[PluggyRug]

I see the alarmists are rearing their ugly heads again.

Seems also the recording data is curiously missing some of the naturally colder measurements. Top that with a graph of summer ice extent in the North which oddly fails to show the yearly cycle.......

Whats the name for that...oh yes "inexact science"

[DerbyX]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I see the alarmists are rearing their ugly heads again.

Seems also the recording data is curiously missing some of the naturally colder measurements. Top that with a graph of summer ice extent in the North which oddly fails to show the yearly cycle.......

Whats the name for that...oh yes "inexact science"

I see the evolution climate change deniers are out too. Pluggy for one thing, all this is saying is that its the hottest June on record. Its a good thing the alarmists were listened to in New Orleans .... oh wait. They weren't.

Second, this graph is the exact same graph N-fiddledog has referenced time and again to show that there was less summer ice loss in 2008 & 2009 in an attempt to show things were turning around.

The graph only shows the summer months but all the data is here if you want it.

[Zipperfish]

More bad news for the so-called "skeptics." A recent U of Toronto / Stanford study published this month shows that, of scientists conducting research in relevant fields, only 2 to 3% are skeptics of anthrpogenic climate change. So much for the idea that scientists are flocking in droves to the denier side of things.

[Proculation]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Of course it's the hottest ever recorded. The Russians deactivated some 1200 weather stations this last year (in addition to the 3,000 they deactivated in 1991) and that took them out of the mix to lower the 'averages'.

Average speeds on your local highways will be "the fastest ever" if you don't include trucks and other typically slow vehicles and temps will be "the hottest ever" if you don't include stats from typically cooler weather stations.

Love the Motivation poster

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

More bad news for the so-called "skeptics." A recent U of Toronto / Stanford study published this month shows that, of scientists conducting research in relevant fields, only 2 to 3% are skeptics of anthrpogenic climate change. So much for the idea that scientists are flocking in droves to the denier side of things.

A University of Milan study dated 1512 found that only 1% of scientists were geocentrism deniers.

An Oxford Medical study from 1740 found that there were no doctors who didn't believe in the efficacy of bleeding to rid the body of ill humours.

And there's the lovely study of priests the Vatican approved as doctors in the 1300's who asserted that the main purpose of the brain was to create snot.

Which, when given yourself as an example, is possibly a valid theory.

(For those who are unable to grasp alliteration, my point is that science is not a democracy.)

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The graph only shows the summer months but all the data is here if you want it.

Interestingly, there's not one single photgraphic image of the sea ice extent from space to use to concur with the graphical representations. I mean there's nothing on the NASA site nor showing up in a Google search. The last picture I can find available is for the sea ice maximum on March 30th of this year.

I'm sending a note to a pal at DoD to ask for the current image and will post it when I get it.

[Proculation]

I don't think anybody denies the temperature is hotter today than some centuries ago. But, is it our fault because there's some more CO2 in the air ? I'm not sure at all. CO2 is not a big greenhouse gas compared to methane or H2O which are mostly affecting the temperature of the planet.

Anyway, the debate is too much politicized. We can't trust anybody. There are the environmentalists or the neo-marxists and the deniers who each have their own agenda.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

More bad news for the so-called "skeptics." A recent U of Toronto / Stanford study published this month shows that, of scientists conducting research in relevant fields, only 2 to 3% are skeptics of anthrpogenic climate change. So much for the idea that scientists are flocking in droves to the denier side of things.

A University of Milan study dated 1512 found that only 1% of scientists were geocentrism deniers.

An Oxford Medical study from 1740 found that there were no doctors who didn't believe in the efficacy of bleeding to rid the body of ill humours.

And there's the lovely study of priests the Vatican approved as doctors in the 1300's who asserted that the main purpose of the brain was to create snot.

Which, when given yourself as an example, is possibly a valid theory.

All of which was found out through science, the same science backed with evidence that supports AGW. I might add this same crap gets said about evolution and yet it continues on.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

The graph only shows the summer months but all the data is here if you want it.

Interestingly, there's not one single photgraphic image of the sea ice extent from space to use to concur with the graphical representations. I mean there's nothing on the NASA site nor showing up in a Google search. The last picture I can find available is for the sea ice maximum on March 30th of this year.

I'm sending a note to a pal at DoD to ask for the current image and will post it when I get it.

$1:

Image derivation is from the Sea Ice Index data product, which relies on NASA-developed methods using passive microwave data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F17 Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS). The basis for the Sea Ice Index is the data set, Near-Real-Time DMSP SSM/I Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations, and the NASA-produced Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data. The Sea Ice Index was developed with financial support from NOAA NESDIS and in cooperation with NOAA NGDC.

Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of "noise" pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends.

Isolated areas of missing data occasionally occur in near-real-time sea ice data. The daily extent map shows any areas of missing data as dark gray regions, speckles, or spider web patterns. However, in the time series chart we account for the missing data by averaging the extent for that region from the day before and the day after the gap, a mathematical technique called interpolation. Interpolation is an appropriate approach because ice cover changes slowly.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

I don't think anybody denies the temperature is hotter today than some centuries ago. But, is it our fault because there's some more CO2 in the air ? I'm not sure at all. CO2 is not a big greenhouse gas compared to methane or H2O which are mostly affecting the temperature of the planet.

