|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
And of course, there is SR and his routine of sound bite journalism.
5 out 5 doctors do not recommend SR. |
You make me want to hear more from SR;
Delete your account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
And of course, there is SR and his routine of sound bite journalism.
5 out 5 doctors do not recommend SR. |
You make me want to hear more from SR;
Delete your account. |
You and SR do make a good match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My frontline post is totally disregarded as you guys go at each other. I give up. Basement warriors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
| Basement warriors. |
Fallacy of presumption? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Cigarette smoking is self-evidently bad for one's health. It's basic common sense that such a thing would have destructive impacts. Sure you had some paid/quack doctors who claimed it wasn't bad back in the 50s, but people weren't that dumb.
Man-made pollution having destructive effects on the planet is as self-evident as smoking and the "science" against it is about as believable as "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Chesterfields". |
From my OP
| Quote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average |
Guess NASA is just on a par with those "paid/quack doctors" then. 
Instead of spouting off the trendy sound bites on global warming how about giving me something based on science? I've given you the latest NASA backed evidence that supports my point...you got anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:59 am Post subject: RE: posts totally disregarded as you guys go at each other |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| schwa wrote: |
| Basement warriors. |
Fallacy of presumption? |
You rang? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:15 am Post subject: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
| NSIDC wrote: |
| While Arctic sea ice extent is increasing, total ice extent remains below average, tracking almost two standard deviations below the long-term average. |
| Quote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average. |
True, but not the whole truth:
| NSIDC wrote: |
| Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. |
The bolded portions are in alignment, so there is some consensus between NSIDC and NASA data on these points. Perhaps for this reason:
| NSIDC wrote: |
| NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA. |
Last edited by Fallacy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
| NOAA wrote: |
| The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums since 2002. The maps show these areas for September 2015 relative to the median extent based on the period 1980-2000. The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents. Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier. |
These statements, with bolded emphasis, contravene the support offered for some of the arguments presented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:50 am Post subject: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
The US National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the US Navy, the US Coast Guard, and NOAA. Current NIC ice extent charts, which are derived from use of the Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS), present data to the end of September 2015 clearly showing that while year-over-year there is more, in comparison to the continuing range of declining averages, there is still less. Perhaps there is confusion about the locations:
| NASA wrote: |
| Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. |
Be careful not to mix apples with oranges here in the fruit analysis and criticism. Arctic = North Pole and Antarctic = South Pole.
| NASA wrote: |
| On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). |
This is probably what statements by TheUrbanMyth referenced, and since NASA is referencing NSIDC, that data should be consulted in full before drawing conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| anything from a source as least as credible and as recent? |
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
| NSIDC wrote: |
| While Arctic sea ice extent is increasing, total ice extent remains below average, tracking almost two standard deviations below the long-term average. |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average. |
True, but not the whole truth:
| NSIDC wrote: |
| Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. |
The bolded portions are in alignment, so there is some consensus between NSIDC and NASA data on these points. Perhaps for this reason:
| NSIDC wrote: |
| NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA. |
|
Three things. First I never wrote that second quote that you attribute to me above. I was quoting from the link in my first post. That's why I put it in quotes...not sure why you felt the need to misattribute it to me?
Secondly while Arctic ice sea extent may be at a low level now (October 2015) it is NOT CONSISTENTLY shrinking as the Global Warming Alarmists would have it. From your own link above.
| Quote: |
| This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007 |
If Arctic sea ice were consistently declining then it would not be (currently) above the monthly average of October 2007. (eight years later). In other words some years it is smaller and other times it is larger.
And third care to provide some links? You provided the quotes but no links that I can see. You are aware that the agencies you listed put out a lot of material and I'd like to be sure the material I am utilizing time to read is the same you quoted from. Otherwise we may be talking at cross-purposes, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But speaking of NSIDC
| Quote: |
NSIDC have recently released the results of research by James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University that confirms that Arctic wind patterns since 2007 have been at least partially responsible for melting sea ice as well as pushing it out through the Fram Strait.
The full report is shown below.
Recent research led by James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University shows that the Arctic dipole anomaly, featuring unusually high pressure over the northern Beaufort Sea and Greenland and unusually low pressure over northeastern Eurasia, has become more common in the early summer of recent years.
