It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

How does this data demonstrate the shift in sea ice is a direct or indirect result of man-made global warming? You have presented graphs indicating the sea ice is more or less equal, but distributed between the poles differently. The Pole Shift Hypothesis has been on the books for quite some time and I would say your data supports that hypothesis more than global warming. These graphs make the global warming argument very unconvincing to me. I am not climatologist however. Can you explain why your data can be interpreted as man-made global warming?

thx
-d




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I am not constantly confused, way to 'put words in my mouth'.

The OP provided a misleading headline, a link that is a story of a story, claims of NASA data without any actual links to said data, yet so many just assume the story is legit.

Do you intentionally troll me in these climate change threads>?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The post I was referring to had nothing to do with the OP, which is ridiculous on its own.

Edit: the OP is ridiculous I mean; Greven was right to call it out.

a reply to: jrod


edit on 21-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
How interesting that you get a paper from a non peer reviewed journal that specializes in social engineering...

I'm not even exaggerating, look it up. The people who started that site, and the most sited papers on it, are about effective psychological manipulation.

a reply to: PublicOpinion



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012


On ATS, what would be considered a neutral source!?!? Every source has its own agenda depending on a persons beliefs.


That’s why it’s crucial to process information with an objective, critical thinking viewpoint, rather than starting out from one’s personal “beliefs”.

This is the trap way too many people are mindlessly enslaved by: picking and choosing the info they deem valid based on political preference. It leads to massive confirmation bias, willful ignorance, and in my opinion straight up ideological dementia.

For the data here, you’re best off just going straight to the actual source of information, rather than allowing some political pundit to interpret it for you.

But you also have to be careful and make sure you understand exactly what you’re looking at.

Cryosphere Today is generally a good source of information, but as you can see from their website – it’s a bit ghetto, and presentation isn’t exactly their forte. The Global Sea Ice Area graph (and its wonky x & y axes) are a good example of how this can sometimes make things skewed: this graph may look pretty flat, but it’s really not. Look at the data before the midpoint at 1997: it’s almost completely above the average. After 1997 it’s almost all completely below average. It may look like it’s been sitting above average again for a while now – but this is actually only the last two years. Long term there is still a distinct downward trend.

We can verify this simply by going to the source of information for the graph itself. NOAA publishes thorough updates on the state of global sea ice extent. Here’s what they had to say in their last annual report:


Annual global sea ice extent is decreasing at an average rate of 319,000 square km (123,000 square miles) per decade with Arctic sea ice decreasing and Antarctic sea ice slightly increasing. Arctic annual sea ice extent is decreasing at an average rate of 518,000 square km (200,000 square miles) per decade, while Antarctic annual sea ice extent is increasing at an average rate of 199,000 square km (77,000 square miles) per decade.

Source


This is also backed up by NASA as well:
NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains




...
Disentangling conflicting information may often feel like a hopeless case of he said/she said, but with a little objective research (especially in the climate debate) you will find this is often NOT actually the case. What happened here is James Taylor of The Heartland Institute said what NASA said, but when you go ask NASA themselves it turns out they didn’t say that at all.

So who do you want to trust: the actual source or the political pundit misrepresenting that source?

Unfortunately many people here (about 28 ATS members in this case) automatically go with the pundit just because he agrees with their political views, rather than taking the more challenging, but rewarding, critical thinking path.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Please explain why Florida is getting ready to spend untold millions of dollars to reinforce its coastline to protect cities from rising sea level, and how this situation is the number one concern for the people and local governments?

A lot of the work on the coastline is due to the erosion of the soil on the coastline. It has became a very large problem , There have been several documentaries on this over the years.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Indeed, I would consider this a fun-fact. Given the circumstance that all the plastic in the oceans sums up to a pretty convincing bunch of hard facts, literally spoken. All I'm saying is, that this Newspeak-take on Global Warming is merely distraction.
And a very bad one as well.

edit on 21-5-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Counting sheep to get some sleep, eh?





What happened here is James Taylor of The Heartland Institute said what NASA said, but when you go ask NASA themselves it turns out they didn’t say that at all.


No, NASA stated exactly the opposite. Just the usual diametral truth of politics... you know, the one where politicians promise something and deliver exactly the opposite. *sigh*


Cheers!
edit on 21-5-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

New Jersey also spends millions annually pumping sand on it's beaches, they have been doing this for decades. Virginia Beach also does the same.

Do you suggest we stop doing this?

