"Young, growing trees "suck up" more CO2 than mature trees."
"This is why I think it's so sad when tree hugging protesters protest outfits that plant a new tree for every tree they cut down"
Citations needed.
Google is your friend. But since you are too lazy to search for yourself, allow me to do the work for you while you download porn. From HERE (PDF Warning):
Numerous scientists and studies confirm that actively managed, sustainable forests absorb carbon more quickly and efficiently than mature trees.5 Although mature trees contain large amounts of carbon, their rate of absorption has slowed to a near halt. They store more carbon than young trees, but young trees accumulate carbon at a rapid rate.6 While some carbon is released through decomposition after a tree is harvested, much of the carbon is stored harmlessly in wood products.
Yes, sadly in this day, forcing someone to shave, to bath, to listen to music they don't like, to watch TV shows making fun of their ideals or image is akin to starvation, braking bones, inserting surgical instruments into the human body or operating with nothing to dull the pain, pulling off fingernails, and threatening someone with death and taking them almost there.
My what a strong race of people we have grown into. To think, your childhood and a weekend at a frat party or clubbing in the winter is now torture.
His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy Iraqis at our urging.
Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.
I find it ironic that the same people who say we should not have gone into Iraq and let them handle their own affairs are the same ones bitching about the HOW the Iraqis handling their own affairs.
Do you suggest that we re-invade Iraq, overthrow their new government to insure that their old government got a "principled" trial?
...and tell them that Obama is planning to bring "change" to the climate.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that Obama is NOT trying to change the climate and that you need to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-nut to think that he is?
Evidently, the amount of Greenhouse pollution spewed by the average new car these days is the same as the amount of CO2 that a half-acre of trees sucks up into growth.
If every new car sold came with a certificate that an acre of trees was planted and maintained somewhere, cars would be responsible for slowing and then reversing the Greenhouse.
Getting the trees to grow back seems a lot safer and less stupid than continuing to pretend we can mess with the complex and sensitive atmosphere like we know what we're doing, which is what got us into this mess.
And about every 10-20 years we could cut down the trees and build something with them as an added bonus.
And no, I'm not trying to be funny. Young, growing trees "suck up" more CO2 than mature trees. Cutting them down and planting new ones actually makes them more useful as air filters. This is why I think it's so sad when tree hugging protesters protest outfits that plant a new tree for every tree they cut down and only cut the mature trees to thin a forest out (as opposed to clear cutting it).
Now, the only problem I see with your plan is that we make a lot more cars than we have acres. Eventually, all of the US will be covered in trees especially when you consider that trees last much longer than cars. A ten year old car is ready for the heap whereas a ten year old tree is just getting started.
That analogy would be correct if the automotive industry were using the buggy whip makers product either in whole or in part in their own product. They aren't, so the analogy is a bad one.
If it were simply a problem with them linking to news sites, then they would have sued AOL, The Drudge Report and any number of "News" sites that simply link to the stories by others.
The bottom line is that "Dead Tree Publications" are afraid of the digital world taking over their business and are doing whatever they can to protect themselves.
Ah, the state of corporate America these days. When the options boil down to - spending 20 minutes of a computer analysts time to put a proper robots.txt file up or spend tens of thousands of dollars to drag another company into court - and you pick the latter option?
What's the real motive here?
What you have here is a buggy whip maker suing the automotive industry in an attempt to save his job (or at least delay the inevitable).
Mod parent up plse. He refers correctly to the type of brainwashing the way the Bush administration has pursuid the last 8 years. Off course there are still a number of elements present that continue this style up to today.
You mean like the Obama elements?
"Profound economic emergency"
"[could] turn a crisis into an irreversible catastrophe"
"paralysis" and "disaster"
"the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life."
"...but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis...."
You have the "Create a crisis" part down, but you forgot the "Profit" line.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste." -- Rahm Emanuel (Obama's Rove)
I guess I, too, have heard the cry about wolves at least once too often...
