NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: Iwinder

Kind of sounds like ......."lets stick together and all sing the same song"

I guess you haven't spent much time around scientists. They actually love to prove each other wrong, every chance they get. But in many cases pesky things like facts get in the way of doing so.

Otherwise they will be looking for work and it won't pay all that good.

I hear oil companies pay quite well.

a reply to: Phage

What's your opinion as to the cause of greater warming happening in the Artic and high latitudes?

Ice melt?

I hear oil companies pay quite well.

a reply to: Phage

They do indeed pay well, you should see what the talking heads in the labs here in the local refineries and chem plants drive.
They are not hauling ass in Micro cars I can tell you that.

I wonder what the scientist's working for BP hauled in during the crisis, selling us all on how good that anti oil spraying was the benefit of humans.

I just happened to get a real work sheet of that crap, and let me tell you that it would curl the straightest hair after reading it.

Enjoying the thread and the debate, now I am going back to my slide rule :-)

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: MagicWand67
Yes. Reduced albedo due to reduced sea ice coverage is probably the primary cause.
www.nature.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ProfessorChaos
No.
It's because I understand that they are not fudging the numbers. It's because I understand where the numbers come from. It's because I understand that there is not one single source for the numbers and, while there is some variation, they are well within their respective margins for error.

Now, answer my question. Do you think that warming (anthropogenic otherwise) is not occurring?

I would say that, with variations time to time, overall we have been in a constant state of warming since the last ice age.

I grew up on a glacier lake in the midwest North America. With out climate change it would have still been a giant slab of ice. So yes, climate change is obviously real. Any one that argues we can keep the planet from heating/cooling is as gullible as the island natives that sacrificed their virgin daughters to quell the anger of the volcano. Same philosophical sale, same useful idiots gobbling it up from the medicine men.

originally posted by: Iwinder

I hear oil companies pay quite well.

a reply to: Phage

They do indeed pay well, you should see what the talking heads in the labs here in the local refineries and chem plants drive.
They are not hauling ass in Micro cars I can tell you that.

I wonder what the scientist's working for BP hauled in during the crisis, selling us all on how good that anti oil spraying was the benefit of humans.

I just happened to get a real work sheet of that crap, and let me tell you that it would curl the straightest hair after reading it.

Enjoying the thread and the debate, now I am going back to my slide rule :-)

Regards, Iwinder

Do your own experiment:

Take a piece of ice out of your freezer tray and set it in your sink. Note the rate of melt. If the ice in your freezer acts like the ice in my freezer its rate of melt increases as the mass of the ice decreases and the ratio of mass to surface area increases. I would expect the same results of our planetary ice. I would expect that the rate of melt today would be faster than the rate of melt in 2014 BC. The farther we get from the last ice age the quicker the ice should recede.

Observable science is real science. Everything else is religion in my book, and I'm a non believer.

a reply to: Phage

See, the problem that you have is that all this data tampering/enlightened correction/"you lowly peasents aren't smart enough to understand " argument that you and the so called "97%" are making just are not resulting in the real world events that the religion that is the movement predicted and continues to predict ...wait, what are we calling it now? Global Climate Change (real neat how you guys have even dropped the "man made" from it now BTW)...isn't the Hague supposed to be under water by now....as I sit here at my home on the beach in Florida, where the beaches are GROWING (strange for an area that SHOULD be getting smaller due to sea level rising), looking at pictures of icebergs floating in Lake Superior at the end of June, and reading a funny story from few months back about a group of "scientists" that took a fossil fueled ship to the Antarctic during the Summer to study the devastating effects of melting that got trapped in ice where they had predicted there would be none....and had to be rescued by 3 other fossil fueled ships and numerous fossil fueled aircraft, I find it odd when people - such as yourself - try and convince me to trust them instead of my lying eyes.
Maybe you can answer a question for me, since I am - apparently - just too stupid to understand the "settled science" that allows for "scientists" to predict an increase in "both number and intensity" of Hurricane activity....and then the exact OPPOSITE happens....and the "scientists" are still correct. Is that the same reasoning that you use to "correct the variations" in your data? Does the fact that your "scientists" predicted a warmer than average Winter with very little snow fall (BTW, Big Al said that by 2013 we would be seeing a year without snow....you know that places in Utah got 9" of snow last week?).....Come on....even the Old Farmers Almanac got it right...one of the worst and snowiest Winters in history. It snowed in Australia and parts of the Middle East where it hadn't snowed in over 100 years....back to my question:
Given the fact that records on ice at the Poles has only been accurately kept since 1979 - some 35 years - as well as the fact that the Earth is more than 4.5 BILLION years old, perhaps you can tell us what the proper and correct amount of ice should be at the Poles ? Or maybe you can explain why - if carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are driving this "man made" climate change...why are there so many examples in the archaeologic and historic record of rapid climate change, both warming and cooling....from sunken cities off the coasts of Egypt, Israel, Great Britain, India, Japan and others to Viking settlements in Greenland abandoned due to the rapid onset of the Little Ice Age to marine fossils in the desert SW of the US...was this due to the dinosaurs' overuse of personal watercraft, or the Vikings driving too many SUV's? Even the vaunted IPCC had to admit in their Sept 2013 report that there has been NO warming since 1998 - or have you conveniently forgotten about the "pause"?
You and your " scientists" have hitched your wagon to the carbon footprint, and it's apparently not the bell weather you make it out to be...because substantially ALL the climate predictions made based on the models have been proven false simply by the passage of time, even WAY back in its heyday when it was called AGW...sorry, but to quote a line from the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales...."don't piss down my back an tell me its raining"...