As discussed in previous posts, this pattern brings in warm southerly winds along the shores of the East Siberian and Chukchi seas. It favours strong ice melt in these sectors and pushes the ice away from the coast, leaving open water. The pressure pattern also favours the transport of ice out of the Arctic Ocean and into the North Atlantic through Fram Strait.
The Arctic dipole anomaly was very well developed throughout the summer of 2007 and was in part responsible for the very low September ice extent recorded that year (the second lowest in the satellite record). According to Overland and colleagues, no other six-year period matches the intensity and persistence of the June pattern for 2007 to 2012 in the past sixty-three years. The pattern is linked to the general weakening of the circumpolar jet stream and the greater meandering of this wind flow |
Note the last paragraph in particular. We are having a natural cause that was at least partly responsible for the low ice extent
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/tag/arctic-dipole-anomaly/
Oh and this is from 2012
| Quote: |
| Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts. However, sea ice extent is still at record low levels for the date, compared to the satellite measurement period (1979 to 2012). On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles), having spent forty days below that level. On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. |
So 5.0+ million square kilometers in 2012 and now in 2015 (a mere 3 years later) it is now 7.72 million kilometers?(your link above).
Yes it may be still at a low level...but it seems to be picking up and gathering steam. At 2.7 million square kilometers over the last 3 years...that's nearly a million square kilometers a year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now before you post another reply full of "averages" "means" "records" and such like I would like to refer you to the very first post in this thread, my OP.
| Quote: |
Remember the sensationalist claims about the ice caps melting?
Not only is that NOT happening but the reserve is actually occurring. |
It is very clear that I am discussing whether the ice caps are CURRENTLY (why I used data from 2015) shrinking or growing.
As I have just shown in the last post the arctic ice is growing at close to a million kilometers a year and has been growing for at least 3 years. Now it may still be well below record levels...that's really not the point. The fact that it IS growing should be cause for rejoicing not for saying "well it still isn't back to par."
Tell me. When you were a child and your mother gave you a doughnut...I'm guessing you complained about the hole in the middle?
  
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:06 pm Post subject: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Three things. First I never wrote that second quote that you attribute to me above. |
You are correct, so I have edited that misattribution. That was just a carry forward from the OP, as you stated, and my reference inappropriately gave you credit.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Secondly while Arctic ice sea extent may be at a low level now (October 2015) it is NOT CONSISTENTLY shrinking as the Global Warming Alarmists would have it. |
Also correct. The data graphs more like a drunken walk than a consistent linear path.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And third care to provide some links? You provided the quotes but no links that I can see. You are aware that the agencies you listed put out a lot of material and I'd like to be sure the material I am utilizing time to read is the same you quoted from. Otherwise we may be talking at cross-purposes, |
Follow those agency names and acronyms to find very spartan websites with current data presented straight away in obvious fashion. No deep digging or endless clicking will be necessary. Copy, paste in Google, click, voila. And to be clear, I will take no political side on this scientific issue. The data interests me, that is all, so I place it here for reference rather than for rebuttal or comeuppance. I am neither alarmist, nor dismissive. I prefer to describe rather than prescribe.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The fact that they ARE growing should be cause for rejoicing not for saying "well they still aren't back to par." |
Absolutely. Carry on.
Last edited by Fallacy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: RE: The politics vs. the science of climate change |
|
|
| Fallacy wrote: |
| Follow those agency names and acronyms to find very spartan websites with current data presented straight away in obvious fashion. No deep digging or endless clicking will be necessary. Copy, paste in Google, click, voila. And to be clear, I will take no political side on this scientific issue. The data interests me, that is all, so I place it here for reference rather than for rebuttal or comeuppance. I am neither alarmist, nor dismissive. I prefer to describe rather than prescribe. Carry on. |
See my last two posts...you got in before I edited the last one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, hey there! We are separated by screens only IRT. What are the odds we would be indoors posting about weather on a rainy day, huh? Yeah, I saw that about the natural causes. Follow-up research on that is on-going and will be forthcoming, which will of course contribute more to understanding the science even as this fuels the political arguments. Should be interesting.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| When you were a child and your mother gave you a doughnut...I'm guessing you complained about the hole in the middle? |
I was not allowed doughnuts, so I complained about the parenting more than the middles. Then again, my middle is not currently much to complain about, so should I allow that the parenting was more giving than guessing?
Last edited by Fallacy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