I agree. I too tire of hearing of a different threat every single day. However, if you ignore one of them, and it turns out to be a real threat, thousands or even millions could die and whoever is in charge gets beaten over the head with it for all of history for not taking action.
Prime example. The President receives a Daily Briefing highlighting security issues. When I say, "Daily", I mean every single day, mentioning various security threats... EVERY DAY! Now, if you let one of them get by without acting, like say one that says, "Terrorists planning to fly planes into buildings", and something comes of it, you will be hounded forever as someone who failed to act. People will say that the blood of thousands is on YOUR hands.
So, please, try to have some understand as to why these things are taken seriously. I know it's hard, but don't bitch about a President who failed to act and then complain when he does.
You'd have a good argument if you didn't pepper it with partisan, stereotype insults. It took what would have been an insightful, well thought statement and turned it into a hateful, partisan based attack.
Nothing personal. It's just sad that you ruined it.
I don't see the attraction. There are no controls - it seems to be a mixture of sex services, stolen goods and plain ripoffs. The genuine stuff is just buried. There's no payment system, no ratings system.. if you use it you're just asking to be ripped off.
It's not popular at all.. the local site has only 12 items in the computer section since February. ebay probably sells that much in an hour.
Maybe they like being ripped off in the US or something. It seems to me using a system like that you might as well set fire to your money.. at least you're less likely to be arrested for handling stolen goods that way.
I only shop locally when using Craigslist. I search for what I want, contact the seller, meet them at a public location and make the purchase. You can't do that on Ebay.
An example would be a phone I purchased for my wife. I contacted the seller and met her at the Sprint store. We walked in together and activated the phone before I made payment. I got to meet the seller, see the phone and make sure it worked before paying for it. How is this NOT better than purchasing something from places unknown, paying for it with PayPal, meaning your money goes to God-only-knows-where, praying that it is actually shipped, shows up at your house and really works when you get it?
This is almost as ironic as when Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana and one-time preznitial hopeful) mocked funds for volcano monitoring in the federal budget, and a week later an Alaskan (monitored) volcano blew up, with an orderly response since the eruption had been predicted for some time. Attention politicians: science is not negotiable. It's part of that reality thing not on your side.
Jindal was against spending "job stimulus" money for a program that did very little to actually stimulate jobs.
Or...
It appears that Jindal was right. You stated yourself that the program is working just fine without additional funding.
So let me get this straight, your suggesting we ignore the leak in the hull and keep bailing?
No. He's saying there is no point in trying to fix leaks in a boat made of old wine corks tied together. It is impossible to fix the leaks as they are part of the design (earth heats and cools naturally). Not that it matters as the boat will stay afloat no matter how many leaks it has.
It is better to spend your energy adjusting to the changes than to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable. To keep with the boat analogy: Spend your energy moving the cargo out of the flooded areas instead of watching it get soaked while you are trying patch holes.
Again. Please don't attack the source just because you don't like their data. Until you can come up with numbers counter to icecap's and can explain why ice cap's numbers are bad, STFU.
Here, let me show you. You are about to post a bunch of articles containing NASA data. Before you start linking to NASA data, please read the following SlashDot submission. See, I just showed how the NASA data you were about to post is not accurate and provided a link explaining why. Until you can do that with IceCap's data, SHUT UP OR PUT UP, but leave the ad hominem fallacies behind.
You do realise journals are ranked in acedemia don't you, Nature is ranked #1, I threw in the lowly Science rag as backup.
Academia? You're serious? Academia is a liberal bastion of socialist thought by people who couldn't get a job doing what they teach. Of course, they do good work on occasion, but never rely on a single source for information.
Refer to the NASA link and the previous list of 50 Nature and science articles. Also the site you link to does not mention that climate models predicted higher rates of warming in the Artic and The antartic pennisula, exactly what we have been observing, see IPCC wrt polar amplification.
