Archive

Antarctic Climate Change mistake?

  • jmog
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/south-pole-warmest-year/
    The South Pole experienced its warmest year on record in 2009, according to newly released data from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station: a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

    This makes it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole. The previous record high was minus 54 F, recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.
    No offense to the retard scientist who was quoted, but any 4th or 5th grader who just learned negative numbers knows that -54.2 is colder than -54.

    So, the claim, technically, that 2009 at -54.2F is the warmest in recorded history and then say that the previous high was -54F in 2002 is hilarious.
  • WebFire
    Tis true.
  • CenterBHSFan
    So does that mean that Al Gore isn't good at math either?
  • jhay78
    Math, numbers, facts, etc. mean nothing to global warming, ERRR, climate change drones. THe narrative comes first, facts and science come second.
  • BCSbunk
    and it could not be that the reporting agency misquoted or mistyped what was stated? Nawwwww never.. LMAO This is just an example of very poor editing skills at Fox news.
  • fan_from_texas
    BCSbunk wrote: and it could not be that the reporting agency misquoted or mistyped what was stated? Nawwwww never.. LMAO This is just an example of very poor editing skills at Fox news.
    LOL
  • fish82
    jmog wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/south-pole-warmest-year/
    The South Pole experienced its warmest year on record in 2009, according to newly released data from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station: a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

    This makes it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole. The previous record high was minus 54 F, recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.
    No offense to the retard scientist who was quoted, but any 4th or 5th grader who just learned negative numbers knows that -54.2 is colder than -54.

    So, the claim, technically, that 2009 at -54.2F is the warmest in recorded history and then say that the previous high was -54F in 2002 is hilarious.
    Give it up, man. Everyone knows that The Science is Settled. ;)
  • jmog
    BCSbunk wrote: and it could not be that the reporting agency misquoted or mistyped what was stated? Nawwwww never.. LMAO This is just an example of very poor editing skills at Fox news.
    So let it be written, so let it be done...

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/south-pole-warmest-year-100510.html

    It appears in 2002 the recorded average temperature was -54.4F.

    Foxnews apparently is the "retard" on this one.
  • Al Bundy
    All of the stats are statistically equivalent when you factor in the error margin.
  • cbus4life
    I really don't see the big deal? Seems like a rather small, pointless mistake.
  • I Wear Pants
    TYPOS ONLY HAPPEN TO LEFTIST HIPPIES!!!!!
  • Shane Falco
    81% of statistics are made up on the spot.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Who can really tell the difference between -54 and -54.2?
    Funny story though.
  • Sykotyk
    When it's an average of temperature readings over a length of time, yes. It is noticeable.

    Sykotyk
  • BCSbunk
    ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

    The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

    And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.
  • Al Bundy
    BCSbunk wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

    The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

    And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.
    .2 will still fall within a standard margin error, showing that the difference could just be to chance. Even if they were different, looking at only 50 or 60 years of data is too small of a sample compared to the age of the earth to show any meaning. The results are inconclusive.
  • jhay78
    Al Bundy wrote: The results are inconclusive.
    If you're an objective scientist, yes.

    If you're a leftist environmentalist, you twist any and all results to fit the global warming narrative.
  • FatHobbit
    jhay78 wrote:
    Al Bundy wrote: The results are inconclusive.
    If you're an objective scientist, yes.

    If you're a leftist environmentalist, you twist any and all results to fit the global warming narrative.
    Or if you're being funded by someone with an agenda. I would think some scientist's might be influenced by trying to keep a grant.
  • BCSbunk
    Al Bundy wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

    The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

    And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.
    .2 will still fall within a standard margin error, showing that the difference could just be to chance. Even if they were different, looking at only 50 or 60 years of data is too small of a sample compared to the age of the earth to show any meaning. The results are inconclusive.
    The results of what?

    The result is that Antarctica in the time we have been measuring the temps is now at its warmest.

    standard margin of error?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

    has to do with surveys of people and not science experiements.
  • Al Bundy
    BCSbunk wrote:
    Al Bundy wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote:
    ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

    The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

    And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.
    .2 will still fall within a standard margin error, showing that the difference could just be to chance. Even if they were different, looking at only 50 or 60 years of data is too small of a sample compared to the age of the earth to show any meaning. The results are inconclusive.
    The results of what?

    The result is that Antarctica in the time we have been measuring the temps is now at its warmest.

    standard margin of error?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

    has to do with surveys of people and not science experiements.
    Margin of error goes well beyond surverys.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Antartica is racist against thermometers!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!11111111