The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt (border, Michigan, administration, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've been "helping" or redistributing wealth to lesser countries for sometime. Not anymore different than what we have been doing for several decades. Sh*t..... just think how much redistribution we did during the Cold War.
What does this have to do with the Arctic Ocean? Anyhow, more to the point, the Arctic Ocean is starting to refreeze. I took a screenshot of the Arctic Ocean sea ice at its minimum so as to preserve an image of sea ice at its lowest ever in recent years. From the cryosphere today, Sept 16 had the least sea ice. It's starting to refreeze fast.
What does this have to do with the Arctic Ocean? Anyhow, more to the point, the Arctic Ocean is starting to refreeze. I took a screenshot of the Arctic Ocean sea ice at its minimum so as to preserve an image of sea ice at its lowest ever in recent years. From the cryosphere today, Sept 16 had the least sea ice. It's starting to refreeze fast.
Because I don't think of it as wealth redistribution or in buzz word terms. But if that's what you want to call it then I don't see the big deal since (as I pointed out) we've been doing it for many decades.
Now do you have anything to add about the OP at hand or you want to keep going off topic?
Because I don't think of it as wealth redistribution or in buzz word terms. But if that's what you want to call it then I don't see the big deal since (as I pointed out) we've been doing it for many decades.
Now do you have anything to add about the OP at hand or you want to keep going off topic?
We don't really know what the intent of the OP is because s/he posted a video link without any comment.
My position is that the earth is warming - certainly at the poles. The northern hemisphere seems more susceptible to temperature swings over the long term. There is ample evidence that the North Pole was a rain forest at one point at its current latitude. That predates man. We have a blip of data and lots of theory. Much of the theory is untested, or fails when tested.
Maybe the earth was always hot and a comet stirred up enough crud to cool us down. Maybe it's always cold and the wobble allows it to warm. Maybe we are a young planet relative to Mars. Maybe our position relative to the sun allows just the right conditions for life as we know it.
While there are global ramifications, the bad graphs and misinformation from both camps do nothing to help their cause. Warmer? Yep. Big deal.
I'm an economic environmentalist - I understand the value of a dollar and the cost benefits associated with conserving. Since Al Gore and his ilk have already stated the warming is human caused and we are past the point of return, I find the entire debate silly. The science is settled. We are all doomed.
Simply speaking, if CO2 is the cause and its 70% auto-related as one study asserts, gas should be $10 a gallon in the US - what with lives and sea ice dependent on it.
Look in the mirror or how about you go a back a few pages where you did exacly that.
You are the one selling speculation as if it was conclusive, I am not. If you are doing such, you are wrong, period. Science isn't a process of speculation without validation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Well first off, I can't seem to find your definition or description of how models work anywhere online.
Secondly, in your "definition or "description" you seemed to use vague language in order to make it seem like models are just based on guesses and unknowns. That is blatently false to suggest that the data the goes into these models are just "guesses".
Establishing a known from mostly unknowns is the issue. Look into models, how many unknowns they make assumptions of. Look up the Drake equation, it is entirely based on "unknowns" and tell me, how can you establish a known from all unknowns? Now, consider the number of unknowns in any given evaluation, specifically the complexity of climate models. How many aspects of the system are they making assumptions about compared to that which they do know? Statistical evaluation is always a tricky process and it is highly subject to bias in all stages of its application. This is why the models consistently fail, why they are surprised often when events like the current Arctic's melt happens.
The simple fact is that models can be useful tools for exploration, but they are not a validation mechanism and so making scientific conclusions based on models is foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Conclusions based on the probability that the Earth is warming and we are behind it. Yes.
Making conclusions based on speculation without proper validation is not science, it is stupidity. The models are nowhere near being validated in their assumptions and yet you go on and on about how they are conclusive. /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
We've been through this old man. You need to take your Namenda. I'm a biochemist here in Houston TX. We've already argued about our qualifications before.
Then your education failed you, because you argue against the scientific method. You argue that validation is not required, that statistical speculation is conclusive. That does not bode well for your "qualifications".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Surprise, surprise.
I didn't capitalize, it is Deep Thought, a reference to a computer in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where they input a question concerning the meaning of life and obtained the answer "42". The point is, you think a machine is magical and can simply create that which does not exist. You can not statistically establish a known from an unknown. You can hypothesis a certain result and model it, but you need to validate it otherwise all you are doing is "creating" an answer that is meaningless since you didn't understand the what you were evaluating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Sure sure. Well you may want to come back with a better definition or description of how models work and maybe I'll start believe you understand. Oh and drop the communist/McCarthyism crap, it just doesn't make you seem like a credible person here in 2012.
Look up the scientific method, what are the steps? Can you establish a conclusion without the consistent validation, verification, and replication stages? Explain to me how a model establishes those three requirements and give an example of where this has been shown empirically? Oh that is right, its "complex" and we can't do that, but we can sure punch numbers in a shiny computer and all will come out well right?
/boggle
Oh, and the alinksy tactic is to argue over definitions while ignoring the content of the discussion. You know, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. /sigh
Or how about I just call them a communist eh? Take a page from the book of Nomander.
You argue about being a communist. Seriously, how can you be so obtuse? You make arguments that identify your position as such, then go on claiming you aren't such. So either you are clueless as to what you actually are supporting or a liar. /shrug
Because I don't think of it as wealth redistribution or in buzz word terms. But if that's what you want to call it then I don't see the big deal since (as I pointed out) we've been doing it for many decades.
Now do you have anything to add about the OP at hand or you want to keep going off topic?
/sigh
Because you have redefined the meaning to be something else. This is a common tactic to evade dealing with a particular position being identified. Someone says, hey, that has four equal sides, that is a square and you respond with, no, it isn't... because I don't define it by such words. It is the decaying of logical and intelligent communication and it is why you think a model does more than it is capable of. You are so busy redefining the meaning of things to fit your own subjective view that you make everything you evaluate meaningless.
All the Arctic water is apparently migration to the Antartic and the resulting imbalance is going to turn the workd upside down.
How else do you explaine the reversed magnitic fiels recorded on the ocean floor. The magnetic poles didn't shift but imbalance shifted the crust on the core. It was a great tragedy as many animals wound up upside down and fell into space.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyhow, more to the point, the Arctic Ocean is starting to refreeze. I took a screenshot of the Arctic Ocean sea ice at its minimum so as to preserve an image of sea ice at its lowest ever in recent years. From the cryosphere today, Sept 16 had the least sea ice. It's starting to refreeze fast.
