myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Windsurfing at the North Pole
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1961
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
mac wrote:
Weather, Bard. Have you always had trouble paying attention?


When the "weather" is cold just about everywhere on the planet I take notice to the trend.


A trend is not what you are seeing by the very definition of a "trend." A trend is basically the conclusion drawn after analysis shows a secondary pattern of change after accounting for data "noise" across a specified time period.

Even if snow fell on most of the globe tonight, that snowfall itself does not count as a trend simply because it represents a single observation devoid of the function of time.

A business that get's a light quarter of receipts has not right to call it a downward trend unless the measure includes several years' worth of quarterly reports.

Cold everywhere on the planet is not only factually wrong but incorrectly identified as a trend. Words matter, Bard. So says the other.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frederick23



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 438

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard replies..

"They just had to rescue a ship from the ice in the Antarctic because it got frozen in place".

Well then Steven, I guess this problem's solved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gronquist



Joined: 12 May 2000
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard, as an eye doctor and a formally trained scientist, I understand how to diagnose eye diseases like glaucoma. When a patient I am diagnosing with glaucoma makes uninformed claims like, "but you said my eye pressures are normal", or "but no one in my family has glaucoma", or even worse, "but my vision is fine. I see 20/20". etc etc etc. ...I know that it is my job to listen to their concerns, empathize with their impressions, but also to educate them that they do have a silent eye condition that if left untreated can cause blindness.

These are comments from lay persons and it is my job to diagnose, educate, and treat to preserve our precious gift of sight.

The international scientific community, as a general consensus, have accepted that global warming is here to stay. You will never find these scientists look at an isolated or localized event or sequence of events. They note it, they acknowledge its implication, but they use their trained sense to be sceptical and analyze the data, and over time analyze the data. In deference to their formal training and commitment to never accept a hypothesis until all other explanations have been refuted, I choose to listen to their voice. I would be scared, as a self described layperson in climate change, to look at event like 'an iceberg grew rapidly here' or 'record colds were noted there' and make a conclusion on the state of our climate, and ultimately our world's fate.

respectfully,
Tem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14322

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gronquist wrote:
The international scientific community, as a general consensus, have accepted that global warming is here to stay.

In all the national and international scientific and lay books, published papers, articles, websites, live debates among a wide variety of experts in many relevant fields and agencies, personal discussions with professional climate researchers, and bull sessions I've seen and/or participated in, NOT ONE supports ANYTHING LIKE that point of view. I'm neither an MD nor a climatologist, but my BS and graduate degrees are in Engineering Science and my formal post-grad technical education from four state universities easily exceeds that of any PhD program I've ever seen.

I gotta call PMS on that claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 671
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2706

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fick-shun wrote:

In all the national and international scientific and lay books, published papers, articles, websites, live debates among a wide variety of experts in many relevant fields and agencies, personal discussions with professional climate researchers, and bull sessions I've seen and/or participated in, NOT ONE supports ANYTHING LIKE that point of view. I'm neither an MD nor a climatologist, but my BS and graduate degrees are in Engineering Science and my formal post-grad technical education from four state universities easily exceeds that of any PhD program I've ever seen.

I gotta call PMS on that claim.

Holy Horseshit!! Mr. Fick-shun is on a self-congratulatory roll!

He is self-proclaimed to be better than most everybody!

(Mikey, time for you to visit your shrink again and maybe double up on those meds. Tell me.... is this what your disability payments are all about? Your self-grandiosity?)
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frederick23



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 438

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2007 IPCC assessment said Arctic would be ice free in 60 years. Today's assessment, 6 years. Watch video, lather, rinse repeat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1807
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok
_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2706

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
Ok

Your best post yet. Its intellectual content exceeds anything you've posted before.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1961
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
It's physically impossible to sail at the true North Pole. Every direction from the Pole is south, the wind AT the Pole is thus always out of the south, and we can't sail directly upwind. We're stuck there. We'd have to swim south ... i.e., any direction ... a few feet first.

This presents an interesting (or not) dilemma. Say we're near the Pole on a reach towards the pole. As we cross it, WTF happens? Do we hit a headwind (see previous paragraph).

Smile

Maybe a planing tack would solve the problem. Very Happy


It is NOT physically impossible to sail at the true North Pole any more than it would be impossible to sail at any point on the ocean.

Simply because any direction from the North Pole is south, does not mean that the wind blowing at the north pole comes to the north from all directions, as if any direction would be upwind. That's preposterous. The wind flows in a direction like any other wind flow, generally speaking. It comes from A and flows toward C. That the North Pole or Provincetown happens to serve as "B" makes no difference and certainly fails to make every direction upwind.

You really need to get out more.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group