First, I have provided my own data that shows Antarcica is NOT losing ice, or more precisely, the Souther Hemisphere is not losing ice. The difference is that my data had numbers. It showed that the ice had increased and by how much. Your data had some guy saying that Antarctica is losing ice. Sorry, but I need numbers and the raw data, not a conclusion from some guy who is looking to insure funding.
Of course, I respect NASA and NASA does good work. However, as you have said yourself, they screw up from time to time. Why just read this slashdot article that tells how NASA went with an older, less accurate method of measuring ice because more accurate data would negate the older, less accurate data. Seriously! Now are these measurements you bring up from NASA using the older "sensor drifting" tech? Yes they are because it's what NASA uses! Here's a quote from the article:
Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.
GRACE is not as accurate as you would believe either. I noticed that your searches were limited to two sources and GRACE data only.
So, who do you believe? Do you believe your sources that say Greenland and Antarctica are melting? Do you believe the sources that are counter to that?
The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.
The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results are remarkable because they are in contrast to previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland's high-elevation ice.
Truth is that you don't know. The scientists don't know. No one knows for sure. When you find a source that says they don't know, that's the one you believe. You rely on data, not opinion. Make your own analysis, don't rely on someone else's.
As for the climate prediction models you mentioned.... which ones? The ones that say we'll increase our temperature by 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years? How about the ones that say that the Northwest passage will be open in 40 years? Maybe the one that says that the north pole wil
Congratulations! You got it! It took you 48 hrs, but you finally got it. You are now a beginner skeptic. You are a very poor skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless!
Unfortunately, since it took you so long to figure out, I don't have time to go with my original argument. Tell you what. Read the second article I provided and google "Northwest Passage". You have another 48 hrs.
Good luck and NO HELP THIS TIME!
As for data to debunk it, unless you have a memory problem you are already aware that I have posted it. Have another look at the NASA links from the GRACE sattelite and the 50 peer-reviewed papers from Nature and Science I posted.
Debunked it? Debunked what and with what? All I see is a wiki page on on a Senator and an interview about an AlGore movie.
However, going further back in your posts, long before I joined in...(who's the one with the memory problem?) You did link to a couple of google searches. Kinda ironic that you limited them to a single source each. This from a guy who's been hammering the trustworthiness of sources limits his search to a two sources.
Now, let's go back to your original question:
Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?
Because you have OR in there, and Antarctica is NOT losing ice, then I have to say, with multiple sources, that YES Antarctica OR Greenland is NOT losing ice! Site
There is evidence the ocean in this region is somewhat warmer in recent years - true enough - but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass of Antarctica is increasing.
However, in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass
There's more, of course. Just take your sources out and google something without including the sources you want to use. Of course, you know that, just chose to ignore it when looking for data that backs up your own preconceived notions.
Now, to link it back to this story. Yes, a large ice sheet is about to break from Antarctica. However, it may not be because of any type of warming, it could be quite the opposite. It could easily be because the temperature in Antarctica has actually dropped a recently due to a cooling trend that has taken place since 1998. (In fairness, here is the whole thing). Maybe there's just been more snow this year. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate this ice sheet breaking off has anything to do with temperature changes.
Also, the same could be true of glaciers disappearing. The coldest winters I've spent have been driest ones. You don't spend a whole lot of time in a cold area to realize that -15 F is too damn cold for snow. 15-32 F above zero is where you get your precipitation. Also, you'll learn that extremely cold temps, ice tends to evaporate (sublimate) more as the air is drier since all the moisture has already been frozen out. So, given this, purely from my personal experience, colder temps can and do cause ice to disappear. Fact is that ice levels may have very little to do with temperature changes and much more to do with precipitation, which is a while different argument.
I read a bit of his link. It appears that he is still trying to attack the source and not the actual data. I think you got it though. It's so simple. I don't know what's taking Cutter so long. I thought I gave it away when I asked him to find his own data, but he's so busy attacking the source, that he didn't bother to check it.
