« prev   random   next »

2
4

Arctic sea ice minimum at 8th lowest.

By Onvacation following x   2017 Nov 18, 9:01pm 2,149 views   16 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


#environment
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/end-of-summer-arctic-sea-ice-extent-is-eighth-lowest-on-record If it were all melting wouldn't we have less ice every year?
1   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 18, 9:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Onvacation says
If it were all melting wouldn't we have less ice every year?


No. Now go educate yourself on something called a trend line.

Everyone knows it's you cic/ironman/sniper/onvacaton/piggy. How many accounts do you have?
2   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 19, 7:35am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

bob2356 says

No. Now go educate yourself on something called a trend line.

No Bob. The arctic is not melting uncontrollably. The trend is not down. If it were this would be the lowest not the eighth lowest.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ Play with this app and see that the sea ice is staying in a range. Some years we have more ice and some years we have less.
It's hard to believe someone as smart as Bob was suckered into the CAGW fraud.
3   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 19, 4:01pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Sniper says

Looks like the "trend line" the last 7 years has been pretty even.


Sorry you missed math fundamentals. It's sad really.It must be very difficult trying to stumble through life without being able to grasp what people are talking about. Here is what a trend line looks like.



Sniper says

bob2356 says
Everyone knows it's you cic/ironman/sniper/onvacaton/piggy. How many accounts do you have?


Maybe if you focused more on FACTS instead of telling lies about people, you'd be better off.


No lie there. Every single account uses the exact same language, same phrases, same arguments word for word, etc. etc. etc.. The question stands, how many accounts do you actually have? Run and hide.
4   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 19, 5:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
Sorry you missed math fundamentals

The range of sea ice since 1979 is pretty much within 2 standard deviations of the average over that time. If you look at the last 5 years the trend is up. On top of that 1979 was the end of a small cooling period. Were you cognizant in the 70s when the consensus of climate scientists was an ice age was coming?

So bob, are you one of those history deniers that deny the MWP, the little ice age, and natural variation of climate?
5   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 19, 6:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Onvacation says

The range of sea ice since 1979 is pretty much within 2 standard deviations of the average over that time. If you look at the last 5 years the trend is up. On top of that 1979 was the end of a small cooling period. Were you cognizant in the 70s when the consensus of climate scientists was an ice age was coming?


Go ahead, show your calculations for arriving at the standard deviation of sea ice extent. While you are at it show a longer trend line rather than flapping your face if you aren't happy with the starting point. Run and hide.

Yes I was very cognisant in the 1970's. There was no consensus that an ice age was coming. You made that up. There was concern by a some scientists about cooling if the level of particulates continued to climb so rapidly. Which didn't happen with the clean air act and Europe cleaning up particulate emissions. Particulates dropped sharply and the discussion went away. The original publication was in Science magazine and I actually remember it since I was an avid Science reader. Time ran an article called "Another Ice Age" a couple years later basically taking the Science article and juicing it up. Yes I remember reading that one also.

Why don't you just stick to the sniper account. Doesn't it take a lot of time logging in and out all day long?
6   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 19, 8:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

bob2356 says

Go ahead, show your calculations for arriving at the standard deviation of sea ice extent.
Onvacation says

No Bob. The arctic is not melting uncontrollably. The trend is not down. If it were this would be the lowest not the eighth lowest.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ Play with this app and see that the sea ice is staying in a range. Some years we have more ice and some years we have less.

bob2356 says
There was no consensus that an ice age was coming.

Nor is there one now.
bob2356 says
While you are at it show a longer trend line rather than flapping your face if you aren't happy with the starting point. Run and hide.

The satellite data started in 79 at the end of a cooling period where the ice was more extensive. But you knew that.
And you have run from the questions:
Onvacation says

So bob, are you one of those history deniers that deny the MWP, the little ice age, and natural variation of climate?

CAGW belief requires that you do.
7   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 19, 11:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Onvacation says
No Bob. The arctic is not melting uncontrollably. The trend is not down. If it were this would be the lowest not the eighth lowest.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ Play with this app and see that the sea ice is staying in a range. Some years we have more ice and some years we have less.


Is this a joke of some kind? The trend is clearly down. click in the years and see where they fall.

Where are your deviation calculations?

Onvacation says

The satellite data started in 79 at the end of a cooling period where the ice was more extensive. But you knew that.


So show the ice extent from any starting date you want if you don't like starting in the 70's What is stopping you?

Onvacation says
Onvacation says

So bob, are you one of those history deniers that deny the MWP, the little ice age, and natural variation of climate?

CAGW belief requires that you do.


No it doesn't but explaining why to you would be a major waste of time.
8   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 20, 8:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says

Is this a joke of some kind? The trend is clearly down. click in the years and see where they fall.

If you start in 1979 the trend is down. If you start in 2012 the trend is up if youOnvacation says
deny the MWP, the little ice age, and natural variation of climate?

Then it is hotter than ever before.
bob2356 says

So show the ice extent from any starting date you want if you don't like starting in the 70's What is stopping you?

The data from satellites started in 1979. Since then 2017 was only the 8th lowest sea ice extent. Like I have said, the trend has been up over the last 5 years.bob2356 says

Onvacation says
Onvacation says

So bob, are you one of those history deniers that deny the MWP, the little ice age, and natural variation of climate?

CAGW belief requires that you do.


No it doesn't but explaining why to you would be a major waste of time.

Since you are avoiding all of my questions I don't think you actually understand global warming beyond the alarmist propaganda.
Quiz:
2016 was feted as the warmest year EVER. How much warmer was 2016 than 2015?

The answer is ridiculous.
9   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 20, 9:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

bob2356 says
Sorry you missed math fundamentals. It's sad really.It must be very difficult trying to stumble through life without being able to grasp what people are talking about. Here is what a trend line looks like.


Sniper posts a misleading statement about ice being within two standard deviations of the mean since 1979, and bob posts a chart showing the trend line. How the fuck does that get two down votes? Why do people hate data so much?

Here's a question: If you generate 35 data points in a perfectly straight line, and take the average of those data points. Will any of the data points be outside of two standard deviations from the average? Answer = no.
For example, use an array of X values of 1 to 35 (years) and an array of Y values of 35 down to 1. The average is 18, and the standard deviation is 10.2. So, the range (plus minus two standard deviations) is -2 to 38, so none of the data points of this perfect straight line from 35 to 0 are outside of the range. This is why sniper's post was absolutely meaningless and bob's post was informative.
10   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 20, 9:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anon_61c8a says

Here's a question: If you generate 35 data points in a perfectly straight line, and take the average of those data points. Will any of the data points be outside of two standard deviations from the average? Answer = no.

Thanks for engaging in a civil debate. Maybe you can answer the question
Onvacation says
2016 was feted as the warmest year EVER. How much warmer was 2016 than 2015?
11   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 20, 9:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anon_25c83 says
Patrick.net: The world's 1st 100% fake news website bringing you fake fact-free news every day!
12   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 20, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
Too bad you're wrong, I didn't post that
You are correct. My appologies for confusing you for on vacation.
Sniper says
so accusing someone of something they didn't post makes the rest of your assertion false.
This piece of 'logic' is baffling. Replace sniper with on vacation in my post, and it stands.
13   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 21, 7:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

anon says
accusing someone of something they didn't post makes the rest of your assertion false.

Onvacation says
civil debate. Maybe you can answer the question
Onvacation says
2016 was feted as the warmest year EVER. How much warmer was 2016 than 2015?

This is another of those questions that point out the global warming fraud.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions