we are losing Arctic sea ice levels much faster than before? Somehow, I do not see you making such a statement. Now, should the Arctic sea ice levels fail to decline to the previous year's Arctic sea ice levels, then I could see you claiming that the Arctic is gaining sea ice. This would be based on a single year of data for comparison. ... Well, the season melt will begin soon. Let us see what proclamations you are willing to declare at the end of this season's Arctic sea ice melt. Should you wish to be someone that anyone would want to pay any attention to, then you may note the Arctic sea ice levels at the end of the coming melt season. You would also note how that compares with the previous ten years of data before trying to state it as a "trend".
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting martinitony:


The reality is that, given the nature of climate, the magnitude of the Arctic and the time series that is about 30 years old,that we really don't have adequate data to really know what the trend is.The data is not sufficient, IMO and the opinion of another statistical analyst I know, to have much confidence in any statement you can make about the data.

I'm taking special note of this post, martinitony. You claim that 30 years isn't sufficient to establish a trend in Arctic Ice. Therefore, I expect that I won't see any "GW stopped in" any year after 1982. If I do see such a post, I'll remind you of what you said about Arctic Sea Ice.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting overwash12:
Thanks for the rebuttal Rookie, I just feel that the weather is gonna do what the weather does. We may have a small part in the grand scheme of things.


You are quite welcome, overwash12. You bring questions that are worth consideration and a better understanding of the question is worth pursuing. Many are trying to gain a better understanding of climate change and its causes/effects. I am one that wants to know more about climate change. There are times that you have brought me more knowledge through the pursuit of attempting to answer your questions than I would have gained otherwise. ... I am biased towards The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and physical observations throughout the world, when it concerns climate change. My bias will not restrict me from wanting to know more. Even if this involves my thinking beyond my own bias. Please, never stop asking your questions.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting greentortuloni:


Oh right, because it is a model, it is BS?

You do know that they verify those models right? It's not like they just make up a model and publish papers. They use many different types of data.

I can believe that, being a model, there are problems with its accuracy. But compared to your claims about extent and area, the problems are small.

You do know how they 'measure' extent and area, yeah? You do know what those mean and how they are related to temperature, how they ebb and flow of the course of ONE winter with changes in the weather, yeah? And what meaningful meaurement is?

Seriously, I think you are not only wrong but you know you are wrong. You are much too intelligent to believe your own banter. However, since as the blogger above noted, you are going to change your mind, I will wait until this summer to get back to you.


You mention the effect of temperature on ice extent. I am wondering if you know much about winds and ice outflows etc. Also, if it's so much about temperature, how would you explain the greater ice extent in the north Pacific versus the lower in the North Atlantic and that situation, more or less, going on for several seasons?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


No, the graphs, IMO, clearly show a downtrend that appears to have bottomed in 2007. The reality is that, given the nature of climate, the magnitude of the Arctic and the time series that is about 30 years old,that we really don't have adequate data to really know what the trend is.The data is not sufficient, IMO and the opinion of another statistical analyst I know, to have much confidence in any statement you can make about the data.

Others here will point to ice volume charts which are just models and don't depict any actual data. They are bullsh*t. Don't accept them as meaningful at this point. What matters in regard to Arctic ice and snow cover is the duration and extent. We need the ice and snow cover to reflect sunlight as that is its benefit from a cooling standpoint. Thickness is interesting, but matters little to cooling.

It might be interesting to see data developed for total energy reflected back into space based on extent and duration.


Oh right, because it is a model, it is BS?

You do know that they verify those models right? It's not like they just make up a model and publish papers. They use many different types of data.

I can believe that, being a model, there are problems with its accuracy. But compared to your claims about extent and area, the problems are small.

You do know how they 'measure' extent and area, yeah? You do know what those mean and how they are related to temperature, how they ebb and flow of the course of ONE winter with changes in the weather, yeah? And what meaningful meaurement is?

Seriously, I think you are not only wrong but you know you are wrong. You are much too intelligent to believe your own banter. However, since as the blogger above noted, you are going to change your mind, I will wait until this summer to get back to you.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Neapolitan:
A very typical denialist tactic is to accept certain subset from a particular dataset if they believe it corroborates their denial, while claiming the dataset as a whole is flawed or fraudulent when it doesn't. Case in point: Arctic Sea ice area and extent. Right now, they're both high. Not even above normal, but, still, fairly high for this time of year. And denialists have been foaming at the mouth over how much ice there is, and speculating that cooling is imminent, and so on and so forth. Yet they've spent the last ten years telling us how awful those very same graphs are, that they're based on bad (or manipulated) data.

Which is it, guys? You know, there's a name for that tactic:
Cherry-picking (chair'-ee--pik'-ing) - verb (trans-intrans) 1. the activity of selecting and/or presenting only that data which supports ones point of view, while intentionally omitting and/or de-emphasizing that which does not.
As has been pointed out to the cognitively dissonant, area and extent are not the best measurements of the situation in the Arctic. Volume is--and here's where that stands:

ice

To paraphrase a recent comment: "If the graphic cycles tend to show lower lows and lower highs, that would depict a trend that is going lower."