Now, don't tell him. Let's see if he gets it. I think he's had enough hints.
While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.
I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.
Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?
Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?
This is what I posted earlier. There are three links. If you can find data that refutes it, let's hear it. Don't sit there and bash the source because you don't like the data.
Oooh. An anthropogenic global warming denier/minimizer and you're anti-stem cell research. If you tell me you're pro-Intelligent Design, you will have the trifecta of idiocy!
No, like so many others from your standpoint, you paint us with way too broad a brush. I am all for stem cell research. What I am against is killing humans to make stem cells. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
And if that makes me an idiot, then I guess it also makes the guy in my sig an idiot as well. Wouldn't you agree? First, you should find out who James Thompson is and then go back and tell me what idiots we are.
But hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your stereotype application. You learn a thing or two about someone and use that to paint the entire person in what you THINK they are. You are no different than the racist that assumes that all blacks steal because they heard that one did so I really don't expect you to change.
Seriously don't you get tierd of projecting your faults on to others? We have had this discussion, in it we discovered your belief system is based on political dogma and a brand of 'skepticisim' that translates to calling bullshit on anything that does not match your politics.
Funny, I don't recall it going that way. What I do recall is saying that I will not give more power to politicians over reports that were produced and paid for by those same politicians. If you do, you are a dumbass. You rabidly attack any report paid for by Exxon/Mobil because Exxon has money to make, but willingly accept without question reports from the UN, the US Government, Sierra Club and others as if they are pure and incapable of bad intent.
The first step in being a skeptic on anything is this: FOLLOW THE MONEY! When a government pays for a report that says they need more power, I'm skeptical. Ask yourself, "Who has to gain from this?" If the answer is the source of the report, you should really be skeptical of its findings. Otherwise, you are a fool!
As for data that comes from a bias source, you are correct to be skeptical. However, if you can't find data to the contrary, then you have not choice but to accept the data. Numbers are not biased. Data does not have an opinion. When the data says the ice caps are growning and the scientists keep predicting that they should have been shrinking, you have to either accept the facts that the scientist was wrong or cover your ears and say, "nah-nah-nyaah!" over and over.
What more is there to say. Well, you could start by trying to refute the presenter's points rather than simply throwing insults. You seem to have a nasty habit of abusing the fallacy of ad hominem ("Attacking the Messenger"). Whenever someone says something you don't like, you ignore the argument and insult them. If you can't refute their arguments, shut up.
I also looked at your links and lo and behold it's a "swift boat" site that just happens to agree with your politics...
Speficially they are part of this ex-senators lobbying efforts, you may recall he also set up a similar shop to assist the tabacco industry.
Rather than attacking the source as you so often do, why don't you find DATA that is contrary to what was provided. It doesn't matter where the data comes from. Fact is FACT! It is true 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if it's hosted on TheDailyKOS or LittleGreenFootballs, FACT is still FACT! Granted some sites do fudge the numbers or report only that which supports their cause, so you have to look out for that. But until you can provide me data that refutes what was on the page, I am going to assume that you have none and it is correct, regardless of your opinion of the source.
You admitted you were a psuedo-skeptic, why are you trying to be all sciency again? - How many people occupy your head and do they all get along?
Yes! I am a skeptic! I am proud to be a skeptic. I am in very good company.
Did Galileo just accept that the Earth was the center of the universe? Did Einstein just accept that time was constants? Did Lematre and Hubble just accept that the universe was static? The first part of science is skepticism. Seriously? You didn't know that? If you don't ask new questions, how do you expect to get any new answers? Do you believe everything you are told? Do you believe everything your government tells you as they are trying to take things away from you?
And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?
While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.
I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.
Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?
Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing a whole bunch of ~'s
"Young, growing trees "suck up" more CO2 than mature trees."
"This is why I think it's so sad when tree hugging protesters protest outfits that plant a new tree for every tree they cut down"
Citations needed.