originally posted by: GenerationGap

originally posted by: Iwinder

I hear oil companies pay quite well.

a reply to: Phage

They do indeed pay well, you should see what the talking heads in the labs here in the local refineries and chem plants drive.
They are not hauling ass in Micro cars I can tell you that.

I wonder what the scientist's working for BP hauled in during the crisis, selling us all on how good that anti oil spraying was the benefit of humans.

I just happened to get a real work sheet of that crap, and let me tell you that it would curl the straightest hair after reading it.

Enjoying the thread and the debate, now I am going back to my slide rule :-)

Regards, Iwinder

Do your own experiment:

Take a piece of ice out of your freezer tray and set it in your sink. Note the rate of melt. If the ice in your freezer acts like the ice in my freezer its rate of melt increases as the mass of the ice decreases and the ratio of mass to surface area increases. I would expect the same results of our planetary ice. I would expect that the rate of melt today would be faster than the rate of melt in 2014 BC. The farther we get from the last ice age the quicker the ice should recede.

Observable science is real science. Everything else is religion in my book, and I'm a non believer.

That formula only works accurately in a static environment, when trade winds are taken into account the calculation becomes much more complicated. Time is not the base increment with which you would measure such a change. Ocean currents further complicate the rate of melt and it is difficult to define the reaction by time, or mass for that matter.

The trade winds and ocean currents have also been demonstrated to be acting 'erratically' in regard to historical norms.

-FBB

The scientific knowledge changes. It is revised over time. Science told us once the world was flat , then it was round , earth was the center of it all. We really are on a tiny part of the galaxy .

Once Drs said leaches and blood letting was cutting edge care, we discovered how wrong they were Then we found out a crush wound leaches can be therapeutic and save a limb.

Dont eat butter it horrible for you , use margarine it so much better for you. Fast forward butter is good again. Coffee, tea , and chocolate have had the same cycle.

DDT is a great bug killer no harm to the environment fast forward DDT almost caused the extinction of bald eagles and other raptors.

And that wonder drug for morning sickness it was the rage to prescribe it Thalidomide it did wonders for morning sickness but deformed the babies

Back in the 60s the hysteria was a coming ice age. Not global warming.

I am sorry I have lived long enough to see the winds of bovine bio waste blow back and forth to realize truth is what financial movers want it to be. I can not fall in line I have seen too many flip flops with public health just for corporate profit and they do roll out data to match what they want.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MagicWand67
Yes. Reduced albedo due to reduced sea ice coverage is probably the primary cause.
www.nature.com...

I doubt most people here can interpret those contour maps properly Phage.

Glad you cleared up the misunderstanding of terms for folks here, I just wish you were posting on all the Gawker and MotherJones websites out there.

Do you think a twenty year plot is really extensive enough to establish a correlation with the warming trend narrative being pushed in other outlets?

-FBB

The problem with science today, and the climate change theory is a perfect example of this, is that we live in time much like Galileo did when the church controlled the process. Today, instead of the church - you got garden variety psychopath politicians controlling what is and isn't acceptable in the field of science.

It is really quite a shame too and goes to show you how a theory like climate change ends up in the hands of the politicians who invent carbon taxes and other oppressive measures that do absolutely nothing to address their own perceived problem.

If climate change is truly an issue of science, then why are the solutions not being proposed by scientists? I know Al Gore would really hate it if science actually got their hands on his beloved climate change.

