Post by AztecBill on Sept 22, 2009 12:30:03 GMT -8
A New York Times article today is a great demonstration of how the left media (and others) lie about global warming issues or side issues.
Background:
In 2007 the Arctic sea ice hit a relative low in minimum extent. I say relative low because we only have satellite data back to 1979. 1979 was just after a long and well documented increase in sea ice. 1979 was a relative high in sea ice. So the data we have is from a relative high and 2007 is a relative low. So of course it shows a big decrease.
Since 2007 there has been a dramatic increase in the minimum sea ice in the Arctic. 2008's minimum was 453,282 km2 above the 2007 minimum and 2009's minimum was 995,313 km2 above 2007 and 542,031 above 2008. So Arctic ice minimum's have increased each of the past two years and the rate of increase is increasing.
Here is the raw data if you want to check for yourself. The 2007 minimum date was 9/24/2007, the 2008 minimum date was 9/9/2008, the 2009 minimum date was 9/13/2009.
The Article
"And in the Arctic, an extraordinary summer retreat of sea ice in 2007 has been followed by less substantial losses and projections by some researchers of a possible, if temporary, recovery."
"Followed by less substantial losses"? No. It has been followed by record and accelerated recovery.
"Projections by some researchers of a possible, if temporary, recovery"? He used the nebulous term "some researchers", read by casual readers as "very few quack scientists". The recovery is not a projection, it is a fact. Are they still saying that some political researchers are projecting Obama may become president?
This is not an isolated incident, just a very blatant example. We continually hear "losing ice at an accelerated rate". That is simply a lie. We are regaining ice at an accelerated rate as I showed above. Or "worse then they thought just a few years ago". No, a few years ago they were talking about 2007 being a tipping point of no return and how single year ice is melted so easily that recovery is impossible and how the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.
That is why you have to take what you read and check it against reality when it comes to Global Warming. There are a lot of folks who are very heavily invested in there being global warming, it being man's fault, and being able to do something about it. Usually what they want to do is something they would want to do if there was no global warming. Global Warming is just a means to an end.
Background:
In 2007 the Arctic sea ice hit a relative low in minimum extent. I say relative low because we only have satellite data back to 1979. 1979 was just after a long and well documented increase in sea ice. 1979 was a relative high in sea ice. So the data we have is from a relative high and 2007 is a relative low. So of course it shows a big decrease.
Since 2007 there has been a dramatic increase in the minimum sea ice in the Arctic. 2008's minimum was 453,282 km2 above the 2007 minimum and 2009's minimum was 995,313 km2 above 2007 and 542,031 above 2008. So Arctic ice minimum's have increased each of the past two years and the rate of increase is increasing.
Here is the raw data if you want to check for yourself. The 2007 minimum date was 9/24/2007, the 2008 minimum date was 9/9/2008, the 2009 minimum date was 9/13/2009.
The Article
"And in the Arctic, an extraordinary summer retreat of sea ice in 2007 has been followed by less substantial losses and projections by some researchers of a possible, if temporary, recovery."
"Followed by less substantial losses"? No. It has been followed by record and accelerated recovery.
"Projections by some researchers of a possible, if temporary, recovery"? He used the nebulous term "some researchers", read by casual readers as "very few quack scientists". The recovery is not a projection, it is a fact. Are they still saying that some political researchers are projecting Obama may become president?
This is not an isolated incident, just a very blatant example. We continually hear "losing ice at an accelerated rate". That is simply a lie. We are regaining ice at an accelerated rate as I showed above. Or "worse then they thought just a few years ago". No, a few years ago they were talking about 2007 being a tipping point of no return and how single year ice is melted so easily that recovery is impossible and how the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.
That is why you have to take what you read and check it against reality when it comes to Global Warming. There are a lot of folks who are very heavily invested in there being global warming, it being man's fault, and being able to do something about it. Usually what they want to do is something they would want to do if there was no global warming. Global Warming is just a means to an end.