CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63685
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 3:46 pm
 


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Full title: Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

(Excerpt: More at the link!)

Quote:
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.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.


Well, there goes another blow against the global warming cult! Now let's sit back and see how this gets spun by the cultists to explain this away. :mrgreen:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63685
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2015 4:05 pm
 


And a timely email brought me this little gem:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... vestigated

Quote:
Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments. In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly (CCW), I reported weather bureaus in Australia (CCW #139) and Paraguay (CCW #158) were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded. Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a “propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.”

In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. “The corrections ... appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,” said Schär.

Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.


Here's a thought: If you don't lie you can't get caught.

Just saying. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 12:29 am
 


As to the polar ice thing it's worth focusing in on the fact he's talking about both poles. He's talking global ice.

A couple CBC "news" stories have been posted here that seem to conflict with what the guy is saying if you don't make a point of that clarification.

They were head-scratchers. They concentrated on ice extent for the Arctic alone and called attention to any low point you would see on a graph line of extent.

For example if you check this one out...

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

you'll notice that about March 11 the line takes a little dip down to be slightly below what would have been the lowest extent for that day in the thirty year satellite record.

To the chicken littles at the CBC that 1 day record was news. The Arctic is therefore boiling is what they seemed to want you to think.

But look at the line and the lines for other years on that graph. They jiggle up and down. The CBC didn't think it was worth calling your attention to 2012 when the line zoomed up above the mean for the same period as the day of the 30 year low.

The CBC also claimed that because extent had set what they wanted you to believe was some amazing record for that day it meant the ice extent would now plummet inevitably downward, which would be the earliest such a downturn had ever occurred.

But again, if you look at the graph you'll see that isn't what happened. The line stayed pretty level for over a month before it followed the other lines on the yearly dip down towards the summer minimum.

So at that point nothing that unusual had actually happened, but the CBC wanted you to freak. Why?

Could it be, because globally, when you consider both poles, followers of such things were starting to see no decrease in ice extent. "Don't look there. Look over here." is what they seemed to be saying.

It's interesting though. Maybe the CBC should have been patient. Normally most people don't care what the Arctic ice extent is for this time of year. The Summer minimum is when they're generally called upon to freak.

What's happened to the graph line in the last couple of weeks is actually a little scary. It's starting to follow the record low years downward.

Wait until September to start pulling out your hair and squeaking at us about how the sky is falling, CBC. That's my advice.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32781
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 6:20 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Well, there goes another blow against the global warming cult! Now let's sit back and see how this gets spun by the cultists to explain this away. :mrgreen:


You can prove anything, if you cherry pick the data. Just ask those who say 'there has been no warming since 1998', what about since 1997? Or since 1897?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 9031302712

What NASA actually says, is quite different.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20831
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:40 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Full title: Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

(Excerpt: More at the link!)

Quote:
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.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.


Well, there goes another blow against the global warming cult! Now let's sit back and see how this gets spun by the cultists to explain this away. :mrgreen:


A well-known climate denier who works for a climate denying organization is denying it!

News at 11!

https://www.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:55 pm
 


As far as I know, this...

Quote:
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.


is not in dispute. Is it? It concerns both poles averaged together.

You can see it in the graph from the Univerity of Illinois Polar Research Group.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC ... ceArea.gif

Here's the same thing only different from the University of Oslo Department of Geosciences.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC ... ceArea.gif

Currently according to Cryosphere today the global ice extent is + 0.48.

Image

That number can vary. I think the graph auto-updates.

Believe it or not Boots, not even the magic prog technique of name-calling will change the figures.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sat May 30, 2015 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 2:04 pm
 


Doc, I read your links. You're having a problem differentiating between Global sea ice and Arctic.

Global includes both Arctic and Antarctic. Total polar as in North and South pole.

Again, the Forbes writer's claim is...

Quote:
total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average


He clarifies the claim as "largely", and "since 2012".


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15701
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 3:11 pm
 


But that doesn't differentiate between sea ice and land ice which are different. It's the land ice that is disappearing and the sea ice which is expanding. Though in the case of the latter, the increase in sea ice is a red herring as it ebbs and flows over the years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 4:01 pm
 


xerxes wrote:
But that doesn't differentiate between sea ice and land ice which are different.


No it doesn't. But when you are talking about "total sea ice extent" you're talking about a specific thing measured by a specific set of satellites.

