Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Global Cooling

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:37:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. Climate cycles and stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 11:17:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:37:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. Climate cycles and stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Gee, let's ignore the 75% loss over the last three decades!

Oh, look, I can add links too:

http://www.theguardian.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 2:14:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:37:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. Climate cycles and stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

That is good the ice is back (although not to global shipping who was chomping at the bit to have the Northwest passage open most of the year.)

One season back to the norm does not make a trend though and it does not include other data sets such as the Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctica ice sheet, Arctic permafrost, frozen ocean floor methane, etc.

Arctic ice has always had high variability. Just ask anyone who has walked across it.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 3:24:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:37:55 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. Climate cycles and stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

A single year of increased sea ice extent, is not evidence of a global trend. Especially given that the recorded thickness of that arctic ice has been in steady decline since 1980. The total volume of arctic ice even including the increase in extent, still shows a net decrease.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 11:43:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One interesting discovery I have made is that one's views on economics is a strong predictor of whether or not they deny global climate change. What do I mean by that? Well it turns out that those who hold more laissez-faire economic views are more likely to deny climate change? The reason is simple enough. If global warming is true, there is not solution to it from a laissez-faire perspective, the only solutions that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually reversing global warming, are those that involve some kind of strong government regulation. So the choice then is to either A) concede that such a particular economic stance isn't able to effectively deal with all problems (particularly environmental ones) that it would encounter, or B) to deny that those problems even exist.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 1:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 11:43:33 AM, Polaris wrote:
One interesting discovery I have made is that one's views on economics is a strong predictor of whether or not they deny global climate change. What do I mean by that? Well it turns out that those who hold more laissez-faire economic views are more likely to deny climate change? The reason is simple enough. If global warming is true, there is not solution to it from a laissez-faire perspective, the only solutions that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually reversing global warming, are those that involve some kind of strong government regulation. So the choice then is to either A) concede that such a particular economic stance isn't able to effectively deal with all problems (particularly environmental ones) that it would encounter, or B) to deny that those problems even exist.

Good observation. It is the classic human attribute of bias. We all tend to ignore or twist data so it is congruent with our opinions.

Going back to the original article. It was obvious that the author has a bias. IE:

Here is a direct quote from the article

THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007

Right after it the author explains how the BBC was reporting a scientist who had a model which predicted a completely ice free summer by 2013. The BBC was clearly not predicting it, nor did this author look at the viability that there can yet be a completely ice free summer in the next number of years.

He simply plucks minor facts to hold up his preformed opinion, just like using a two by fours to prop up a wall about to fall over.