The hurricane comment is foolish. Why do people live in the Mid-West when it is vulnerable to major tornadoes? Why do people live in the Northeast when they are vulnerable to blizzards? Why to people live in California when it is vulnerable to major earthquakes?


Oh jrod, it's been too long


The hurricane comment may not be a perfect analogy, but it's still a good point. Tornadoes, blizzards and earthquakes (the least of the reasons I would never move back to CA) do not always hit the same towns and same areas...same with hurricanes (and I was purposefully using hyperbole in that to make a point...I don't really think that any one person has been through 10 hurricanes in the same house in the same town, but maybe). While hurricanes and blizzards provide a bit of warning, tornadoes and earthquakes do not--and all four forces are a temporary thing.

Rising sea levels and eroding beaches--assuming the world is going to continue to warm, which I'm assuming it will--are an everyday, always predictable thing that is forecasted to continue to worsen. Why someone would look at that at face value and turn their nose to it and pretend that they can "fix nature" is a lesson in futility at best, and an example of blatant stupidity at worse. But, maybe that's just me.

Yes, I suggest people stop spending taxpayers' dollars on futile attempts to wrangle nature. I fail to see the controversy in that statement.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It's obvious that the author is discussing the average of both poles (arctic and Antarctic), hence the phrase "polar ice caps" (emphasis on the plural).

I, too, did the link chasing that you did, and it's pretty evident--and I believe that this is the point of the story--that the overall loss of ice is not nearly as earth-shattering as alarmist AGW or alarmist climate-change mouthpieces would have the masses believe. It's really quite simple--the effects of the warming earth, regardless of the cause, are not nearly as detrimental on the ice caps as we have been duped into believing.

Also pointing out that the 1979 baseline, apparently used as a measuring stick for comparison of ice extant, as being at the very end of a decades-long cold snap is a good point to make, as that reminds us that the baseline isn't necessarily the norm, either (assuming that there even is a "norm").

Hell, an article from last year that cites the same University of Illinois Cryosphere project uses their data and correlates it with satellite data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (co-funded by NASA) to show this:


To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting.


My point in being snarky is that, as often people do (and is sometimes relevant), you called out the source for denying that warming is even happening, yet I supplied you with part of the article form the Forbes source proving your claim wrong.

And your comment still doesn't disprove the fact that the charts you supplied are possibly based on the data that the story is trying to refute as incorrect--maybe it's not, but maybe it is. If that's the case, using those charts doesn't negate any claim in the article.
edit on 22-5-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

From your article:



Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University and University Coillege, London, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.


Shhh... another expert comes forward to get his pockets filled with cash I guess? How do you call it when big chunks of data are ignored to stress this BS of a 'significant recovery'? A lie? There was no recovery left after all, that was just a temporarily peak due to a harsh winter.
Just take a look at the actual data from the Alfred Wegner Institute and from CryoSat-2:

www.earthtimes.org...

Or just check out the NSIDC/NASA data regarding the Arctic:

nsidc.org...

Hawkins stated himself:


‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’


Maybe because its just plain rubbish? Dailymail for your Dailyspin, Dailywrong of course.
edit on 22-5-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The North Pole melted a lot in the summer for a few years, and then it didn't. I feel that global weather is still poorly understood. For instance, we were told that global warming would produce more hurricanes, and instead, Florida stopped having hurricanes. The global warming people can't pretend their predictions have all failed. Sea rise will cover low-lying islands? Nope. Nevertheless, we are seeing a changing climate. $5/gallon gasoline and $400/month electric bills are not something I want to see, though. So no to "carbon credits" and similar.
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I have never been one who believes we can 'fix' nature, but perhaps we can change our habits now that we are advanced enough to make power in others ways besides burning fossil fuels and releasing so much CO2 that it is making changes not only to the atmosphere, but the ocean too.

There are many other things as a species that we do that are not sustainable. The problem is, which is apparent with the CO2 and fossil fuel problem is a small number of extremely power and wealthy people do not want to loose their cash cow with the world currently being dependent on their product.

It also should be apparent now that the amount of tax money that has been used for environmental conservation is dwarfed by the amount the Oil Companies receive in the form of subsidies. This is a major controversy in my opinion.


edit on 22-5-2015 by jrod because: ,



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Its the ice on land that's melting that is the main issue with sea level rising. The ice at the north pole is already in the ocean.

Seen any before and after images of glaciers all on land that are receding? Seen any that are advancing?

before and after glacier......



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

You need to check out this thread before you scream Carbon credits.