But yes there is also an interesting topic on say the period tropical currents moved farther south to warm the Northern peninsula of the Antarctic, or how underwater volcanoes have periodically warmed the seas further to the South along the western coast, melting ice shelves and facilitating land-based glacial drift into the sea. Then there's Greenland to the north.

It's interesting stuff with a lot of conflicting information, but doesn't change the figures on global ice extent.

As you say though, land ice matters. It's the one that affects sea level. Luckily there hasn't been much to worry about lately there. We're still only at a rate of about 8 inches per century.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20831
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 12:25 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Believe it or not Boots, not even the magic prog technique of name-calling will change the figures.


ROTFL

Pot meet kettle!

N_Fiddledog wrote:
Here's one the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation forgot to tell you guys about.


N_Fiddledog wrote:
"Thanks for the tongue bath, CBC," says Omar, as the Red Star further accomodates him with a reach around.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 2:32 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Believe it or not Boots, not even the magic prog technique of name-calling will change the figures.


ROTFL

Pot meet kettle!


Of course. Some can give as good as we get from you guys. Now show me how you have figures to back your bad mouth kettle-boy. I've shown you mine. [but]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29237
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 2:43 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
I've shown you mine. [but]

...and what's been seen, cannot be unseen. 8O


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20831
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 10:18 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Believe it or not Boots, not even the magic prog technique of name-calling will change the figures.


ROTFL

Pot meet kettle!


Of course. Some can give as good as we get from you guys. Now show me how you have figures to back your bad mouth kettle-boy. I've shown you mine. [but]


The name-calling almost always starts with you and yours - Bart called those who believe in AGW cultists and you chimed in with 'Chicken Littles.'

Guess you can't handle it when someone dares to use the same tactic on you...

Why don't you look at your chart again - it was in decline largely from 1979 - 2012, fairly gradual until the early 2000s, when it accelerated. We've now had about two years of gain, which is nice, but hardly a big deal considering the nearly 30 years of decline previously. It's made worse when the gains don't even come close to the losses (gains never reach +2 million, but often hit -2 million, all in the past decade) And sure, there was a short term bump in 2008, but then almost right away, it began to decline again and decline even more sharply.

This rationale is akin to saying, well, it rained in LA over the weekend, so the drought must be over.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 11:06 pm
 


Well you have to go back a lot of years to find out who started the name calling and it gets kind of childish (even though it was you guys :wink: :lol: )

You know what I find more interesting is how bad the insults are coming from your side. And when I say bad, I mean dumb. It's like you guys believe snark by itself is wit, insult is insight. And you seem to believe nothing further - like for example reason, support, or even a point is required.

I think the problem is you don't know what you sound like. Here let me help you with that. Here's what you guys sound like.

Watch. You'll see yourself at about 1:40.



Now this is going to surprise you, but believe it or not there are those who are not thinking "My, what a witty retort", when they see something like that, or something like somebody jumping into a conversation with little more than a name-call of "Denier".
No...really. :o


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23706
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 11:40 pm
 


In any case, this below is more interesting, because it concerns the actual subject.

bootlegga wrote:
Why don't you look at your chart again - it was in decline largely from 1979 - 2012, fairly gradual until the early 2000s, when it accelerated. We've now had about two years of gain, which is nice, but hardly a big deal considering the nearly 30 years of decline previously. It's made worse when the gains don't even come close to the losses (gains never reach +2 million, but often hit -2 million, all in the past decade) And sure, there was a short term bump in 2008, but then almost right away, it began to decline again and decline even more sharply.

This rationale is akin to saying, well, it rained in LA over the weekend, so the drought must be over.


I did look, and damn...I posted the same graph twice. I meant to also show you this one.

Image

So now we have two to look at that are the same thing only displaying it differently - global ice extent over the satellite record of 35 years or so.

Now I don't see exactly what you see. I see extent as trending more or less less level until about 2001, then there's an obvious dip until about 2012, then up it goes again.

If I had to guess what the overall 35 year trend would be I'd actually agree with you and guess down, but I'd also guess the trend would be slight. Hardly noticeable would be my guess.

It doesn't matter though, because what the writer said was, "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 second sentence there is definitely true. Shall we debate the first? It's going to be a little difficult to know what's actually happening there to a mathematical exactitude without trend lines. Got some?

Even to the naked eye though, I don't see anything that horrific one way or the other.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.