So you’re going to ignore my simple, testable explanation in favor of claiming that a single glitched data point on a single graph from a single institution completely invalidates all of climatology?
6 Likes
“Glitched”? Everything depends on data. If the data can be changed so easily then what good is any explanation?
Of course it does – later that bump will disappear and that will be their evidence of a global conspiracy to cook the books on climate science.
Look – all of these other graphs of ice extent fail to show that bump, therefore all of these other scientists have already altered their data.
Sea Ice Page (he has the current data for about a dozen different institutions on this page)
Edit to add: the page with the 1 day anomalous reading is referred to as the “old page” (it underestimated the actual amount of sea ice) this is the current ice data page for that institution:
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
One more edit: the data is available here: I assume that the edge data would be the relevant info the anomaly on the graph looks like it is around 5 May. (there appears to be plenty of open source/free viewing software, but it does not appear to be very user friendly). I didn’t see an obvious link to the actual images.
Index of ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod/ice/
2 Likes
Yes, good point, why believe any data, ever . . . since this same argument can be universally applied to all data.
Or to quote John Lennon, “nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about.”
8 Likes
If a careless person bumps a seismometer, it will appear to record an earthquake where none actually occurred. Therefore, seismology as a discipline is entirely fraudulent, and earthquakes aren’t real.
Or not.
You won’t find any field of study whose instruments don’t occasionally glitch out. That’s why we take lots of different readings (from different times, locations, instruments, and researchers) and compare and analyze them all.
I notice you still haven’t acknowledged my sea ice vs. land ice explanation.
7 Likes
Is that why Michael Mann fought the release of his data and methodology all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court? He fears that he may “glitched” some data?
Is it time to start incoherently ranting about the supposed evil geniuses behind global warming already? Why would you make this about Mann, aside from the fact that he’s been repeatedly accused (and cleared, but that never seems to be noticed) of misconduct? The rest of us are talking about what NASA scientists discovered about sea ice.
When your only way to say there isn’t a problem is to deny the possibility that any data might be meaningful, that’s your sign to take a step back and reconsider whether it wouldn’t make more sense to listen to what all the researchers are saying.
5 Likes
No, Michael Mann has not been “cleared” of anything.
Fixed.
5 Likes
So this is your strategy? Any time you don’t have a response to my assertions, you ignore them and change the subject? I assume that when I get tired of you ignoring my answers, you’ll declare that you win because I was dodging questions.
Let’s start at the beginning and work our way forwards. Do you, or do you not, believe that ice cubes melting in a glass of tap water will not change the water level, as predicted by Archimedes’ principle? Let’s get that settled first, then we can move on to Danish sea ice measurements, and if we make it through that I’d be happy to discuss Michael Mann.
7 Likes
'…the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers"
please move closer to the ocean.
9 Likes
A 2011 post from a biased blog, without noticing that the same result has been confirmed by lots of other work since, and of course no acknowledgment that it isn’t even related to the topic, namely a study of sea ice. Well done distraction. Can you go back to PhasmaFelis’s question now?
Edit: no, I see not. That’s telling. Welcome to the boards, by the way.
3 Likes
PhasmaFelis’s question is an elementary school science project at best. The reason all of the climate models have failed is because of the failure to account for all variables.
All right, it sounds like you’re grudgingly on board with the results of the ice-cubes-and-tap-water experiment. May I extrapolate from that you’re willing to agree that sea ice has much less impact on sea level than land ice? That one assertion alone; I’m not holding you to anything else right now.
If so, our next items are:
- Danish ice measurements and the reliability of data gathered from imperfect instruments
- Michael Mann
- The assertion that “all of the climate models have failed”
I’m really interested in seeing your comprehensive evidence for that last one, should we get that far.
5 Likes
(1) I have no idea if the data is reliable or not.
(2) See above my comments about Michael Mann
(3) Ok…not all have failed. Just 95%.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
@PhasmaFelis2 Lol, you are so much more patient with these idiots than I am. Thanks for handling it far better than I. 
@HubrisSonic That would help! There’s a good dozen or so low-lying islands that were once habitable and already are no longer. Perhaps if he moved to one of those it would help him wrap his head around these difficult concepts.
2 Likes
Probably at least a 10% chance we have a denialbot on the board. If we can get some sciencebots going, maybe they can go talk past each other endlessly on some kind of honeypot ‘controversy where there is no actual doubt’ board somewhere.
2 Likes
Also, sea ice cannot raise or lower sea ice when it freezes/melts, because of buoyancy and conservation of mass
Every notice how pretty much everybody who has visited this “Antarctica” place the chicken littles are so freaked about is either a GRANT HUNGRY SCIENTIST or a GOVERNMENT WORKER???
GO READ THIS AUTHORITATIVE, UNBIASED BLOG ENTRY AT HTTP://CLIMATESCIENTISTSSCREWSHEEP.BLOGSPOT.COM/MichealMannWetsTheBed.html
And if that doesn’t convince you how about http://HIPPIESHATESCIENCE.BLOGSPOT.COM/ClimateScientistsPreachCOMMUNISM.html
11 Likes
