NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

I participate in the ice patrols monitoring ice flow off Canada every year, went to Greenland last year too. There has been very little ice loss.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti
I'm my opinion this thread is worthy of the deconstructing disinformation subforum. There is no data, and certainly not NASA data to back up the OP's claim.

Interesting how so many jump the gun and assume the article/blog is accurate.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Lets say this. I dont go by numbers just facts.At a rather HUGE company I used to pull statistics from several of the major departments and organize them is spreadsheets.I was the sole person to do this due to my knowledge of mathematics , statistics , probability and the knowledge of formulas. To cut this short my statement at the bottom of the emails read : If you think that a result is not correct, these are my numbers and I can do what I want with them....
Or , these numbers represent a consensus of all the tiny little voices within my head.

I'm not impressed. What are your facts, then?

The information from the source used by the source of the article in the OP says that the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is trending downwards and that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is trending upwards since 1979.

Said source is the same source of the overall sea ice trend showing little change overall. Do you believe just one part of that source's information?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Ultralight

The billions of tax dollars that were dumped into the "green" companies was wasted as all have either went bankrupt or are very close. Thanks Obama.

What about the trillions the oil industry has received in tax subsidies. Don't you think you are being a bit disingenuous here?


www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: jrod
I do not recall discussing the mean evil oil companies in which everyone depends on . And most of that money supposedly is for research. Is it right ? No.

originally posted by: fooledmetwice
I participate in the ice patrols monitoring ice flow off Canada every year, went to Greenland last year too. There has been very little ice loss.

And speaking of Greenland (completely on topic question coming) . Does anyone recall how that land got its name ?

Pretty sure that's a biased source in the OP. Not good Data. This thread is flawed.

I also saw Al Gores name thrown around. That's one sure way you know that the poster doesn't know anything about Global Warming/Climate Change, they throw Al's name out. In Fact the only place I see his name these days is on ATS. Hmmmm And I read quite a lot on the Climate from quite a few sources...

And just two days before we have this ...Larsen B , Ice shelf
makes ya go..Hmmmmm

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog
Lets say this. I dont go by numbers just facts.At a rather HUGE company I used to pull statistics from several of the major departments and organize them is spreadsheets.I was the sole person to do this due to my knowledge of mathematics , statistics , probability and the knowledge of formulas. To cut this short my statement at the bottom of the emails read : If you think that a result is not correct, these are my numbers and I can do what I want with them....
Or , these numbers represent a consensus of all the tiny little voices within my head.

I'm not impressed. What are your facts, then?

The information from the source used by the source of the article in the OP says that the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is trending downwards and that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is trending upwards since 1979.

Said source is the same source of the overall sea ice trend showing little change overall. Do you believe just one part of that source's information?

Like I said. I dont go by numbers or charts which come from numbers. In any issue I do research from BOTH sides.The main question I ask myself is why. No numbers , those can always be changed to fit anything. I observe what people are saying and with intellect and logic as my tools dissect the reasoning. Also , you cannot look at just one science's point of view. Yes climatology . But also geology , archeology , even biology can tell tales of the climate way before the current "climatology" came in to being. The pure sciences can tell the app climate of the world at different times going back thousands if not millions of years.Climatology only since the early 1900s.See where I am going ? Some people get so caught up in proclaiming humans as evil and destroying Mother Earth Gaia they do not look at al the facts. I will ask a question as I did in a previous post. A simple one. Do you know how Greenland got its name ? Hint : it had nothing to do with technology.

a reply to: Gothmog
What do I care about Greenland - do you think it got its name for being completely green? Maybe you should learn a bit more about how old the ice sheets on much of it are.

You keep grumbling about numbers, which shows that you haven't even bothered to visit the site in question.

Why do I know this? Because the site has images of the ice. Pictures, not just numbers. You can literally go look at any date in two different years and compare them (within the satellite record, of course - not every single date in existence).

a reply to: Greven
Of course I did read the OP . And as far as the Greenland question goes , you dont know do you ? At the time the Viking's discovered that area and actually had a colony there it was basically green. Meaning it was without ice. Greenland alone has been through several cycles throughout thousands of years of warming and cooling. So has every place on planet earth.And thats geology.
So now lets get in to astronomy . Did you know Venus had heated up , the ice on Mars has receded especially at the poles ,Jupiter's Great Red Spot has disappeared ? All said to be as the Solar System was heating up. You did know this , correct ? The AGW crowd did explain this to you I am sure.

a reply to: Gothmog

You are utterly mistaken if you think Greenland "was basically green." It wasn't. Full stop. Go ahead and show us how green Greenland was. Further, Greenland is not composed of sea ice, which is what this OP is based on (despite the ambiguous title).

