Too Much Ice (cities, winter, reputation)

[JavaPhil]

Maybe it was Disraeli or Twain that said it: "Three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Lunabell]

Crap...my post was meant to say that I was *not* going to get into a debate about climate change because people's minds are made up. Saying that I was going to get into a debate about climate change when people's minds are made up would be about as much fun as pounding my head on a brick wall. I like avoiding concussions.

[freezengirl]

Tonight on the news my husband and I watched a segment about a town (somewhere down south in the lower 48) where they were being completely over run with startlings. The skies were black with them now for weeks and the enjoyment of the anomoly has long since past. There was a woman on the clip that was highlighted-showed her clapping hands, then pots and pans, hammer on poles until she finally graduated to an air cannon. Nothing worked. That was the (apparent) point of the show beyond the invasion of the birds. My husband and I both turned to each other at the same time and started to laugh at the same time saying "so if it doesn't work, you know it doesn't work, you just try louder and longer and expect it to work?"
Knowledge and understanding of scientific data to some people is like the air cannon shooting at the birds-bound to fail. A closed mind is a terrible thing to foster, but I guess it is part of the human condition.

[NomadicBear]

Originally Posted by freezengirl

Knowledge and understanding of scientific data to some people is like the air cannon shooting at the birds-bound to fail. A closed mind is a terrible thing to foster, but I guess it is part of the human condition.

It will not let me rep you anymore, but +infinity for this bit of wisdom.

[Marty Van Diest]

@ those who already have their mind made up about climate science. I'm not trying to debate on the issue of global warming and I'm not a scientist, but I would like to make some observations about predicting future weather, because that's really what this is.

1. First it's difficult to predict the weather 4 weeks in advance with good accuracy, let alone 4 generations.

2. Predictions tend to use the most recent data trends and project them into the future, which assumes no unknowns let alone factoring in Rumsfeld's, "known unknowns and unknown unknowns" :-)

3. Related to the above, predictions of the future have to use models. The have to assume that they have factored in all the data that can effect future weather. That is the huge assumption.

4. They could be right. In fact they have a 50% chance to be right because climate always changes. It will either be warmer or colder. That's a lot better odds than you get in most predictions. And even if they are wrong they will still get the grants to study why they were wrong.

5. And personally as someone said, "I hate to make predictions, especially about the future".

[Lunabell]

Looking at climate isn't necessarily about predicting the future. You are right, people can only make predictions are based on models and models are only as good as the information entered into them. However, climate is also very much about analyzing the trends of the past. Actually that is really the only way to describe a region's climate. In that way, it is possible to say that an area, an ocean, a planet has increased or decreased temperatures, precipitation, etc over x amount of time. It is also possible to measure other factors that may be influencing changes that are recorded. The information is definitely retrospective.

I think what I find frustrating when it comes to science is that many people base their opinion on the news spin or information handed out from a source that they happen to agree with. I wish more people would read the actual study, see the methodology, read how the researchers present their conclusions. That is really the only way that we non-scientists can truly tell if a study is flawed. I just read a study for a class that analyzed the success of certain aspects of how the Endangered Species Act has been enacted. I felt the researched definitely were biased because they seemed to offer too many excuses when a couple of their hypotheses were not supported. It was like they really, really wanted the data to show something else. Bias does happen, but going to the source makes the most sense for understanding not only the conclusions, but also any potential bias.

[naturesdreams]

Originally Posted by freezengirl

Tonight on the news my husband and I watched a segment about a town (somewhere down south in the lower 48) where they were being completely over run with startlings. The skies were black with them now for weeks and the enjoyment of the anomoly has long since past. There was a woman on the clip that was highlighted-showed her clapping hands, then pots and pans, hammer on poles until she finally graduated to an air cannon. Nothing worked. That was the (apparent) point of the show beyond the invasion of the birds. My husband and I both turned to each other at the same time and started to laugh at the same time saying "so if it doesn't work, you know it doesn't work, you just try louder and longer and expect it to work?"
Knowledge and understanding of scientific data to some people is like the air cannon shooting at the birds-bound to fail. A closed mind is a terrible thing to foster, but I guess it is part of the human condition.

I totally agree..

[Marty Van Diest]

Luna...you are right about bias infecting science. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, they use the past to predict the future and yes that is a good method. Although I'm not a scientist I have done a lot of reading on this topic. What is apparent to me is that climate science is a very complicated field.

They use retrospective analysis, they plug what they know into models about the past and how all the variables have interacted in the past. After they put all of this into the models they make some predictions about the future.

Users of models are forced to make huge assumptions. They have to assume that they are including ALL the variables that matter and they have to assume that the way the variables interacted in the past will necessarily be the way they interact in the future. The last assumption is probably correct but it relies entirely upon the first assumption which is probably incorrect.

Still, it's an inexact science and even if they just guess they have a 50/50 chance of being right. You would hope with all their science they are a little more accurate than that.

Even so, after this winter, I hope they are right. We could use a little more warming around here.

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by SityData

I have said this over a dozen times all over the internet.

1980's the ocean ice was nice !! (For whaling) No problems what so ever.

As that decade moved on, Each year the ice (lead) began to get closer and closer to land.

10 miles out... 7 miles out, 5 miles out, until finally in the earlyl 1990's there was no ocean ice for whaling. The crews were camped on land for almost that entire decade; then in the early 2000's the ice started to work the cycle again moving further and further out.

I've been up here for 30 years time watching the cycle repeat itself.

I am no scientist; I believe what I see with my own eyes!!

The Inupiaq Eskimo's have records & photographs of every whale ever caught; from the late 1800's to present day.

This cycle of ice movement and growth and diminishment has been going on for eons and it will continue to do so until the end of time.

Al Gore was plain wrong and full of it!

Will he ever admit it ?? Not a chance!!

SityData I was going to add to your reputation but I got a message saying I had to spread it around before I could add reputation for you. Hmmmmm? I am really stingy/lazy about repping posters so we must agree on several topics LOL.

GL2

[SityData]

Well for what it is worth; I've been studying the ice in many different villages over a very long period of time. All I have witnessed is the same cycles doing the same thing, in varying degrees. The elders have the knowledge that is far beyond anything I could ever acquire. Back in the early 1980's The elders were saying; It doesn't get dark like it used to & it doesn't get as cold as it used to when they were much younger 6 or 7 decades ago.

In case (many of you ) haven't noticed: We now live in a new age; The age of deception! Change the basic meanings of many important words, ideas & concepts to mean the opposite of their true intended meanings and purposes!