In the world today we seem to have a problem not of ignorance, but simply knowing too much about what isn't so.

a reply to: sooth

If climate change is truly an issue of science, then why are the solutions not being proposed by scientists?

They are.
Solutions range from a drastic reduction in the release of carbon to various geoengineering proposals.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I doubt most people here can interpret those contour maps properly Phage.

The abstract is quite clear.

We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification.

a reply to: MagicWand67

You need look recent satellite images of arctic ice shelf, not shrinking at all, 50% more volume than last year according to www.reportingclimatescience.com...

The shrinkage and growth of arctic ice has nothing to do with CO2, looks cyclical based on old maps that recorded arctic ice shelf as far back as 19th century... wattsupwiththat.com...

What causes the cyclic decline in arctic sea ice? The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (similar to el-Nino but with north/south bias) looks the culprit. Hard to tax a weather pattern though.

a reply to: glend

You need look recent satellite images of arctic ice shelf, not shrinking at all, 50% more volume than last year according to

You need to look at a bit more than the change over a single year. Your source:

However, this apparent recovery in ice volume should be considered in a long-term context. It is estimated that in the early 1980s, October ice volume was around 20,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 4,800 cubic miles), meaning that ice volume in October 2013 still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years.

The shrinkage and growth of arctic ice has nothing to do with CO2, looks cyclical based on old maps that recorded arctic ice shelf as far back as 19th century

Really? There was satellite imagery in the 19th century?

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (similar to el-Nino but with north/south bias) looks the culprit.

Really? How so? (Blue is a cool PDO cycle)



www.scar.org...
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: pheonix358

A Paper by Livingston and Penn (US Solar Observatory) suggest that sunspots could vanish between 2015-2020... wattsupwiththat.com...

The last time the sun entered a Maunder Minimum (mo sunspots), world faced a little ice age that wiped out the world crops. ... en.wikipedia.org...

So global warming might be a cover to hide a disastrous cooling event that they know will cause world starvation.

Building massive bunkers for the elite (Denver airport etc) using funds that would normally be pumping the economy ... Rumsfled missing 2.3 Trillion etc;
Not concerned about debt because world economy will collapse;
FEMA would stockpile massive amounts survival food, medicines, ammunition (enough on web about it);
Move needed government agencies to safer locations (CIA Domestic unit moves to Denver)
Disarm public;
etc

I am not saying it is fact just a remote possibility that we are being played.

a reply to: glend

The last time the sun entered a Maunder Minimum (mo sunspots), world faced a little ice age that wiped out the world crops.

Speculation about sunspot cycles is rife but temperatures had been falling for hundreds of years before the Maunder minimum occurred.

So global warming might be a cover to hide a disastrous cooling event that they know will cause world starvation.

Increasing the burning of fossil fuels would be a bit of a hedge against such an event. How is global warming a "cover?"

Rumsfled missing 2.3 Trillion etc

Sorry, no 2.3 trillion was missing.

a reply to: glend

I am not saying it is fact just a remote possibility that we are being played.

There is only one person trying to provide hard facts in this thread and well, I am not convinced ..... not at all!

Remote Possibility? Not as remote as you think.



That is a cyclical graph. As much as they try to fudge it, it does not take much to see where we are right now.

It is not a matter of IF, it is a matter of WHEN and since there are a great many little dips before such an event, the little ice age being one of them, we can expect another any time now.

With 7 Billion people on this planet, anything, anything at all that interferes with food production on a semi global basis will send many of those billions of human beings to their deaths from hunger and then disease and war.

Science can grandstand all they want. Governments can make information difficult to get, and they do. Could you imagine if 7 billion people all screamed at their Governments to do something ........ and the reality is ...... they can't do a damn thing about it! Nothing .... zip ..... nada.

Star for you!

P

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: MagicWand67

You need look recent satellite images of arctic ice shelf, not shrinking at all, 50% more volume than last year according to www.reportingclimatescience.com...

Experts at Climate denial, such as those hired by the oil industry, love to harp on the arctic ice increase. However, they are being intentionally misleading on the topic. Sea ice is different than land ice. Sea ice fluctuates seasonally, and does grow every year. Its the land ice that's disappearing at unprecedented rates. Land ice has accumulated throughout history, and its how we can drill core samples giving us Paleoclimatological data. For the first time that ice is melting and not being significantly replaced.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MagicWand67
Yes. Reduced albedo due to reduced sea ice coverage is probably the primary cause.
www.nature.com...

and here i thought the wife and i were just getting old!

i'm no awg fan, tho.