Anyway, the debate is too much politicized. We can't trust anybody. There are the environmentalists or the neo-marxists and the deniers who each have their own agenda.

Actually yes you can. The science was developed long before it became politicized and is widely accepted today by bonafide experts. It is very easy to support the massive increase in CO2 and there is an abundance of data showing it to be human derived.

In addition, the science supporting the +2C per doubling is also well established. What is less known is the feedback mechanisms that might amplify the problem or perhaps cancel it out. What is also not well understood is the unseen affects of the CO2 increase, things like increasing acidity in the oceans. That alone should trump any misgivings about a warmer temp since ocean acidity increases will destroy entire ecosystems.

It is quite easy to understand the problem at its basic core. We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As a consequence the earth is retaining more of the energy it normally radiates back into space. That energy must be accounted for. It is increasing the global temperatures. It is increasing the amount of energy in the oceans and atmosphere. Its not hard to understand. The severity of its impact on humans is the big variable that is causing the real bruhaha.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

All of which was found out through science, the same science backed with evidence that supports AGW. I might add this same crap gets said about evolution and yet it continues on.

The problem with the AGW 'science' is that the scientists responsible for it have:

1. Deleted entire sets of original data so that they can't be compared with their 'adjusted' data.

2. They've actively conspired to suppress data set information from the public in contravention of laws and court orders mandating that they make this information available to the public.

3. They deliberately exclude data from the remaining Russian weather stations that show cold temperatures in order to falsely demonstrate a higher global average.

4. Scientists who raise questions about processes involved with generating AGW data are routinely harassed and censured and persecuted as if they were heretics and not scientists. Sorry, but if you talk like a cult and act like a cult then the rest of us will begin to think you're a cult. No scientist ever got run out of their career for questioning the genetic origins of the dodo bird yet any scientist who questions the AGW priesthood finds themselves being persecuted by a virtual KGB so it's no bloody wonder that the survey only found 2-3% who question political dogma and I'm sure there's some go*damn star chamber of AGW cultists who are dead set on finding out who that 2-3% are and dealing with them.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Image derivation is from the Sea Ice Index data product, which relies on NASA-developed methods using passive microwave data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F17 Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS). The basis for the Sea Ice Index is the data set, Near-Real-Time DMSP SSM/I Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations, and the NASA-produced Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data. The Sea Ice Index was developed with financial support from NOAA NESDIS and in cooperation with NOAA NGDC.

Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of "noise" pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends.

Isolated areas of missing data occasionally occur in near-real-time sea ice data. The daily extent map shows any areas of missing data as dark gray regions, speckles, or spider web patterns. However, in the time series chart we account for the missing data by averaging the extent for that region from the day before and the day after the gap, a mathematical technique called interpolation. Interpolation is an appropriate approach because ice cover changes slowly.

Cool. I still want to see the raw pictures and see where the white stuff is covering the sea.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

The graph only shows the summer months but all the data is here if you want it.

Interestingly, there's not one single photgraphic image of the sea ice extent from space to use to concur with the graphical representations. I mean there's nothing on the NASA site nor showing up in a Google search. The last picture I can find available is for the sea ice maximum on March 30th of this year.

I'm sending a note to a pal at DoD to ask for the current image and will post it when I get it.

Like the one included on the site?

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The problem with the AGW 'science' is that the scientists responsible for it have:

1. Deleted entire sets of original data so that they can't be compared with their 'adjusted' data.

Now they haven't. The data has been thoroughly checked and rechecked which is why there is only a tiny % of skeptics among bonafide experts.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2. They've actively conspired to suppress data set information from the public in contravention of laws and court orders mandating that they make this information available to the public.

That scandal was busted. I posted the link myself.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

3. They deliberately exclude data from the remaining Russian weather stations that show cold temperatures in order to falsely demonstrate a higher global average.

No they didn't. We also have this annoying little fact of the sea ice graph supporting their data. Independent verification.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

4. Scientists who raise questions about processes involved with generating AGW data are routinely harassed and censured and persecuted as if they were heretics and not scientists. Sorry, but if you talk like a cult and act like a cult then the rest of us will begin to think you're a cult. No scientist ever got run out of their career for questioning the genetic origins of the dodo bird yet any scientist who questions the AGW priesthood finds themselves being persecuted by a virtual KGB so it's no bloody wonder that the survey only found 2-3% who question political dogma and I'm sure there's some go*damn star chamber of AGW cultists who are dead set on finding out who that 2-3% are and dealing with them.

Wrong. Anybody with actual data is being taken seriously. Its the people using the same voodoo arguments you have used that are getting ridiculed. Its the ones who don't like the data so they claim its been falsified (unless the data shows what they want then suddenly its all solid).

The data is there and verifiable but if you want to attack it then by all means post evidence. You might just find that the data about earlier time periods is wrong and the earth is in fact much hotter then we thought.

[BartSimpson]

Interesting. These two pictures that are supposedly forming the same data set (for June) don't match.