Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Extent Tops 2012's, But Is 6th Lowest In History
We mentioned recently the rebound in Arctic ice levels compared to those found at the end of last summer; now that the 2013 minimum has been reached, Forbes' Alex Knapp points out that 2013's figures still show the 6th lowest ice extent in recorded history. "This pattern is expected to continue as average global temperatures continue to rise, leading to further Arctic Ice melts. The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is, has also been steadily declining over the same period. And although the charts above only go back to the 80s, the loss of sea ice began several decades prior to that. In 2011, a paper published in Nature estimating Arctic ice extent for the past 1450 years shows a sharp decline in Arctic ice beginning in the mid-20th century."
... that the trend of annual extent minima was supposed to be monotonic?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Wonder no more: it is a statistical effect called Regression toward the mean. Specifically: ... following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme.
Not that annual Arctic ice levels are entirely random. They are somewhat linked, hence this year's being among the lowest in observed history.
Even if it goes back to the '30s, 80 years is a millisecond in geologic terms. There is too much emphasis put on "recorded history" when is is such a short time period.
So it's the sixth lowest record in 35 or so such records. That's a bit underwhelming. And I find it interesting how the other replier goes on to say that ice volume is down significantly even though it is "hard to measure". It's interesting how much modern climatology relies on data that is hard to verify.
Toxic lights bulbs don't actually save as much power as they claim. The daylight saving time change actually resulted in more energy being consumed than saved. BUT that doesn't mean they were ineffective. They're having just the result desired, making people feel like they are doing something to solve the problems but having those same problems still around to force even greater changes.
There was no misconduct found due to "ClimateGate". Read the scientific literature, not some interpretation by some talking head you happen to agree with. That's not learning, that's masturbation.
How much do you get paid to call everyone who questions the leftist AGW wealth redistribution "solution" a shill? I mean, really. I want in.
The value for the standard deviation of TWO POINTS is infinity. That is because you divide the values or RMS error by the number of points minus 2. In the case of two points, that comes to divide by zero, which is infinity.
You cannot make a point of uncertainty with two points alone.
Meanwhile, the value against the long-term trend fit is within 1 standard deviation, therefore the trend continuing is not excluded.
Your intended null hypothesis is "The trend has stopped". That is NOT proven.
2016+/-3.
That means maybe 2013, maybe 2019. We haven't passed 2019.
And, again, the claim wasn't that the ice would be gone, it would be a summer extent. We'd get ice back.
Moreover, that's one guy.
Now what about other predictions that AGW would be falsified by 2012 being about the 1956 average? Your statement merely shows one man was wrong. Big deal. Doesn't disprove the general science which has there being no sea ice by maybe 2040. But deniers you DO listen to are wrong in damn near (95%+) all cases. Yet you don't decide that the case against AGW is wrong, do you.
Why?
Because you're a moron.
You might want to ask yourself why there are more clashes between polar and brown bears... Maybe something along the lines of them losing their habitat and having to spread... No, that can't be it. They must be in cahoots with those damned liberal scientists. Hint: Measuring a populations' behaviour from outside the population isn't going to help anyone learn anything. Listen to the scientists who actually study this stuff and see what they say. Another hint: They disagree with you.
Eirik "the Red" Thorvaldsson chose the 2nd version in the 10th century, for some reason.
Hahaa....oh man. "Arrogance." Yes, that's how science works. A->B unless the Arrogance Coefficient is too high, in which case Zeus steps in and prevents B from happening because he hates human pride. Do you even listen to yourself talk?
You have to remember for the libertarians (the Heartland Institute's branch anyway) it's not really about the science it's about defending their ideology from an existential challenge. They believe that government is always bad and capitalism always good. The very idea of capitalism causing a massive global problem that can only be resolved by government intervention is unthinkable and thus must be false. The facts be damned, because they know the "The Truth of Capitalist Libertarianism" they know that AGW can not true.
Also, the Heartland Institute is funded by the true believers, so they will fight this to the last breath because both their identities and their jobs depend on it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's below the long term average (by a million square km), and there are exactly two data points, so only a fool would consider that an upward trend. Also the years with lower ice extents are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
You're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Besides for all that IIRC "Greenland" was a real estate scam like "Quiet Sylvan Resort Acres Nice Trees and Wildlife Developement" is really crappy townhouses in a ghetto next to a railroad track and down the street from the toxic waste dump.
I never knew a libertarian who stated that all Government is bad, and that capitalism is always good. Of course, when you make generalizations on subjects you don't know anything about, you are liable to get it completely wrong. Libertarians are not anarchists period. That might be part of your confusion. Libertarians believe in SMALL Government, not NO government which is what differentiates libertarians from anarchists. You can thank me for this lesson on terms, but like always, look the word up if you don't know what it means! Please.
As for Government intervention, if a problem is large enough, I don't as a libertarian see an issue with a massive Government project. If a meteor is coming towards the Earth and the proof is easy to see, I would be the first to support massive Government spending to attempt to save the planet. The problem that most people who are skeptics on global warming is that the evidence for "catastrophic" climate change is not in evidence. You expect us to believe and trust you and others like you when all along every prediction and projection even has ended up being wrong. If CO2 did indeed have an amplification effect on water as proposed by global warming catastrophe believers, we would have seen much higher temperature than what we have so far. Now, if CO2 has a more minor inpact as the physics tells us (1.0 degrees C of warming per doubling) or even less, the models would diverge from reality like they have recently simply because the effect of CO2 is too small to over-come natural variation.
Where is the proof? That is the question all of us skeptics are asking and we are willing to discuss radical ideas to fix this problem when the proof arrives, but over the last 5 years we have seen nothing but obfuscation, insults and downright dirty behavior including scientists keeping their methods to themselves and simply publishing papers that no one else can duplicate. If you instead of spending time insulting us and obfuscating the truth went out and attempted to prove your case minus insults and full of dialogue, you might not be losing numbers like you have. That kind of behavior simply turns normal people off. So what about it? are you willing to have a discussion on this subject, or are you just going to call me "true believer" and other insulting terms and insult anyone who questions a certain orthodoxy. Because in my experience the person throwing out the insults is the one who tends to have nothing else to say.