Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time. Anything beyond right now is a forecast. Now, when a forecast is made, it is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. When the time-frame of a forecast grows, the probability of it being inaccurate greatly increases, because the assumptions that the forecast is based upon are more likely to be wrong.
Since we're on a hockey board, I will illustrate with a hockey example: at the start of the season Ovechkin scored 9 points in 3 games. Based upon this data, it would have been possible to forecast that he would end the season with 246 points - the available data (at the time) does nothing to show that this forecast is invalid. However, we all know that it would have been silly to expect Ovechkin to do this, because the assumptions that it is based upon are highly unlikely (i.e. no injuries or slumps, or that his production through the first 3 games was not an anomaly).
Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.
|
I really don't want to sound pompous or condescending but you have no idea what the hell you are talking about so please don't try and argue with this.
No where in my post did I say I was either for or against the whole "global warming" debate.
All I meant is that countries are literally spending billions and billions of dollars in anticipation of the arctic being relatively clear of ice and that the NW passage and arctic oil and gas are almost inevitable right now.
If you don't believe me go read some academic literature about UNCLOS (specifically article 76), any arctic nations spending (and many non-arctic nations like China) on R & D in the arctic and ice melting in the arctic. Even private companies are spending billions in anticipation of the possibility of oil and gas and the potential debate and disagreements over the NW passage being declared an international strait.
Regardless of whether or not global warming is real or not it is a FACT that the ice in the arctic is receding at a pace faster than all current models have anticipated.
I simply asked TheU to explain why that is happening. He believes that it is because of a cycle and clearly you don't either.
Stating predictions of the worlds leading experts on the arctic, like I did, is hardly absurd.
If you are serious about trying to learn about this so that you don't come off like a total condescending poster I can PM you literally dozens and dozens of academic articles on the predictions for the future of the arctic. I can even tell you classes to take at the U of C so that you can learn about this, even people you might actually be able to talk to, most of whom are widely considered the leading arctic experts in the WORLD. I'm dead serious too.