Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over

by EdHannigan / September 17, 2008 10:59 PM PDT

I am neutral, of course, but this is interesting:


Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; ice up over 9% from last year

We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we?ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn?t reach an ?ice free north pole? nor a new record low for sea ice extent.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And we're still alive
by JP Bill / September 17, 2008 11:02 PM PDT

that's good, that was a close one.


Collapse -
So, all the wild panic generated
by critic411 / September 17, 2008 11:16 PM PDT

earlier this year by the MSM AGW articles was misplaced?

Very,very,very,very odd that such dire future global climate predictions are based on information gathered SINCE 1979 !!!!

Collapse -
OK Kees, you have advocated for warming in this area.
by Kiddpeat / September 17, 2008 11:39 PM PDT

The data doesn't support that. Perhaps you can show us where the data has gone wrong.

Collapse -
Re: warming.
by Kees Bakker / September 18, 2008 1:02 AM PDT

As I said before, climate is a long term thing. You can't pull any conclusion about it based on comparisons of year n and year n-1. Let's talk again in 50 years.

And global means global. The arctic isn't global (although big).

Nothing definitive here.


Collapse -
I agree...
by EdHannigan / September 18, 2008 1:05 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: warming.

the "warmists" should heed your advice.

Collapse -
Ah yes.
by Kiddpeat / September 18, 2008 1:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: warming.

And there's noting definitive about global warming either. Especially when one is trying to attribute a human cause for any of it.

That's why a lot of folks don't think the observed data warrant the sort of draconian measures that the CO2 folks advocate.

Collapse -
Ok then,
by critic411 / September 18, 2008 1:36 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: warming.

Pick any "long term" you like.

Collapse -
by Kees Bakker / September 18, 2008 1:52 AM PDT

Global warming is defined by the world-average, year-average atmosferic (=air) temperature. I can't see any such data in the link.

Maybe you can find the world-average, year-average atmosferic temperature from, say 1990 till 2007 (2008 isn't available yet). That would be data.
Then let's see if there's something like a trend.

There's no data to discuss here.


Collapse -
re: no data
by grimgraphix / September 18, 2008 2:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Data?

Sure... people quote from studies and scientists, but more often than not, these quotes are coming from middle men sources who interpret the information to meet their already determined conclusion, and then cut and paste together the information to meet their requirements.

The fact is that few, if any people here on SE, are qualified to interpret environmental research data, even if it was presented to us. This is an interesting reality when one considers that many people on both sides of the debate claim that "the other side is ignoring the real scientific facts". I personally doubt many here could save their own lives if avoiding death meant correctly interpreting a years worth of climate data.

Me? I take a simpler stance. If one makes a mess, then one does everything one can to clean it up. Cleaning up byproducts - read "pollution" - from man's activities should be factored into the cost of production. Unfortunately, mankind has a habit of trying to cut corners rather than pay the whole bill so we decide that there are "acceptable" amounts of pollution. The reality is that we (mankind) make a mess but don't want to pay for cleaning it up. We rationalize that it is, or is not a possible problem for the future.

Hmmm... this pattern of rationalizing and justifying questionable practices that could cause long term problems for the future seems some how familiar. OH YEAH... this same behavior reminds me of all the people who justified the sub prime mortgage practices of the past few years. Yeah, those champions of the questionable practices kept telling us that even if a few people lost their homes because of their own stupidity, that it could never hurt the whole planetary economy!

Risky behavior is predictable and foreseeable. Sure, it may not get you today, but chances are if you do it long enough then someone is going to get hurt.

Collapse -
Re: data
by Kees Bakker / September 18, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
In reply to: re: no data

I'm in the lucky position I happen to believe the (nearly universal, or at least overwhelming) consensus in the scientific community about global warming being real. The consensus on the cause of it is admittedly less, but that's not the current discussion.

Had I lived around 1500 I might have believed the same consensus about the sun turning around the earth and have ridiculized Copernicus, like I now ridiculize the non-believers in global warming.

I don't have the time, means, and knowledge to do my own research. But I believe those who do and gather and analyze the data. I'm sure you'll find find those data on the site of the IPCC or other scientific sources (books, journals, sites). Then it's - in principle - easy to disprove those believers by either (a) proving their basic data is wrong, or (b) showing their statistical methods are unsound and misleading. Some poor lone scientist might have tried so, or even done so, but I conclude that hasn't yet caused a noticeable change in the consensus about this being facts.
You might be the one to revolutionize science like Copernicus did!

Those temparature figures are the basic facts. And I feel most SE members don't feel inclined to research them, but still maintain they are untrue.

Most other (real or perceived) changes are indirect. Those include
- retreating glaciers (here precipitation is a factor also, and the relationship between global warming and local precipitation isn't modeled well by current weather models)
- changes in vegetation
- local persistent changes in weather (like the south of Spain becoming dryer)
- changes in timing of bird-migration
- changes in Arctic ice (which of course are also influenced by sea-temperature, snowfall, ocean currents, so that's rather indirect)

The general feeling is that most of this indirect changes are (on the average and on the long run) pointing to an increasing temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 has some data on the glaciers. But, as I said, it's only indirectly and not a direct proof of rising temperatures. But surely, it's not a proof of lower temperatures either.


Collapse -
So, now there's something to discuss?
by Kiddpeat / September 18, 2008 4:17 AM PDT
In reply to: Data?

When the evidence is against you, ignore it. Right? Let's change the subject and try something else. I did post a short time ago about a downward trend in temperature. You professed an inability to find or deal with trend data. It's becoming more and more transparent. For you, it simply depends on whose ox is being gored, and you will cherry pick the data to match your desires.

Collapse -
I did? Link please?
by grimgraphix / September 18, 2008 4:29 AM PDT

I claimed I could not deal with trend data? And you can back up this claim?

Collapse -
Whoops, my bad
by grimgraphix / September 18, 2008 4:31 AM PDT
In reply to: I did? Link please?

I mistakenly thought you were talking to me. I need to go back to tree view.

Collapse -
The post...
by J. Vega / September 18, 2008 4:33 AM PDT
In reply to: I did? Link please?

The post was a reply to the post of Kees Bakker, not yours.

Collapse -
(NT) Officially over? Sounds the same as "Mission Accomplished"
by grimgraphix / September 18, 2008 12:35 AM PDT
Collapse -
Angie !!!
by critic411 / September 18, 2008 2:05 AM PDT

Did you see this one?

Collapse -
(NT) Tattletale !
by grimgraphix / September 18, 2008 2:35 AM PDT
In reply to: Angie !!!
Collapse -
It gets better.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / September 18, 2008 1:39 AM PDT


Frost Giant Strength!!

hahahahhaa enjoy!
-dr. karl" (from our BOL forum)

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?