 |
 |
In The News Today...
Thread Rating:
| June 14th, 2018 at 11:16:33 AM permalink | |
| JimRockford Member since: Sep 18, 2015 Threads: 2 Posts: 971 |
The 2015 study that Kenarman refers to used only data from Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and estimated ice mass from elevation. At the time it contradicted data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) that used gravity measurements to estimate ice mass. The new study uses data from both systems as well as ESA’s first and second European Remote Sensing satellites, Envisat and CryoSat-2; the European Union’s Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 missions; the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Advanced Land Observatory System; the Canadian Space Agency’s RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2 satellites; the Italian Space Agency’s COSMO-SkyMed satellites; and the German Aerospace Center’s TerraSAR-X satellite. As more data is collected and considered the analysis gets more accurate. But even if the 2015 study was right, the trend showed an eventual net loss of ice mass at an accelerated rate. The mind hungers for that on which it feeds. |
| June 14th, 2018 at 12:15:30 PM permalink | |
| Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 |
I don't disagree with any of that. One could talk about the mathematics of election forecasting all day. It is not an exact science. Not everyone is truthful in polls, questions can be leading, and certainly not everyone votes. My understanding is Trump did well in the turnout game and Hilary did poorly. My bottom line is you can't judge a forecaster from one election. You have to look at his entire career record. If you have an otherwise good forecaster who says that Trump had a 10% chance of winning, it doesn't make him wrong if he does. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
| June 14th, 2018 at 1:05:18 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
True. But Betfair was wildly wrong about two of the most important elections in the last 20 years. The 2016, and the Brexit vote. By dog could have done a more accurate job than them. It's enough for me to totally distrust them now. It's like my local weatherman forecasts sun and warm and there's a blizzard. Then he does it again. I'n done with him. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| June 15th, 2018 at 3:28:05 AM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18193 |
Sounds like we are agreeing. I'm just saying that those percents are unmeasurable and meaningless. Lets take my prediction for the NFL this year: 1. I think there is a 60% chance the AFC will win the Super Bowl. 2. I think there is a 40% chance the NFC will win the Super Bowl. Will I be wrong? The President is a fink. |
| June 15th, 2018 at 7:05:21 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4489 |
Doesn't change my comment. NASA unequivocally stated no ice loss in 2015. The study you link doesn't mention this finding. Just another case of the huge global warming religion changing facts and hard data that doesn't support their stance. The history is clear, drive anybody that doesn't believe out of the congregation. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
| June 15th, 2018 at 7:35:02 AM permalink | |
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014 Threads: 73 Posts: 11790 |
When I look at science, I see what scientists say TODAY kenarman looks at historical science to determine whats happening today LOL Whats next, determining smoking is ok because of what DR's reported in the 1950's ROTFL Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
| June 15th, 2018 at 7:50:14 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4489 |
3 years ago NASA stated unequivocally there was ice gain in the Antarctic for 10 years. Now 3 years later they were totally wrong after pressure from the global warming industry. I try not to be just a flag in the wind switching beliefs on every new proclamation. I have seen too many thing flip flop in my life to not have a very sceptical mind. From your posts TP you seem to try and be your own person. Do you really have unrestricted trust in the university grads from the last 10 years or more who are todays "scientist". The pressure to conform in university now is tremendous you don't think this carries over into their research careers? Haven't you seen the new reviews that say what a terrible band the Grateful Dead were? Do you believe them they are the newest research must be right? "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
| June 15th, 2018 at 8:37:58 AM permalink | |
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014 Threads: 73 Posts: 11790 |
If you saw the Grateful Dead and think they are a terrible band I believe you. Dead and Company was at Harford couple nights ago. Pretty hot show. If you were there and thought they sucked. Then they sucked for you. No argument from me. In your eyes that is reality and no way would I try to change that I am totally ok with that view because its totally subjective Believe it or not, I am a huge critic of the Grateful Dead I never hold back I saw them over a 100 times. A lot of shows Jerry never really showed up and I complained loudly I expect and demand creativity in the jams. I hated it when Jerry simply phoned in a performance. by 1995, they were only batting about .300 only 3 out of 10 shows would be hot shows. That sucked. As opposed to the amazing Spring Tour 1990 when every show was HOT I would see Jerry in front of me and will be thinking to myself, where the f*ck is Jerry? On the flip side, when Jerry was ON, nobody better If I saw a 6 show run say at Oakland Coliseum and started hearing repeats by the 5th or 6th show, I was not a happy camper I see 6 shows in a row, I expect about 75 to 80 different songs. A typical tour has about 120 different songs. No need to repeat after 5 shows unless the band is getting lazy On a 6 show run if I got 70 different songs with 5 repeats, I complained loudly. Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
| June 15th, 2018 at 8:42:10 AM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4489 | Can't argue against your answer TP. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
| June 15th, 2018 at 11:06:13 AM permalink | |
| JimRockford Member since: Sep 18, 2015 Threads: 2 Posts: 971 |
Here is where there is general agreement in both studies: 1. West Antarctica ice is melting at an accelerating rate due to global warming. 2. East Antarctica ice is steadily increasing from a mechanism that began 10,000 years ago that brings massive amounts on moisture to the region that falls as snow. The disagreement is about #2. Neither study refutes global warming in any way. Rush, Dredge an Alex Jones just spun it that way. There was no flip-flop, just a disagreement about the rate of a mechanism that began when we emerged from the ice age. The mind hungers for that on which it feeds. |