Fossil Fuels Subsidised By $10m a Minute, Says IMF

Florida is still vulnerable to hurricanes, always will be. Not sure why one would believe Florida has stopped getting hit by hurricanes. That is a flaw in your reasoning there, as with these 'predictions' you write about.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander
How does this data demonstrate the shift in sea ice is a direct or indirect result of man-made global warming? You have presented graphs indicating the sea ice is more or less equal, but distributed between the poles differently. The Pole Shift Hypothesis has been on the books for quite some time and I would say your data supports that hypothesis more than global warming. These graphs make the global warming argument very unconvincing to me. I am not climatologist however. Can you explain why your data can be interpreted as man-made global warming?

thx
-d

I didn't claim a cause. I simply showed what was. The data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It's obvious that the author is discussing the average of both poles (arctic and Antarctic), hence the phrase "polar ice caps" (emphasis on the plural).

I, too, did the link chasing that you did, and it's pretty evident--and I believe that this is the point of the story--that the overall loss of ice is not nearly as earth-shattering as alarmist AGW or alarmist climate-change mouthpieces would have the masses believe. It's really quite simple--the effects of the warming earth, regardless of the cause, are not nearly as detrimental on the ice caps as we have been duped into believing.

Also pointing out that the 1979 baseline, apparently used as a measuring stick for comparison of ice extant, as being at the very end of a decades-long cold snap is a good point to make, as that reminds us that the baseline isn't necessarily the norm, either (assuming that there even is a "norm").

Hell, an article from last year that cites the same University of Illinois Cryosphere project uses their data and correlates it with satellite data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (co-funded by NASA) to show this:


To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting.


My point in being snarky is that, as often people do (and is sometimes relevant), you called out the source for denying that warming is even happening, yet I supplied you with part of the article form the Forbes source proving your claim wrong.

And your comment still doesn't disprove the fact that the charts you supplied are possibly based on the data that the story is trying to refute as incorrect--maybe it's not, but maybe it is. If that's the case, using those charts doesn't negate any claim in the article.

Lumping both poles together is idiotic and wrong. Again, the claims made were that (A) the data is from NASA (it is not) and (B) that no polar ice retreat is shown by that data (there is). The end. One pole is not retreating, but the other one is. Full stop - he is wrong. The data is not from NASA - he is wrong. The claims are wrong - that's that, close the thread, hoax bin it.

You are trying to go on some tangent and I really don't care. Forbes regularly carries global warming denial articles, and one single sentence does not absolve it. Don't believe me?

Have a look here (John Tamny).
Or here (James Taylor).
Perhaps here (James Taylor).

In fact, it might amuse you that another Forbes writer calls out James Taylor here - yes, this is the same James Taylor as writes for Forbes and the same author of that article which was the source of the OP's source:

The headline that the organization chose for its article was United States Undergoing Decade-Long Cooling. Heartland Senior Fellow Author James M. Taylor pointed to a decade of weather readings from “a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States,” a group of facilities collectively known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network, or USCRN.
...
What Taylor effectively did was some mathematical sleight of hand. Technically, yes, the stations showed a slight end-to-end drop over the time they’ve run. Even the statement that there is 10 years of data is misleading. According to NOAA, the first USCRN station was commissioned in January 2004. The final one was installed in 2008. But let’s ignore that for the moment.


Forbes gives this asshole a weekly column, so I can't help but think they support his views. However, it looks like they are ever so slightly shifting that stance, given that sentence you've quoted. By the way, the Daily Mail is utter garbage - it is literally a tabloid.

e: also - if the charts are incorrect show them as incorrect. The idiotic Forbes article is only taking the global sea ice summation and claiming there is some update as if there is a correction to past data (there is not).
edit on 16Fri, 22 May 2015 16:53:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
9 years, no Florida hurricanes.
a reply to: jrod



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Pile another one onto the argument that our most respected institutions can't get it right.

Oops!



Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.


While I do believe that the climate is changing, I certainly don't believe any government or privately funded conclusions as to the reason why. I especially don't believe politicians when the talk about climate change, taxes and carbon credits in the same breath.

Sure would be great if science could be conducted without ulterior motives.


The climate is constantly changing, as it should. Without climate change, the planet would be dead.

A number of years ago the narrative changed from "global warming" to "climate change", without stating in which way the climate is changing. Everybody just appears to have assumed that it meant "warming".



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

The Polar Ice Caps have Not Retreated Since 1979 , that's 36 Years and Counting Now . The GLOBAL WARMING Fanatics STILL Deny the FACTS..........Chicken Little has Nothing on those Fools.......


There is just too much good money still to be made from "global warming". You know, cap and trade and all that.




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join