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.
There has already been 3 or 4 threads started on this and it has been debunked as tabloid media getting the science wrong .... again. Now we have Fox Entertainment "News" jumping on the bandwagon and "reporting" the same tabloid story.
The tabloid press love you guys for swallowing everything they print without bothering to check the facts first. Fox News loves you too.
They couldn't even get the percentage right. It's 45% up from 2012 which was a record breaking low, not 60%. It was expected to be more than 2012. But the trend is continuing to decrease.
"When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.
Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising. "Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012."
The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent."
Since the dawn of the satellite era in the mid-1960s, Feltgen said the latest date for the first hurricane to arrive was set by Gustav when it made its debut on Sept. 11, 2002.
NOAA still expects an above average number of named storms this season and says the season has the potential to be "very active".
80% of all Atlantic named tropical cyclones form in the three-month period from August through October.
“Our confidence for an above-normal season is still high because the predicted atmospheric and oceanic conditions that are favorable for storm development have materialized,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service.
Dontcha know, two data points doth a scientist make. Mealwhile in the southern hemisphere, we have had one of the mildest winters in my lifetime and we have had snow on table mountain
There has already been 3 or 4 threads started on this and it has been debunked as tabloid media getting the science wrong .... again. Now we have Fox Entertainment "News" jumping on the bandwagon and "reporting" the same tabloid story.
The tabloid press love you guys for swallowing everything they print without bothering to check the facts first. Fox News loves you too.
They couldn't even get the percentage right. It's 45% up from 2012 which was a record breaking low, not 60%. It was expected to be more than 2012. But the trend is continuing to decrease.
"When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.
Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising. "Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012."
The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent."
Wait... you combat one media claiming bias and then use another as written by Dana Nuccitelli as evidence? You do realize this is the guy one of the authors of the 97% paper whose "statistical methods" were found to not just wrong, but complete garbage?
Obviously the 60% growth is a play on words, but Nuccitelli explanation doesn't hold water. For instance, he claims 80% of the 100 hundred at the Bjerknes conference (as if this establishes anything) already predicted this, but... he provides no citation of this claim? Is this another 97% = .03% claim? Hard to say as we can't verify his claim. He links only to a short page on the conference, no specific statements by these 80 scientists to back up his claim.
Personally, after him and Cooks last couple of papers, I am very skeptical of anything he provides, especially after the thorough thrashing he received from Monckton and Spencer for his blatant falsehoods.
I think it is interesting that global warming believers are saying "You can't look at next year".... then the year after, nor the year after that, or any year where there is an increase in global ice... basically you can only look at evidence where there is a decrease in global ice... global warming is such BS...
No no. The denialist's simplistic arguments and cartoonish understanding of this issue is what's BS. As is their attempts to pretend tabloids and the blogs of cue-card readers are scientific publications.
I've never heard of Table Mountain. Is there a reason I should pretend its snowpack is a 1:1 indicator of global temperature averages? Obviously some denialist thinks this is good science. It's not, but I'd like to hear why the denialist thinks otherwise because I could use a laugh.
No no. The denialist's simplistic arguments and cartoonish understanding of this issue is what's BS. As is their attempts to pretend tabloids and the blogs of cue-card readers are scientific publications.
I've never heard of Table Mountain. Is there a reason I should pretend its snowpack is a 1:1 indicator of global temperature averages? Obviously some denialist thinks this is good science. It's not, but I'd like to hear why the denialist thinks otherwise because I could use a laugh.
Last time I checked, I brought some scientific research while you brought only rhetoric and fallacious accusations. Your overuse of the word "denialist" betrays you as nothing more than another political activist talking point lackey and not even a clever one at that.
I had one who isn't on my ignore list in mind, actually.
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.