The OP is quoting a source that quotes another source that uses the source I linked, drawing heavily on a sea ice image.

Here, go see with your lying eyes what changes have occurred. You can even pick the dates; this is in mid-September, when Arctic ice extent is historically near or at its smallest point.

Actually, funny about comparisons.
Our tv station is having a horror/sifi month, so guess what i watched (again) last night.
Thats right, The Thing.(1982)
I couldnt help but think....here is beautiful historic panoramic shot of snow covered mountains and land in full technicolor, ...I wonder if it still looks like this now, in the same season?
Of course those scenes were from an area near Stewart, British Colombia.
As it is historically recorded in perpetuity, maybe someone should do a comparison 33 years later...if only to wasted a million or two $ for "Research"....and knowledge of course.

And for those who are interested, the southern areas of Australia have just recorded their coldest wettest May for decades.....We have'nt even started winter yet.

a reply to: Greven
I have thoroughly enjoyed our debate. I salute you.

a reply to: Gothmog
You mentioned how money has been "wasted" on "green" technologies, when the reality is, it has been the oil industry who have been getting away with robbery.

a reply to: jrod
Not wasted on green technology . I think that is the way to go. The money was wasted giving it to the companies they did.And would I like to see the money given to the oil companies going in to research of different energy variations to get us off coal , oil , and natural gas ? Absolutely. Dont get me wrong , just because I am not convinced that AGW exists does not mean I am not very concerned about this Earth . I am

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Ultralight

The billions of tax dollars that were dumped into the "green" companies was wasted as all have either went bankrupt or are very close. Thanks Obama.

So you are telling us that you were being sarcastic with that post?

I am confused by your postings.

I like the "more ice but its thinner" line
then the ice WHEN measured turned out to be more ice but its thicker

Robot subs find Antarctic sea ice thicker than expected

www.newscientist.com...

notice how the thicker antarctic ice is measured up close and personal by a ROBOT sub, while the thinner ice is measured by a less accurate mixmash of different passing observations ( not always a measurement), and satellites like the ones that provided datas for the wrong forcast of the antarctic ice:

Groundbreaking 3D mapping of previously inaccessible areas of the Antarctic has found that the sea ice fringing the vast continent is thicker than previous thought.

Two expeditions to Antarctica by scientists from the UK, USA and Australia analysed an area of ice spanning 500,000 metres squared, using a robot known as SeaBed.

The survey discovered ice thickness average between 1.4m and 5.5m, with a maximum ice thickness of 16m.

www.theguardian.com...

While the ice’s extent is readily visible from satellites, ice thickness has been more difficult to measure, and it is arguably the more important dimension in measuring the volume of ice being lost. In estimating ice thickness, satellites must try to gauge thickness differences of just a few feet from hundreds of miles above the planet’s surface. “It’s a tricky business,” Lindsay said.

But several satellites do take those measurements, as do various airborne missions, anchored moorings and submarines passing below the ice. Each of these instruments uses a different method, though, and produces data that isn’t always easy to sync with the others.

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: Danbones

Just because the one time direct observations show that the Antarctic ice is thicker than expected, we need more data points to figure out if it is getting thicker, thinner, or holding steady.


From what I understand the current trend is Antarctic Ice total area is getting slightly larger while the Arctic Ice is trending the other way with the difference being more Arctic Ice loss than Antarctic gain.

It also needs to be noted that the vast majority of CO2 output is in the Northern Hemisphere.

www.nasa.gov...

the great lakes have been freezing over lately
completely
i measured it with an ax every time i went out fishing this winter
and towards the end of the season I had to graduate to the auger because of the thicker ice
its getting thicker and lasting longer the last few years especially
I spend a lot more time on the ice then any of the GLOBAL WARMING nuts I encounter

the great lakes are in the nothern hemispere where there is the most vegitation enriching CO2

@fooledmetwice
nothing like direct observation eh