Google is your friend. But since you are too lazy to search for yourself, allow me to do the work for you while you download porn. From HERE (PDF Warning):
Numerous scientists and studies confirm
that actively managed, sustainable forests
absorb carbon more quickly and efficiently
than mature trees.5 Although mature trees
contain large amounts of carbon, their rate
of absorption has slowed to a near halt.
They store more carbon than young trees,
but young trees accumulate carbon at a
rapid rate.6 While some carbon is released
through decomposition after a tree is
harvested, much of the carbon is stored
harmlessly in wood products.
Yes, sadly in this day, forcing someone to shave, to bath, to listen to music they don't like, to watch TV shows making fun of their ideals or image is akin to starvation, braking bones, inserting surgical instruments into the human body or operating with nothing to dull the pain, pulling off fingernails, and threatening someone with death and taking them almost there.
My what a strong race of people we have grown into. To think, your childhood and a weekend at a frat party or clubbing in the winter is now torture.
I blame Canada!
If you're keen on "liberating people" I'm sure a list of current dictatorship nations can be obtained with a simple google search..
Well, we can't do them all at once and we had to start somewhere. What country would have preferred that we start with?
His kangaroo trial was conducted by Vichy Iraqis at our urging.
Besides -- if his trial didn't meet our standards, we should have condemned the result anyway. Principles don't have geographic boundaries.
I find it ironic that the same people who say we should not have gone into Iraq and let them handle their own affairs are the same ones bitching about the HOW the Iraqis handling their own affairs.
Do you suggest that we re-invade Iraq, overthrow their new government to insure that their old government got a "principled" trial?
...and tell them that Obama is planning to bring "change" to the climate.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that Obama is NOT trying to change the climate and that you need to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-nut to think that he is?
Evidently, the amount of Greenhouse pollution spewed by the average new car these days is the same as the amount of CO2 that a half-acre of trees sucks up into growth.
If every new car sold came with a certificate that an acre of trees was planted and maintained somewhere, cars would be responsible for slowing and then reversing the Greenhouse.
Getting the trees to grow back seems a lot safer and less stupid than continuing to pretend we can mess with the complex and sensitive atmosphere like we know what we're doing, which is what got us into this mess.
And about every 10-20 years we could cut down the trees and build something with them as an added bonus.
And no, I'm not trying to be funny. Young, growing trees "suck up" more CO2 than mature trees. Cutting them down and planting new ones actually makes them more useful as air filters. This is why I think it's so sad when tree hugging protesters protest outfits that plant a new tree for every tree they cut down and only cut the mature trees to thin a forest out (as opposed to clear cutting it).
Now, the only problem I see with your plan is that we make a lot more cars than we have acres. Eventually, all of the US will be covered in trees especially when you consider that trees last much longer than cars. A ten year old car is ready for the heap whereas a ten year old tree is just getting started.
That analogy would be correct if the automotive industry were using the buggy whip makers product either in whole or in part in their own product. They aren't, so the analogy is a bad one.
If it were simply a problem with them linking to news sites, then they would have sued AOL, The Drudge Report and any number of "News" sites that simply link to the stories by others.
The bottom line is that "Dead Tree Publications" are afraid of the digital world taking over their business and are doing whatever they can to protect themselves.
Ah, the state of corporate America these days. When the options boil down to - spending 20 minutes of a computer analysts time to put a proper robots.txt file up or spend tens of thousands of dollars to drag another company into court - and you pick the latter option?
What's the real motive here?
What you have here is a buggy whip maker suing the automotive industry in an attempt to save his job (or at least delay the inevitable).
Mod parent up plse. He refers correctly to the type of brainwashing the way the Bush administration has pursuid the last 8 years. Off course there are still a number of elements present that continue this style up to today.
You mean like the Obama elements?
You have the "Create a crisis" part down, but you forgot the "Profit" line.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste." -- Rahm Emanuel (Obama's Rove)
I guess I, too, have heard the cry about wolves at least once too often...
I agree. I too tire of hearing of a different threat every single day. However, if you ignore one of them, and it turns out to be a real threat, thousands or even millions could die and whoever is in charge gets beaten over the head with it for all of history for not taking action.
Prime example. The President receives a Daily Briefing highlighting security issues. When I say, "Daily", I mean every single day, mentioning various security threats... EVERY DAY! Now, if you let one of them get by without acting, like say one that says, "Terrorists planning to fly planes into buildings", and something comes of it, you will be hounded forever as someone who failed to act. People will say that the blood of thousands is on YOUR hands.
So, please, try to have some understand as to why these things are taken seriously. I know it's hard, but don't bitch about a President who failed to act and then complain when he does.
You'd have a good argument if you didn't pepper it with partisan, stereotype insults. It took what would have been an insightful, well thought statement and turned it into a hateful, partisan based attack.
Nothing personal. It's just sad that you ruined it.
Virtually nonexistant in the UK as well.
I don't see the attraction. There are no controls - it seems to be a mixture of sex services, stolen goods and plain ripoffs. The genuine stuff is just buried. There's no payment system, no ratings system.. if you use it you're just asking to be ripped off.
It's not popular at all.. the local site has only 12 items in the computer section since February. ebay probably sells that much in an hour.
Maybe they like being ripped off in the US or something. It seems to me using a system like that you might as well set fire to your money.. at least you're less likely to be arrested for handling stolen goods that way.
I only shop locally when using Craigslist. I search for what I want, contact the seller, meet them at a public location and make the purchase. You can't do that on Ebay.
An example would be a phone I purchased for my wife. I contacted the seller and met her at the Sprint store. We walked in together and activated the phone before I made payment. I got to meet the seller, see the phone and make sure it worked before paying for it. How is this NOT better than purchasing something from places unknown, paying for it with PayPal, meaning your money goes to God-only-knows-where, praying that it is actually shipped, shows up at your house and really works when you get it?
This is almost as ironic as when Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana and one-time preznitial hopeful) mocked funds for volcano monitoring in the federal budget, and a week later an Alaskan (monitored) volcano blew up, with an orderly response since the eruption had been predicted for some time. Attention politicians: science is not negotiable. It's part of that reality thing not on your side.
Jindal was against spending "job stimulus" money for a program that did very little to actually stimulate jobs.
Or...
It appears that Jindal was right. You stated yourself that the program is working just fine without additional funding.
So let me get this straight, your suggesting we ignore the leak in the hull and keep bailing?
No. He's saying there is no point in trying to fix leaks in a boat made of old wine corks tied together. It is impossible to fix the leaks as they are part of the design (earth heats and cools naturally). Not that it matters as the boat will stay afloat no matter how many leaks it has.
It is better to spend your energy adjusting to the changes than to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable. To keep with the boat analogy: Spend your energy moving the cargo out of the flooded areas instead of watching it get soaked while you are trying patch holes.
Again. Please don't attack the source just because you don't like their data. Until you can come up with numbers counter to icecap's and can explain why ice cap's numbers are bad, STFU.
Here, let me show you. You are about to post a bunch of articles containing NASA data. Before you start linking to NASA data, please read the following SlashDot submission. See, I just showed how the NASA data you were about to post is not accurate and provided a link explaining why. Until you can do that with IceCap's data, SHUT UP OR PUT UP, but leave the ad hominem fallacies behind.
You do realise journals are ranked in acedemia don't you, Nature is ranked #1, I threw in the lowly Science rag as backup.
Academia? You're serious? Academia is a liberal bastion of socialist thought by people who couldn't get a job doing what they teach. Of course, they do good work on occasion, but never rely on a single source for information.
Refer to the NASA link and the previous list of 50 Nature and science articles. Also the site you link to does not mention that climate models predicted higher rates of warming in the Artic and The antartic pennisula, exactly what we have been observing, see IPCC wrt polar amplification.
