HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Science (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=245)
-   -   What global warming? Alaska heading towards ice age (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1316003)

LadyStanley 01-04-2013 06:37 PM

What global warming? Alaska heading towards ice age
 
http://zionica.com/2013/01/04/what-g...#ixzz2H3Wof8WG

Quote:

A new report from the research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reveals that the 49th state of the union has cooled by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 2000.


piqued 01-05-2013 12:46 PM

Is that a reputable site? Sensationalist headlines like that are ridiculous.

LadyStanley 01-05-2013 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57137411)
Is that a reputable site? Sensationalist headlines like that are ridiculous.

Don't know about the quoted site, but I am very familiar with the quality of scholarship @ UAF.

PredsV82 01-05-2013 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57137411)
Is that a reputable site? Sensationalist headlines like that are ridiculous.

sensationalist? like claiming the Himalayan ice cap will melt by 2030 then saying oops we meant 2330 then oops its not actually melting at all....

piqued 01-05-2013 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PredsV82 (Post 57138833)
sensationalist? like claiming the Himalayan ice cap will melt by 2030 then saying oops we meant 2330 then oops its not actually melting at all....

What?

It's sensationalist drivel because it purposefully ignores the entire definition of the term "global warming". Global. The globe. Not one part of Alaska.

Reading further the scientists say that the local change has been brought about by the regular decadal oscillation of the ocean water. The water temperature goes through periods of relative warming and cooling and this effects climates in proximity to the water. Currently it has oscillated to a warming phase.

Of course this should be placed in the larger context of historic Arctic warming. They also mentioned that far northern Alaska has actually seen significant warming during this period.

Big McLargehuge 01-05-2013 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57143629)
It's sensationalist drivel because it purposefully ignores the entire definition of the term "global warming". Global. The globe. Not one part of Alaska.

********. It's in the term. 'Global', meaning that if it's not raising temperatures in every square inch of the planet the entire thing is bunk!

ddawg1950 01-05-2013 05:29 PM

Well, don't we speak more correctly when we say climate change...and I don't mean suggest the stat from Fairbanks is necessarily included in that concept.

mrwarden 01-06-2013 02:22 AM

Is there any irony in global warming/climate change proponents calling a study which lends against it "sensationalist" while global warming has been screaming about cities being drowned and polar bears going extinct in patently absurd timelines for decades?

No? Didn't think so.

piqued 01-06-2013 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwarden (Post 57164697)
Is there any irony in global warming/climate change proponents calling a study which lends against it "sensationalist" while global warming has been screaming about cities being drowned and polar bears going extinct in patently absurd timelines for decades?

No? Didn't think so.

It doesn't "lend against" anything. See this is exactly what I'm talking about... people will actually believe that headline and not read the article or the study. The term "climate change proponent" is hilarious too. How about we just settle for "science proponent". Are sea levels not rising? Are polar bears not going extinct? If anything this stuff is happening faster than most scientists predicted.

Unaffiliated 01-06-2013 03:18 AM

The headline is how you get people to read the article.


That's why I will usually just skim through the article before going after the source material with science stuff.

mrwarden 01-06-2013 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57165289)
It doesn't "lend against" anything. See this is exactly what I'm talking about... people will actually believe that headline and not read the article or the study. The term "climate change proponent" is hilarious too. How about we just settle for "science proponent". Are sea levels not rising? Are polar bears not going extinct? If anything this stuff is happening faster than most scientists predicted.

Your bullying isn't science but is certainly endemic to your viewpoint.

AfroThunder396 01-06-2013 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57165289)
It doesn't "lend against" anything. See this is exactly what I'm talking about... people will actually believe that headline and not read the article or the study. The term "climate change proponent" is hilarious too. How about we just settle for "science proponent". Are sea levels not rising? Are polar bears not going extinct? If anything this stuff is happening faster than most scientists predicted.

Actually no, they're not. Polar bears have never been classified as an endangered species and their numbers have been steadily climbing since the ban on trophy hunting in the 70's.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service two years ago recommended to the Obama administration that "the bears weren't danger of extinction, so [they] did not warrant the 'endangered' status."

PredsV82 01-06-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 57165289)
It doesn't "lend against" anything. See this is exactly what I'm talking about... people will actually believe that headline and not read the article or the study. The term "climate change proponent" is hilarious too. How about we just settle for "science proponent". Are sea levels not rising? Are polar bears not going extinct? If anything this stuff is happening faster than most scientists predicted.

see, people like you say crap like this as if its fact which is just as wrong as your supposed "sensationalist" headlines. Do you have proof to back that up? I doubt it... even if you can come up with a link or two i could probably find other links to refute yours...

