Washington Post Article: Icebergs Melting

Damocles said:
But you clearly were ignoring the fact that he reported the article correctly, that the incorrect reporting was about temperatures in the US was correct as pertaining to the article that you tried to make fun of him for.
Click to expand...

From a rigerous scientific perspective, its virtually irrelevant.

1998 previously only held the record by a tiny 0.1 degree farenheit over 1934.

Scientists have since made some minor revisions to the data, now 1998 is ranked below 1934 by a mere 0.1 degrees farenheit. Its all part of the scientific process of making data better, as more information becomes avaliable. Its almost meaningless in the broader scope of global climate change. These revisions of US temeratures are virtually imperceptible on the scale of the hemispheric or global mean temperature, since the US is such a small part of the earth's surface.
 
Cypress said:
From a rigerous scientific perspective, its virtually irrelevant.

1998 previously only held the record by a tiny 0.1 degree farenheit over 1934.

Scientists have since made some minor revisions to the data, now 1998 is ranked below 1934 by a mere 0.1 degrees farenheit. Its all part of the scientific process of making data better, as more information becomes avaliable. Its almost meaningless in the broader scope of global climate change. These revisions of US temeratures are virtually imperceptible on the scale of the hemispheric or global mean temperature, since the US is such a small part of the earth's surface.
Click to expand...
My point was, that the article was speaking of US temperature, uscitizen was attempting to make fun of DH because it supposedly spoke of World Mean Temperature. I simply am pointing out that the article refers to US temperatures and therefore DH's post was on topic.
 
Damocles said:
My point was, that the article was speaking of US temperature, uscitizen was attempting to make fun of DH because it supposedly spoke of World Mean Temperature. I simply am pointing out that the article refers to US temperatures and therefore DH's post was on topic.
Click to expand...

I was making fun of DH ? You are as mistaken on that as everything else in this thread Damo...sigh...
check back thru the posts bud.
 
uscitizen said:
umm the .1 degree part and the changes in accuracy of measuring part ?
Click to expand...
Your point was his data was worthless because it was supposedly speaking of other temperatures than those of the US. You are now being totally disingenuous. Must I go back and quote the relevant passages or do you ever admit you might have been mistaken in your original assumptions?
 
Dungheap said:
For those buying into the 1934 v. 1998 hooey:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=134205

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Ok I read the link from your "reputable" leftwing blog, it mentions global temperatures being hotter overall, that's true enough. But my point is that we have had hot temps before and we certainly have had much hotter temps before that (ie: cold-blooded dinosaurs in Canada for instance).
The earth is 4 billion years old, and it has been much hotter at multiple times in it's history than it is now, which of course would have all been natural as it was before man's time.
 
Cypress said:
From a rigerous scientific perspective, its virtually irrelevant.

1998 previously only held the record by a tiny 0.1 degree farenheit over 1934.

Scientists have since made some minor revisions to the data, now 1998 is ranked below 1934 by a mere 0.1 degrees farenheit. Its all part of the scientific process of making data better, as more information becomes avaliable. Its almost meaningless in the broader scope of global climate change. These revisions of US temeratures are virtually imperceptible on the scale of the hemispheric or global mean temperature, since the US is such a small part of the earth's surface.
Click to expand...

Good point cypress - data changes based on revisions and different variable added, and with it the results of the models that were run to predict climate change also change and become incorrect.
 
Cypress said:
First, I have no idea what "D.C. Resident's" scientific qualification are. The libary of congress is open to anyone, and is usually used for historical research - not rigerous scientific research. As far as I know "D.C. resident" is not a scientist, but a laymen.

OK CY..no biggie...It just irked me a little that you immediately jump on Mr."DC resident" as not being a scientist...the man made no scientific claims and he didn't write the article...the dude just found an old news piece...you don't need to be a scientist for that....and that should cover your other paragraph too...he made no scientific claims about GW or anything else.

HE went on th say..he found several such articles at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s. He said, "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all." So what...all of that is fact...GW is not even mentioned by Mr. DC Resident....

Second, global climate change research looks at global mean temperatures. Which have accelerated and gone higher than the 1930s. The United States is a very small part of the earth's surface, and not (in this case) representative of what climate is doing globally.
Click to expand...
.
 
uscitizen said:
Dano is just hoping to clloud the issue and catch one of us in a contradictory viewpoint so he can jump on that one contradiction and crow that we are totally wrong becuse of the one discrepancy. It is the Republican way.
Click to expand...