First, I have provided my own data that shows Antarcica is NOT losing ice, or more precisely, the Souther Hemisphere is not losing ice. The difference is that my data had numbers. It showed that the ice had increased and by how much. Your data had some guy saying that Antarctica is losing ice. Sorry, but I need numbers and the raw data, not a conclusion from some guy who is looking to insure funding.
Of course, I respect NASA and NASA does good work. However, as you have said yourself, they screw up from time to time. Why just read this slashdot article that tells how NASA went with an older, less accurate method of measuring ice because more accurate data would negate the older, less accurate data. Seriously! Now are these measurements you bring up from NASA using the older "sensor drifting" tech? Yes they are because it's what NASA uses! Here's a quote from the article:
Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.
GRACE is not as accurate as you would believe either. I noticed that your searches were limited to two sources and GRACE data only.
So, who do you believe? Do you believe your sources that say Greenland and Antarctica are melting? Do you believe the sources that are counter to that?
The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.
The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results are remarkable because they are in contrast to previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland's high-elevation ice.
Truth is that you don't know. The scientists don't know. No one knows for sure. When you find a source that says they don't know, that's the one you believe. You rely on data, not opinion. Make your own analysis, don't rely on someone else's.
As for the climate prediction models you mentioned.... which ones? The ones that say we'll increase our temperature by 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years? How about the ones that say that the Northwest passage will be open in 40 years? Maybe the one that says that the north pole wil
Congratulations! You got it! It took you 48 hrs, but you finally got it. You are now a beginner skeptic. You are a very poor skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless!
Unfortunately, since it took you so long to figure out, I don't have time to go with my original argument. Tell you what. Read the second article I provided and google "Northwest Passage". You have another 48 hrs.
Good luck and NO HELP THIS TIME!
As for data to debunk it, unless you have a memory problem you are already aware that I have posted it. Have another look at the NASA links from the GRACE sattelite and the 50 peer-reviewed papers from Nature and Science I posted.
Debunked it? Debunked what and with what? All I see is a wiki page on on a Senator and an interview about an AlGore movie.
However, going further back in your posts, long before I joined in...(who's the one with the memory problem?) You did link to a couple of google searches. Kinda ironic that you limited them to a single source each. This from a guy who's been hammering the trustworthiness of sources limits his search to a two sources.
Now, let's go back to your original question:
Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?
Because you have OR in there, and Antarctica is NOT losing ice, then I have to say, with multiple sources, that YES Antarctica OR Greenland is NOT losing ice!
Site
There is evidence the ocean in this region is somewhat warmer in recent years - true enough - but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass of Antarctica is increasing.
Site:
However, in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass
There's more, of course. Just take your sources out and google something without including the sources you want to use. Of course, you know that, just chose to ignore it when looking for data that backs up your own preconceived notions.
Now, to link it back to this story. Yes, a large ice sheet is about to break from Antarctica. However, it may not be because of any type of warming, it could be quite the opposite. It could easily be because the temperature in Antarctica has actually dropped a recently due to a cooling trend that has taken place since 1998. (In fairness, here is the whole thing). Maybe there's just been more snow this year. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate this ice sheet breaking off has anything to do with temperature changes.
Also, the same could be true of glaciers disappearing. The coldest winters I've spent have been driest ones. You don't spend a whole lot of time in a cold area to realize that -15 F is too damn cold for snow. 15-32 F above zero is where you get your precipitation. Also, you'll learn that extremely cold temps, ice tends to evaporate (sublimate) more as the air is drier since all the moisture has already been frozen out. So, given this, purely from my personal experience, colder temps can and do cause ice to disappear. Fact is that ice levels may have very little to do with temperature changes and much more to do with precipitation, which is a while different argument.
