Alfa Romeo Forums banner

781 - 800 of 1356 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
...the usual level for this time of year...
What is "usual", what time period are you referencing?


Subtle said:
"If you keep your data base short enough, it will fit your theory."


His response was that a high-pressure area was "parked" up there and temps were lower than normal for this time of year.

101/105guy said:
Without any supporting evidence, she is lying.


On all of my postings please understand that freezing water has a lot to do with air temps being below the freezing point of water.
Solely air temps?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
You are still being deliberately naive about trends.

The graph shows that this season's line has gone from below the plots of previous years to above most them.

Translation-- more ice coverage than on those previous years.

The explanation that all that extra ice is caused by global warming should not take too long to be reported by sympathetic media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
You are still being deliberately naive about trends.
"If you keep your data base short enough, it will fit your theory."
Uh, no, you are still being deceptive and engaging in selective evidence, which is a dishonest thing to do.

One year - in isolation - is not a trend but if you want to play that "game". Heck - I'll even include your favorite starting point - which based on your time period above is confirmation warming:

"...It’s official: 2014 has taken the title of hottest year on record. That ranking comes courtesy of data released Monday by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the first of four major global temperature recordkeepers to release their data for last year.

The upward march of the world’s average temperature since 1891 is a trademark of human-influenced global warming with 2014 being the latest stop on the climb. All 10 of the hottest years have come since 1998..."
2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record - Scientific American
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Who said it has?
From the cited article: "In 2014, the vast majority (87 percent) of scientists said that human activity is driving global warming"

Majority rule? It really does sound like the authors are trying to get that point across.

What about the remaining 13%? Junk science?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Well--sorry I brought it up.

But it is as simple as it looks. More Arctic ice cover now than at the same time last year, the year before and the year before that.

Worthwhile watching.

Particularly, as Antarctic ice coverage spent a lot of its winter season at above average numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Majority rule?
That is a quite odd line of reason.

I'd venture to guess that 99.99999% of scientists agree on the theory (note proper usage please) gravity so by your logic that is a problem too?

You appear to have missed the point, that is not how science operates and you will not find any papers on climate science saying it does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Well--sorry I brought it up.
Don't be, but also please don't contradict yourself in your assertions based on it or engage in:

"If you keep your data base short enough, it will fit your theory."


Particularly, as Antarctic ice coverage spent a lot of its winter season at above average numbers.
As already covered here, indeed because it is highly likely based on a warming planet as already shown.

“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,” said Williams."




https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

and

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Environment | The Guardian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Nah, it all really depends on which side of the paradigm you happen to be standing.
1) That is a misuse of the term "paradigm". Please try to make sure you understand what you are posting before making assertions based on improper usage of the term. You appear to be talking about "belief"

2) There is no "standing" in science, it is based on evidence, but the use of term "standing" does fit this:

a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming."

Reference above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
2) There is no "standing" in science, it is based on evidence, but the use of term "standing" does fit this:
Well now you've forgotten about theories. Good grief, you are just hopeless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Well now you've forgotten about theories. Good grief, you are just hopeless.
Uh, no, you are misusing terms - again.

What you actually said:

80OUT said:
Nah, it all really depends on which side of the paradigm you happen to be standing.
Paradigm is not synonymous with theory as you have used it. There is not other viable "paradigm" that fits the facts (note usage) and the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them.

There may be a disconnect since I am;

DPeterson3 said:
…talking about "data, and math and science and logic" ... Many of the rest of us have a broader view of the issue that includes philosophy and politics...
Please enlighten us on the side of the "paradigm" you are standing on, and remember:

subtle said:
Please cite your sources....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
If scientist are having a hard time convincing the populous then op ed's need to convey something other than science; peer pressure
Uh, no, not exactly.

1) "...Peer pressure...":

Supposition and not supported by a citation......

2) "...are having a hard time convincing the populous..."

1) Vast majority do:

2) "On controversial topics such as climate change, a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming."

You statements appear to be consistent with #2.
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,012 Posts
From the cited article: "In 2014, the vast majority (87 percent) of scientists said that human activity is driving global warming"

Majority rule? It really does sound like the authors are trying to get that point across.

What about the remaining 13%? Junk science?
If you read the question posed, it was something like, "May man's activity be contributing to global warming?" Not "IS it". Scientists, are circumspect about any absolutes as $hit always changes and there is a lot of uncertainty in the data on AGW. The percentage contribution may be tiny to large, no clarification was provided. This was gratuitously construed and misrepresented by the AGW frauds that it IS causing it. I always use the Colt 45 truth test: with a Colt 45 pressed to their temple, would they say with absolute 100% certainty that it IS causing it? Only the fools would. Or Hal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
... and there is a lot of uncertainty in the data on AGW...This was gratuitously construed and misrepresented by the AGW frauds that it IS causing it.
101/105guy said:
Supposition and not supported by a citation......
101/105guy said:
Without any supporting evidence, she is lying.
Alfanuts said:
I always use the Colt 45 truth test: with a Colt 45 pressed to their temple...
That may explain a lot why this actual science of climate science is proving hard for you to understand..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
2) "On controversial topics such as climate change, a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming."
I think there is a slight lack of objectivity on your end. The article is quite ironic and of which I find slightly humorous.

Scientist cant alienate the people they are trying to educate. Calling them stupid (paraphrasing) because they don't agree with the majority (paraphrasing) is a big mistake and funny that people think they are full of hot air. No pun intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
I think there is a slight lack of objectivity on your end
Um, I am the one focused on the actual physics and chemistry here. Ocean pH level changes are basic chemistry, CO2 heat trapping properties have been known since the 1800's, decrease in solar activity is what it is. There is no pleasurable explaination consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry that can explain what we are witnessing happen absent CO2 as a forcer. Show me a better way to be objective than focusing on the data and science, because those are clear....

ljayr said:
...Calling them stupid (paraphrasing) because they don't agree with the majority (paraphrasing).....
Red herring - the article did not do that. Please do not resort to deception in trying to make your point.

What the article said was "On controversial topics such as climate change, a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming."

Personally, I think arguing against physics and chemistry is a pretty dim thing to do especially because nearly everyone here would never do that except on this topic. That is irrational, can help to be explained by the quote above.
 
781 - 800 of 1356 Posts
Top