'climate change" has been happening as long as there has been climate.... its never static....

the sad thing is that our society has become so accustomed to getting information in "sound bite" size that actual meaningful discussion rarely ever occurs in public media any more...

Leafsdude7 01-06-2013 10:21 PM

Quote:

Continue reading at www.dailymail.co.uk
Well, there's your problem. :biglaugh:

Here's the link to the actual, original, article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-decline.html

Everyone here should go through Potholer54's youtube channel to show just how unreliable the Daily Mail is at climate science reporting: just as unreliable as they are at reporting anything else.

It's fun, as well, to note just how little knowledge of climate science there is in this thread. And I don't even have any advanced knowledge in the subject myself. :laugh:

The fact is, it's Global Warming, so, regardless of how much or little a small part of the Earth is warming or cooling, it's not evidence that the planet as a whole is not warming or cooling.

ETA: Also, here's the paper being cited in the article (well, actually cited in this article that is cited in the Daily Mail article): http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t.../111TOASCJ.pdf

And here's a notable comment in the conclusion of the paper:

Quote:

In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska, as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again.
So, as usual, the Daily Mail is reporting science paper data incorrectly. Shocker, really. :sarcasm:

mrwarden 01-07-2013 01:56 AM

What's funny about that is you could apply that same disclaimer to the entire field of climate change science.

Leafsdude7 01-07-2013 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwarden (Post 57226813)
What's funny about that is you could apply that same disclaimer to the entire field of climate change science.

Explain. :help:

mrwarden 01-07-2013 07:17 AM

Natural trends and cycles reversing themselves and the role they may or may not be playing in data which reverse themselves or change unexpectedly from time to time.

Leafsdude7 01-07-2013 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwarden (Post 57229531)
Natural trends and cycles reversing themselves and the role they may or may not be playing in data which reverse themselves or change unexpectedly from time to time.

Possibly. No evidence supports that claim, however.

Furthermore, extensive evidence supports the claim that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause, most notably the simple chemistry that shows that the effect we're seeing can be caused by said chemicals and the correlation we see with anomalous temperatures and CO2 levels.

The fact is this is how science works. There's a way the theory can be shown as false, as always, but that must happen before they are actually said to be false, since the theory has enough evidence to meet the burden of proof. As of right now, the evidence says the Earth is warming, and it is correlated almost perfectly with rising CO2 level from the last 100 years. Of course, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but when the correlation is as dramatic as it is, and the basic science (that being the fact that, in controlled tests, more CO2 results in higher temperatures) behind it is undeniable, then you can't really come to any other conclusion unless there's substantial evidence to support another one beyond "well, it could be natural".

mrwarden 01-07-2013 08:39 AM

Again, blatant over-statements and simplifications make the "sensationalist" headline incredibly ironic.

Leafsdude7 01-07-2013 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrwarden (Post 57231205)
Again, blatant over-statements and simplifications make the "sensationalist" headline incredibly ironic.

Eh?

Be specific.

Finlandia WOAT 01-07-2013 01:47 PM

If the debate is going to be about if the headline is "sensationalist" or not, wouldn't this be more at place on the politics forum?

Leafsdude7 01-07-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan The Parade (Post 57243597)
If the debate is going to be about if the headline is "sensationalist" or not, wouldn't this be more at place on the politics forum?

I'm not really sure what's being argued at this point. :laugh:

All I know is this thread is currently not about science. It's about something else. It's the only way mrwarden could still be arguing about this.

Richer's Ghost 01-09-2013 02:05 PM

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...erywhere-else/

2012 the hottest on record in the US.

Leafsdude7 01-09-2013 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richer's Ghost (Post 57349037)
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...erywhere-else/

2012 the hottest on record in the US.

Interesting, but just as meaningless as the temperatures in Alaska. :nod:

The real meaningful numbers will be released next week, as per this link. The link you posted suggests they won't be as extreme as some localized areas have been, but the global temperatures probably still be among the warmest on record, even though the other conditions (sun, ocean temps, etc) that effect the atmospheric temperatures were relatively weak.

Puck 01-09-2013 09:51 PM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...15_634x316.jpgTemperatures in Alaska might have decreased in recent years but the average is still above what it was 40 years ago. And it has been going back up slightly in more recent years. The downward effect was regional, due to a Decadal Oscillation, which brought colder surface water temperatures and the resulting cooling effect to Alaska. That oscillation's low is temporary in nature. Climate change never predicts continuous rising temperatures everywhere on Earth at all times. There are going to be highs and lows but the overall trend is up. I think the editors at these websites know their intended audience and are just being slippery with a set of data; they know the reaction it will get. Other sources explain the phenomenon more accurately. Perhaps the fundamentalists and science skeptics can get their own sub-forum and we will promise to leave them alone.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.