Another “miscalculation” by the scientists that we are supposed to trust on this issue.
A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. …
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
And I quote:
The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.
The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.
I guess not really much of a bad day at all.
Yep. Those scientists recognized a data error and are taking steps to correct the information. If only the political partisans could do the same.
nonsense, some of those quack scientists couldn’t properly measure the melting ice in a scotch glass nevermind global trends supposedly changing over thousands of years in amazingly small increments. lets not kid ourselves, we are not that smart.
lets not kid ourselves, we are not that smart.
If by “we” you mean you and a handful of people like yourself, then I’d have to agree.
I cant get a weatherman in Dallas to properly predict the weather tomorrow with any sort of accuracy, but yet its amazing how we all should know with certainty that in 50 years the ice all melts, the eastern seaboard is underwater, its 140 degrees outside everyday and the ozone is no longer present. man you guys are so smart…
The discrepancy is more than a rounding error, it seems huge to me. I do not remember any any qualifiers being given as the melting was being discussed and reported. The same qualifiers were given after if was reported that the oceans were not warming as rapidly as first thought. Will GW scientists ever be held to higher standards or will their findings continue to be reported?
“I do not remember any any qualifiers being given as the melting was being discussed and reported.”
What melting were you talking about? The stuff from several years ago that has been verified as accurate? The error in data did not start until January 2009.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/020309.html
As an aside, above is the link for the Feb. 3 report that showed an unusual but not unheard of lack of ice build during 2 weeks in January. It now turns out that that reading is what was in error. If you read through the link, not once do they assert that this has anything to do with global warming. They even take great pains to report that it has happened before. Turns out they were wrong in their explanation of an unusual wind and weather situation, that the ice did actually grow.
“Will GW scientists ever be held to higher standards or will their findings continue to be reported?”
Higher standards than what and who? They find errors in the data and report them and take actions to fix them. I wish everyone adhered to those standards. What do you think would happen if political partisans were required to go through peer review for accuracy of process when putting together their documents?
Did you read the article, or just the headline? These numbers are verified later, they have admitted to and corrected the error. As Fatmouse states, the sensor error only led to skewed data going back to January, this does nothing to prove or disprove global warming.
Wow, thousands of sensors all over the globe, reporting environmental data…one drifts, and we must toss all the data and agree that a small number of truck driving, trash dumping, trash talking rednecks are right, and that, we can go on the way we do, we’re not turning the planet into a big fucking dump?
This is my suggestion to non environment-caring folks…instead of criticizing data that are inherently imprecise (don’t jump on that, no sensor is 100% accurate…it’s the nature of ANY measurement to be imprecise to a certain degree), pervaded by uncertainty (same comment as before), the methods (that are essentially, statistical methods, be them Bayesian or non-Bayesian), and thus, give a certain level of probability to reject the hypothesis that what we’re doing does not affect the environment…instead of that, what you do is…YOU gather data, YOU analyze it, and YOU show that we shouldn’t reject the null hypothesis, and that we are indeed not doing much to the environment…and WE will start looking at your data, your methods and your findings…
You bunch of armchair scientists.
.
Wow, thousands of sensors all over the globe, reporting environmental data…one drifts, and we must toss all the data and agree that a small number of truck driving, trash dumping, trash talking rednecks are right, and that, we can go on the way we do, we’re not turning the planet into a big ing dump?
This is my suggestion to non environment-caring folks…instead of criticizing data, that are inherently imprecise (don’t jump on the that, no sensor is 100% accurate…it’s the nature of ANY measurement to be imprecise to a certain degree), pervaded by uncertainty (same comment as before), the methods (that are essentially, statistical methods, be them Bayesian or non-Bayesian), and thus, give a certain level of probability to reject the hypothesis that what we’re doing does not affect the environment…instead of that, what you do is…YOU gather data, YOU analyze it, and YOU show that we shouldn’t reject the null hypothesis, and that we are indeed not doing much to the environment…and WE will start looking at your data, your methods and your findings…
You bunch are armchair scientists.
Awesome, I’m going to use that from now on to refer to the planet → B F D…
BTW did you end up re-locating to Canada? You would fit in well there and please take that as a compliment.
Wow, thousands of sensors all over the globe, reporting environmental data…one drifts, and we must toss all the data and agree that a small number of truck driving, trash dumping, trash talking rednecks are right, and that, we can go on the way we do, we’re not turning the planet into a big fucking dump?
This is my suggestion to non environment-caring folks…instead of criticizing data, that are inherently imprecise (don’t jump on the that, no sensor is 100% accurate…it’s the nature of ANY measurement to be imprecise to a certain degree), pervaded by uncertainty (same comment as before), the methods (that are essentially, statistical methods, be them Bayesian or non-Bayesian), and thus, give a certain level of probability to reject the hypothesis that what we’re doing does not affect the environment…instead of that, what you do is…YOU gather data, YOU analyze it, and YOU show that we shouldn’t reject the null hypothesis, and that we are indeed not doing much to the environment…and WE will start looking at your data, your methods and your findings…
You bunch are armchair scientists.
And the academy award goes to:
The fact that you can’t see the difference between predicting weather and predicting long term climate as it relates to global warming should be enough to give you pause, but I’m guessing it won’t.
~Matt
You bunch are armchair scientists.
That’s being generous.
With that kind of attitude, your handle may some day more appropriate than you can even think of…
Me thinks I was mis-quoted
.
a small number of truck driving, trash dumping, trash talking rednecks are right
Ah yes, the self-professed intellectual elite are heard from yet again.
Thank God we have them to protect us from ourselves.
Huh yeah…it’s my reading sensor that drifted…
"This is my suggestion to non environment-caring folks…instead of criticizing data, that are inherently imprecise (don’t jump on the that, no sensor is 100% accurate…it’s the nature of ANY measurement to be imprecise to a certain degree), pervaded by uncertainty (same comment as before), the methods (that are essentially, statistical methods, be them Bayesian or non-Bayesian), and thus, give a certain level of probability to reject the hypothesis that what we’re doing does not affect the environment…instead of that, what you do is…YOU gather data, YOU analyze it, and YOU show that we shouldn’t reject the null hypothesis, and that we are indeed not doing much to the environment…and WE will start looking at your data, your methods and your findings… "
I think John Zyrkowski did a quite adequate job of doing this in his book. I can’t believe this is still a topic of discussion among the educated elite.
“You bunch are armchair scientists.”
Not “armchair;” actually he’s a heavy hitter financial analyst (gives him great cred - no dog in the fight)