SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 3:34:53 AM
From: Bilow1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 86356
 
Hi koan; Re: "But 100, 200 or 500 ..."

Good. You admit that your statistical numbers were just wrong.

Re: "... 3 times in 6 means it is not random. Period.

OF COURSE IT'S NOT RANDOM. ARCTIC SEA ICE CAN LAST FOR A DECADE. SO OF COURSE THE SIZE OF THE ICE CAP THIS YEAR DEPENDS ON WHAT SIZE IT WAS LAST YEAR.

HEY, IF THE ICE CAP SIZE CHANGED COMPLETELY RANDOMLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR, NOW THAT WOULD BE A SURPRISE!

IF YOU WANT TO CREATE (BY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD ECONOMY) A PLANET WHERE THE SIZE OF THE ICE CAP IS RANDOM YOU NEED TO START BY FINDING ANOTHER PLANET.


-- Carl

P.S. My firm opinion is that people who think that the size of the ice cap should be random do not understand ice caps and really shouldn't be sharing their naive opinions on global warming with the rest of the population.



To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 10:01:59 AM
From: average joe  Respond to of 86356
 
IPCC - Wrong again...

"...leaked drafts of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seem to reflect a reduced scientific certainty that global warming will make storms stronger and more frequent. In the 2007 report, the IPCC said that it was more likely than not — a greater than 50% certainty in the panel’s terminology — that human activity was contributing to an observed intensification of hurricane activity in some parts of the world. Now the IPCC — or at least the draft — says it has “low confidence” of that relationship, which means it believes that there is only a 2-out-of-10 chance of being correct. The estimated probability that the 21st century will see more intense hurricane activity has fallen as well."


http://science.time.com/2013/09/09/a-silent-hurricane-season-ignites-a-debate-over-global-warming/?hpt=hp_t2



To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 10:10:46 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356
 
A person could write a book on the layers and layers of stupidity implied in your last post.

1, knowing some terms of definitions of an area of math does not make a person capable of understanding science at a theorietical or practical level. EEs are db folks. But one does not have to know db to understand v-ir. You have no experience using v=ir and even if you learned db it would not help your understanding.

2. An extreme variation as perceived by some in a local area of the Earth has no real relationship to the global temperature of the Earth.

3. And over and over you refuse to answer the observation that now that area is covered with a level of ice that is also a record.

To anyone with half a brain, the fact there is so much ice now mean however you wish to describe some variation, it has no meaning in the big picture. Something all who understand Climate Science knew already.



To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 10:20:15 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86356
 
Great chart koan:



wattsupwiththat.com



To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 10:46:35 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 86356
 
your freedom loving libs in DC have just put a 24 hour waiting period on getting a tattoo, add that to the list on how much liberals hate freedom



To: koan who wrote (43082)9/9/2013 11:05:02 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 86356
 
.... for well over two decades now, a dishonest, highly politicised scientific establishment, in bed with scaremongering green NGOs, shyster politicians, rent-seeking corporations and ignorant, irresponsible media outfits has been warning the world of a terrible environmental threat variously called "global warming" or "climate change" which only exists in the form of computer projections. As time has progressed, so the doomy prognostications of these computer models (GCMs) have begun looking less and less plausible, leaving that dwindling body of experts who still believe in their accuracy looking more and more foolish.

......

A classic example of this is the 2007 BBC report quoted in both articles:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

Note that invocation right at the beginning of one of the BBC's favourite professions "scientists". ("Scientists", as the BBC would like us to think, channelling Homer Simpson. "Is there anything they don't know?"). There is, admittedly, a cautious "could" in the second paragraph. But this is more than offset by the headline "Arctic Summers ice-free 'by 2013'" and by the paragraphs further down where Professor Maslowski uses his experty expertise to assure us that, actually, his estimates are pretty conservative and that the chances are things could be a whole lot worse. And, of course, by the corroboration the scare story receives at the end by yet another experty expert, one Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University.

....

blogs.telegraph.co.uk