I read a bit of his link. It appears that he is still trying to attack the source and not the actual data. I think you got it though. It's so simple. I don't know what's taking Cutter so long. I thought I gave it away when I asked him to find his own data, but he's so busy attacking the source, that he didn't bother to check it.
Now, don't tell him. Let's see if he gets it. I think he's had enough hints.
While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.
I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.
Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?
Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?
This is what I posted earlier. There are three links. If you can find data that refutes it, let's hear it. Don't sit there and bash the source because you don't like the data.
Put up or Shut up!
Oooh. An anthropogenic global warming denier/minimizer and you're anti-stem cell research. If you tell me you're pro-Intelligent Design, you will have the trifecta of idiocy!
No, like so many others from your standpoint, you paint us with way too broad a brush. I am all for stem cell research. What I am against is killing humans to make stem cells. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
And if that makes me an idiot, then I guess it also makes the guy in my sig an idiot as well. Wouldn't you agree? First, you should find out who James Thompson is and then go back and tell me what idiots we are.
But hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your stereotype application. You learn a thing or two about someone and use that to paint the entire person in what you THINK they are. You are no different than the racist that assumes that all blacks steal because they heard that one did so I really don't expect you to change.
Seriously don't you get tierd of projecting your faults on to others? We have had this discussion, in it we discovered your belief system is based on political dogma and a brand of 'skepticisim' that translates to calling bullshit on anything that does not match your politics.
Funny, I don't recall it going that way. What I do recall is saying that I will not give more power to politicians over reports that were produced and paid for by those same politicians. If you do, you are a dumbass. You rabidly attack any report paid for by Exxon/Mobil because Exxon has money to make, but willingly accept without question reports from the UN, the US Government, Sierra Club and others as if they are pure and incapable of bad intent.
The first step in being a skeptic on anything is this: FOLLOW THE MONEY! When a government pays for a report that says they need more power, I'm skeptical. Ask yourself, "Who has to gain from this?" If the answer is the source of the report, you should really be skeptical of its findings. Otherwise, you are a fool!
As for data that comes from a bias source, you are correct to be skeptical. However, if you can't find data to the contrary, then you have not choice but to accept the data. Numbers are not biased. Data does not have an opinion. When the data says the ice caps are growning and the scientists keep predicting that they should have been shrinking, you have to either accept the facts that the scientist was wrong or cover your ears and say, "nah-nah-nyaah!" over and over.
What more is there to say. Well, you could start by trying to refute the presenter's points rather than simply throwing insults. You seem to have a nasty habit of abusing the fallacy of ad hominem ("Attacking the Messenger"). Whenever someone says something you don't like, you ignore the argument and insult them. If you can't refute their arguments, shut up.
I also looked at your links and lo and behold it's a "swift boat" site that just happens to agree with your politics...
Speficially they are part of this ex-senators lobbying efforts, you may recall he also set up a similar shop to assist the tabacco industry.
Rather than attacking the source as you so often do, why don't you find DATA that is contrary to what was provided. It doesn't matter where the data comes from. Fact is FACT! It is true 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if it's hosted on TheDailyKOS or LittleGreenFootballs, FACT is still FACT! Granted some sites do fudge the numbers or report only that which supports their cause, so you have to look out for that. But until you can provide me data that refutes what was on the page, I am going to assume that you have none and it is correct, regardless of your opinion of the source.
You admitted you were a psuedo-skeptic, why are you trying to be all sciency again? - How many people occupy your head and do they all get along?
Yes! I am a skeptic! I am proud to be a skeptic. I am in very good company.
Did Galileo just accept that the Earth was the center of the universe? Did Einstein just accept that time was constants? Did Lematre and Hubble just accept that the universe was static? The first part of science is skepticism. Seriously? You didn't know that? If you don't ask new questions, how do you expect to get any new answers? Do you believe everything you are told? Do you believe everything your government tells you as they are trying to take things away from you?
Seriously? You don't even ask?
And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?
While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.
I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.
Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?
Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?