Man, were you spot on w/ this one...
 
Here is the original statement from you:

uscitizen said:
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
//
again in the US.
umm know what global means.
Click to expand...

So I pointed out the article was speaking of US temperatures and was therefore salient in his post to be talking of US temperatures:
Damocles said:
The article says that they reported that 1998 was the hottest year IN THE US, then later recanted.
Click to expand...

Your answer:
uscitizen said:
History revisionists at it again ?

but again it is in the USA not global.
Click to expand...

Mine again points out that the article did not speak of global temps on this:
Damocles said:
But you clearly were ignoring the fact that he reported the article correctly, that the incorrect reporting was about temperatures in the US was correct as pertaining to the article that you tried to make fun of him for.
Click to expand...

Your answer:
uscitizen said:
Umm read DH's link Damo.
Click to expand...

Your assertion:
uscitizen said:
I was making fun of DH ? You are as mistaken on that as everything else in this thread Damo...sigh...
check back thru the posts bud.
Click to expand...

I have checked back through the posts, your first assertion that DH was wrong because of "global" being the pertinent measure doesn't face up to the fact that it was US temperatures the article was speaking of.
 
TheDanold said:
Good point cypress - data changes based on revisions and different variable added, and with it the results of the models that were run to predict climate change also change and become incorrect.
Click to expand...

Data is updated and revised to make it better in all areas of scientific research. From evolutionary biology, to astrophysics, to gravity. Just because revisons are made, does not negate the theory of evolution.

If enough statistically significant modifications to data are made, that call into question global climate change, the broader scientific community will be the first to tell you. that's how science works.
 
Damocles said:
Here is the original statement from you:



So I pointed out the article was speaking of US temperatures and was therefore salient in his post to be talking of US temperatures:


Your answer:


Mine again points out that the article did not speak of global temps on this:


Your answer:


Your assertion:


I have checked back through the posts, your first assertion that DH was wrong because of "global" being the pertinent measure doesn't face up to the fact that it was US temperatures the article was speaking of.
Click to expand...


Umm the first quote you have followed Brovos post.

i am soo glad you and dano proved this though.

"Dano is just hoping to clloud the issue and catch one of us in a contradictory viewpoint so he can jump on that one contradiction and crow that we are totally wrong becuse of the one discrepancy. It is the Republican way."

:D
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the first quote you have followed Brovos post.

i am soo glad you and dano proved this though.

"Dano is just hoping to clloud the issue and catch one of us in a contradictory viewpoint so he can jump on that one contradiction and crow that we are totally wrong becuse of the one discrepancy. It is the Republican way."

:D
Click to expand...
No, I don't like to see Dungheap criticized for writing about an article when he was the one who correctly reported on the facts of the article. Bravo's post had no bearing on the fact that you told me to look up "DH's article" as if it would prove you right.

I did. You have a hard time admitting when you were wrong, in this case it is demonstrably provable, and amazingly it is you who tried to cling to "one little thing", I have simply tried to point out where your reasoning hits a snag.

I am unworried about Global Warming, because I think there are better reasons than that to clean up our act. If people go for this and use it to clean the air then I'm good. Regardless of the reason that they do this, it is a good thing to clean up the air.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep Oncelor, I am not devious minded enought to do this, but i recognize the tactic. A very common repub tactic and it sucks in most people divirting away from the real issue..
Click to expand...
You used it yourself and got caught. You are embarrassed, you attempted to catch DH out on a mistake and instead wound up embarrassed.
 
Damocles said:
No, I don't like to see Dungheap criticized for writing about an article when he was the one who correctly reported on the facts of the article. Bravo's post had no bearing on the fact that you told me to look up "DH's article" as if it would prove you right.

I did. You have a hard time admitting when you were wrong, in this case it is demonstrably provable, and amazingly it is you who tried to cling to "one little thing", I have simply tried to point out where your reasoning hits a snag.

I am unworried about Global Warming, because I think there are better reasons than that to clean up our act. If people go for this and use it to clean the air then I'm good. Regardless of the reason that they do this, it is a good thing to clean up the air.
Click to expand...

Keep right on diverting there Damo.

I devoted my new avitar to the REPUBLICANS SONG AND DANCE ROUTINE.
 
Some note that .1 degrees is trivial....

The man behind the website climateaudit.org has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse-engineer NASA's figures because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim. And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed and now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant.

[...]

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC).

Is not .03 C. trivial....or .13 /C. trivial...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top