Can't argue with that.


You are the one that uses tactics. You spend your life here practicing classical expediency to convince others of what you want them to believe. You are a little too quick with your graphs and exhibits for one not to believe you are a pro at the deception you accuse others of. You are actually amusing and disgusting at the same time. I hope you take this personally because it is. It is not science, just my opinion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


My purpose is helping the world. This post shows a late peak in ice, representative of changing artic patterns but absolutly irrelevant in terms of ice volume or long term stability of arctic ice.

In other words, it is representative of ice decline.

You, I suspect, know this.


No, the graphs, IMO, clearly show a downtrend that appears to have bottomed in 2007. The reality is that, given the nature of climate, the magnitude of the Arctic and the time series that is about 30 years old,that we really don't have adequate data to really know what the trend is.The data is not sufficient, IMO and the opinion of another statistical analyst I know, to have much confidence in any statement you can make about the data.

Others here will point to ice volume charts which are just models and don't depict any actual data. They are bullsh*t. Don't accept them as meaningful at this point. What matters in regard to Arctic ice and snow cover is the duration and extent. We need the ice and snow cover to reflect sunlight as that is its benefit from a cooling standpoint. Thickness is interesting, but matters little to cooling.

It might be interesting to see data developed for total energy reflected back into space based on extent and duration.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A very typical denialist tactic is to accept certain subset from a particular dataset if they believe it corroborates their denial, while claiming the dataset as a whole is flawed or fraudulent when it doesn't. Case in point: Arctic Sea ice area and extent. Right now, they're both high. Not even above normal, but, still, fairly high for this time of year. And denialists have been foaming at the mouth over how much ice there is, and speculating that cooling is imminent, and so on and so forth. Yet they've spent the last ten years telling us how awful those very same graphs are, that they're based on bad (or manipulated) data.

Which is it, guys? You know, there's a name for that tactic:
Cherry-picking (chair'-ee--pik'-ing) - verb (trans-intrans) 1. the activity of selecting and/or presenting only that data which supports ones point of view, while intentionally omitting and/or de-emphasizing that which does not.
As has been pointed out to the cognitively dissonant, area and extent are not the best measurements of the situation in the Arctic. Volume is--and here's where that stands:

ice

To paraphrase a recent comment: "If the graphic cycles tend to show lower lows and lower highs, that would depict a trend that is going lower."

Can't argue with that.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13462
Quoting NavarreMark:
Its all the same cake. Just has different icing.

Its pretty obvious from previous posts you've made that you envision yourself as part of the "ruling caste".

Pathetic.


Have you ever thought of posting on a political blog? This blog is about science.

Just an "FYI".
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:


No, I depicted the post as ANOTHER cherry.

Logically, if it is another cherry, then it is itself a cherry.

I should point out that your "trend" has no statistical significance.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:


See, here's how it works when we look for trends and observe graphs over time. If the graphic cycles tend to show higher lows and higher highs, that would depict a trend that is going higher. Although these graphs are not perfect in that regard, i..e. each successive low and high higher than the previous, there does appear to be a clear trend toward the higher of each successive high and low.

Now you can choose to discuss something else now if that serves your purposes, but this graph really won't help your argument.


My purpose is helping the world. This post shows a late peak in ice, representative of changing artic patterns but absolutly irrelevant in terms of ice volume or long term stability of arctic ice.

In other words, it is representative of ice decline.

You, I suspect, know this.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Birthmark:
You have correctly labeled your post a cherry. Thanks for the honesty.


No, I depicted the post as ANOTHER cherry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yup. That cherry has been well picked already.

Are you claiming that you don't understand that graph? Because that is the only way it makes sense for a denialist to post it.

A peak of thin brine filled ice at lower latitudes? THAT is your point?

For god's sake man, get a better argument or don't even turn on the computer.


See, here's how it works when we look for trends and observe graphs over time. If the graphic cycles tend to show higher lows and higher highs, that would depict a trend that is going higher. Although these graphs are not perfect in that regard, i..e. each successive low and high higher than the previous, there does appear to be a clear trend toward the higher of each successive high and low.

Now you can choose to discuss something else now if that serves your purposes, but this graph really won't help your argument.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You have correctly labeled your post a cherry. Thanks for the honesty.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:
Here's another cherry for ya:


Yup. That cherry has been well picked already.

Are you claiming that you don't understand that graph? Because that is the only way it makes sense for a denialist to post it.

A peak of thin brine filled ice at lower latitudes? THAT is your point?

For god's sake man, get a better argument or don't even turn on the computer.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Here's another cherry for ya:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NavarreMark:
Its all the same cake. Just has different icing.

Its pretty obvious from previous posts you've made that you envision yourself as part of the "ruling caste".

Pathetic.



Yo bro, what are you on about? I don't even rule my house, let alone society.

I gather from Nea's post that you are actually on the side of the denialists, and that you think communism = socialism = cold war Russia?

No?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 550 - 500

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.