OMG...Global Warming...All Ice Is Melting!!!

[LegendKiller]

http://news.slashdot.org/artic...1&sid=09/02/19/0420255

Edit for content: More crap "science". First it was the hockeystick two statistical points of measurement. Now it's "We don't do the accurate thing because it just doesn't fit with our conclusion".

If the data doesn't fit the model, we should obviously throw out the data.

 

[shiner]

So does this mean the birds....errr...polar bears aren't dieing?

 

[halik]

Err they can make any predictions with 6 degrees of freedom (annual data since 2002)?

 

[jackschmittusa]

"doesn't fit with our conclusion"

You'd have to have a reading comprehension problem to think that's what the article said.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
"doesn't fit with our conclusion"

You'd have to have a reading comprehension problem to think that's what the article said.

Actually that is pretty much what it did say. They don't use the new method because it is not consistent with their historical data, but that is because their historical data is skewed by bad methodology. They don't want to use the new method because it is not consistent with that they "WANT" to be happening. This is just more evidence of politically driven agenda based science. It is basically pure crap.

 

[StageLeft]

That's very strange. I read this as:

We are not using a new and improved analysis method because we don't think it is improved, as it conflicts with the data we have using older methodologies.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's very strange. I read this as:

We are not using a new and improved analysis method because we don't think it is improved, as it conflicts with the data we have using older methodologies.

Come on, as much as I have disbelief in people's true knowledge of the climate, this is not what they are saying.

It is simple, they are trying to build a multi-decade model and they want to keep their source of data consistant for all their data points. It is a very reasonable approach, and I'm sure as enough data is collected from the latest and greatest technology they will transition to that.

 

[Slick5150]

The lengths anti-science people go to ignore facts is staggering. Nowhere in there did they say they were ignoring anything because it didn't fit with a conclusion, they said something about the conclusion pointed to a problem with the methodology because it contradicts every other analysis they've done.

 

[Budmantom]

The debate is over and it's hot as hell.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That's very strange. I read this as:

We are not using a new and improved analysis method because we don't think it is improved, as it conflicts with the data we have using older methodologies.

Come on, as much as I have disbelief in people's true knowledge of the climate, this is not what they are saying.

It is simple, they are trying to build a multi-decade model and they want to keep their source of data consistant for all their data points. It is a very reasonable approach, and I'm sure as enough data is collected from the latest and greatest technology they will transition to that.

I will grant you that is another way of looking at it. If they change their data collection techniques, previous data is incomporable to new.

 

[spacejamz]

Text

A meeting in Washington, DC concerning global warming was cancelled a couple of weeks back due to an ice storm. In other action, two women who planned on walking across the North Pole to demonstrate the melting of the Arctic ice, turned back due to the cold. One of them got frostbite in three toes.

:laugh:

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Text

A meeting in Washington, DC concerning global warming was cancelled a couple of weeks back due to an ice storm. In other action, two women who planned on walking across the North Pole to demonstrate the melting of the Arctic ice, turned back due to the cold. One of them got frostbite in three toes.

:laugh:

Yes.. You do realize 2 isolated incidents have absolutely nothing to do with global climate change, right?

Oh wait no, you know everything. Sorry.

 

[NeoV]

this is sad really

the 'hockey-stick' graph that the op refers to is still a hotly contested issue - however, literally dozens of very similar studies - all producing very similar results - have passed the test that the team arguing against the 'hockey stick' graph brought up - so even though the one particular study is still under debate - other studies showing pretty much the same thing are not in any way, shape, or form disputed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
The lengths anti-science people go to ignore facts is staggering. Nowhere in there did they say they were ignoring anything because it didn't fit with a conclusion, they said something about the conclusion pointed to a problem with the methodology because it contradicts every other analysis they've done.

Pretty much. They'll cling to anything no matter how dodgy and unexamined/studied, just as long as it is Anti-GW/CC.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Text

A meeting in Washington, DC concerning global warming was cancelled a couple of weeks back due to an ice storm. In other action, two women who planned on walking across the North Pole to demonstrate the melting of the Arctic ice, turned back due to the cold. One of them got frostbite in three toes.

:laugh:

Yes.. You do realize 2 isolated incidents have absolutely nothing to do with global climate change, right?

Oh wait no, you know everything. Sorry.

it called humor....you should look into it some time...really...

Hint: there is a laughing emoticon in my post.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Text

A meeting in Washington, DC concerning global warming was cancelled a couple of weeks back due to an ice storm. In other action, two women who planned on walking across the North Pole to demonstrate the melting of the Arctic ice, turned back due to the cold. One of them got frostbite in three toes.

:laugh:

Yes.. You do realize 2 isolated incidents have absolutely nothing to do with global climate change, right?

Oh wait no, you know everything. Sorry.

/facepalm

 

[Carmen813]

I think the Bible needs to add a fifth horseman, "ignorance."

 

[ericlp]

uh.... let's get real here. It's more then likely not the data but model. This is complex trying to put the entire earth, ocean, air, temps, C02, etc..etc...etc.. and make it all work in a mathematical formula. They will probably never ever get it right. But they will come close.

Wake me when we have real data!

 

[dphantom]

For those who offered opinions without actually reading the article, quoted in full below.

"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. 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.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."


They use a less reliable method because it fits their data. But any predictions based on that method will be inaccurate at best as better more reliable data is not being used.