Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

a reply to: feelingnothing

The data is simply wrong, appropriate corrections to render it pristine by the factors creating distortion will prove the validity of his theory

Word salad.
Semantically null.

a reply to: Phage

Denialist rhetoric on display. The raw data is meaningless without corrections for the apparent discrepancies

a reply to: feelingnothing

So...corrections are called for, or not?

Still no idea what you are saying.

a reply to: Phage

Corrections must be made to data, that is how a hypothesis is proven to be true. Basic science. But basic logic must be something a denialist can't grasp.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong.

How pathetic to attack the prediction of the date, while the event is happening all around us.
Climate change deniers are those with, for whatever emotional and/or mental 'reason', have their butts in the air and their heads in the sand!
Read the reports from the folks at the space stations on how blue the pole has become, almost "unrecognizable" from the extant maps! It was just in the headlines!
More 'conspiracy', I guess, to steal your grandma's cookie recipe...

Enjoy your 'sand'wich...

(Bye the by, it has been my experience that anyone calling themselves a "True American", has been insane, and most often violently so. Just sayin'... *__- )

So even when you are proven wrong, you are still right? That is usually referred to as a delusion.

Look up; psychological projection.
Have a good night. *__-

Because we did something. We averted it. You can call them "wrong" if you want. I'd say more that we were warned ahead of time, we acted, and now things are better.

It's called mitigation. Progress. Problem solving. Thankfully, their words were heard and we managed to avoid that awful ELE.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What exactly did we do?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

We've reduced our carbon footprint. We're moving away from dirty fossil fuels. People are recycling more, reusing, repurposing more. There is an outcry when major oil-spills occur, and armies of people come out to help clean it up.

??

C'mon, man - you are aware of the domestic programs that have improved things! "Energy Star", LED vs incandescent, hybrid vehicles, mass transit, cleaner coal, REGULATION.

That's what we've done - regulation. And for my part, I'm all for the EPA. I'm a tree-hugger. I worked as a volunteer for the National Park Service doing trail maintenance in the mountains. I care about the polar bears, the monarchs, the bees. I'm actually very saddened by what chemical agriculture has wrought on our ecosystem.

REGULATION that benefits everyone (including bees) is necessary, because there are too many industrial giants who couldn't care less about how many trees, or how many fishes, or how much clean air or water we have. They don't care.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So, you're saying that natural social consequences (tech improvements, economicly-driven social changes) are enough? We don't have to tax the evil carbon atom?

Eureka!

TheRedneck

P.S.: I'm glad you like polar bears... their numbers are increasing.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

And they call themselves 'Experts'

What a pathetic community.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm saying exactly that! Yes!!
Let's continue with the concerted efforts to mitigate the damage we do!

Thanks for reading and responding. I think we've had this conversation before, in one dimension or another....









Edit: Wait. Are you trying to bait me?
Please don't.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was trying to bait you. It didn't work. I'm glad it didn't.

I agree wholeheartedly. Drop that silly carbon tax idea and let's concentrate on what really works. I'm proud to say my home and shop are 100% LED. There's no danger from carbon dioxide, but there's also no reason to waste resources. Anything that makes better use of energy is a good thing in my book.



TheRedneck

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheRedneck

We've reduced our carbon footprint. We're moving away from dirty fossil fuels. People are recycling more, reusing, repurposing more. There is an outcry when major oil-spills occur, and armies of people come out to help clean it up.

??

C'mon, man - you are aware of the domestic programs that have improved things! "Energy Star", LED vs incandescent, hybrid vehicles, mass transit, cleaner coal, REGULATION.

That's what we've done - regulation. And for my part, I'm all for the EPA. I'm a tree-hugger. I worked as a volunteer for the National Park Service doing trail maintenance in the mountains. I care about the polar bears, the monarchs, the bees. I'm actually very saddened by what chemical agriculture has wrought on our ecosystem.

REGULATION that benefits everyone (including bees) is necessary, because there are too many industrial giants who couldn't care less about how many trees, or how many fishes, or how much clean air or water we have. They don't care.

I'm just curious how much everyone will care about the environment when we are all burning tires to stay warm because all of the regulations have killed the jobs, which kill the economy because after all, who the hell can support themselves or their families working part time jobs at a fast food restaurant?

Everyone seems to be in denial about the real state of the economic situation here in the states.

Tell me, do they care about the environment in Syria? What about any other busted up broke down nation that is struggling just to make ends meet?

More people are hitting the bottom of the economic barrel than rising to the top.

Keep boasting about regulations as we lose more of our job opportunities to companies that move over the border because of crazy regulations.

It is a cycle that will come to a halt because at the end of the day, to sit back and enjoy the environment, one must be free of turmoil, hunger, and the ability to take care of one's family.

This isn't a popular opinion, but it is wuite obvious if one would take a look at the whole picture of economics, peace time, and well being, of which are needed to achieve a world of cleaner air, water, and food. If everyone is starving and freezing to death, nobody will give a damn and burn the tire.

Dude, we are not living the Mad Max thing yet.

We aren't as desperate as "The Road" -----
we aren't at the entrance to "Hunger Games"........



YET

Help us avoid that, please.

a reply to: feelingnothing

Corrections must be made to data, that is how a hypothesis is proven to be true. Basic science. But basic logic must be something a denialist can't grasp



Now that's funny. I worked with a guy that multiplied all his temperature measurements by .099685 or something like that as a correction factor. He kept us entertained to say the least he never could fully explain what he was correcting for.

a reply to: mikell

I worked with a guy that multiplied all his temperature measurements by .099685 or something like that as a correction factor.

What field is he in? Because that seems highly simplistic.

Multiplying all temperature measurements by a given factor would move them up the scale. But it wouldn't change the trend.

Right?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You would be surprised at how close some people are. You just don't see them unless you look. They're not deemed advantageous to political agendas enough to be on the 10:00 news.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

No, it wasn't accurate.

How so?

a reply to: Greven

Two reasons: the predicted rise did not fully occur in the stated time period, and the predicted repercussions did not occur even after the predicted increase came to pass later on.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Two reasons: the predicted rise did not fully occur in the stated time period, and the predicted repercussions did not occur even after the predicted increase came to pass later on.

What?

Seems like that 1969 report did well to me:
CO2 growth was on the lower end of the projections, between no growth in emissions (the rate it was right then) and projected growth (from how it had grown historically) in emissions. CO2 was up 32.65% from 1950 - 1999.

They also estimated that a 25% increase in CO2, would raise surface temperatures 0.6°C and 4°C, which also happened - if barely (0.6°C per GISTEMP from 1950 - 1999).

The other effects are also happening... melting of the Antarctic ice cap (land ice, not sea ice), sea level rising, warming seas, increased acidity, increased photosynthesis. You'll have to be more specific.