# Arctic Ice



## Old Rocks (Jun 24, 2009)

It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Conditions in context 

Although the 2009 melt season started slowly, the pace of ice loss quickened through May. During May, the Arctic Ocean lost 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) of ice, an average decline of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This is similar to the rate of decline observed last year. For comparison, the long-term average (1979-2000) rate of decline for May is 47,000 kilometers per day (18,000 square miles per day). By the end of May 2009, ice extent was 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) higher than extent at the end of May 2007.


----------



## waltky (Feb 18, 2017)

Granny says, "Dat's right - alla ice gonna  melt an' we all gonna drown...





*Arctic and Antarctic sea ice hit record low in January: UN*
_Saturday 18th February, 2017 - The extent of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic last month was the lowest on record for January, the UN World Meteorological Organization said on Friday, while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit a January record._


> “The missing ice in both poles has been quite extraordinary,” David Carlson, director of the World Climate Research Programme, told a UN briefing in Geneva.  “It is a quite strange situation. It’s extraordinarily warm in the north, and the sea ice, which is one indicator of planetary warmth, is at a minimum at this point in both hemispheres.”
> 
> The month of January was probably the second or third hottest such month on record, but that was not a reliable indicator of the state of the climate, he said.  “Surface air temperature is a small hair on the long tail of a very big dog. And the very big dog is the ocean. And what you really don’t want to watch is individual months of surface air temperature because they can go up for a variety of reasons.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...

Tell me rocks, how does the glassy eyed chant go?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Bullshit


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 20, 2017)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag





← Previous Article 
*2017 ushers in record low extent*
February 7, 2017


Record low daily Arctic ice extents continued through most of January 2017, a pattern that started last October. Extent during late January remained low in the Kara, Barents and Bering Seas. Southern Hemisphere extent also tracked at record low levels for January; globally, sea ice cover remains at record low levels.
..................................................................................................
Extent is tracking at records low levels in the Southern Hemisphere, where it is currently summer. As shown in this plot for February 5, this is primarily due to low ice extent within the Amundsen Sea, where only a few scattered patches of ice remain. By contrast, extent in the Weddell Sea is now only slightly below average. This pattern is consistent with persistent above average air temperatures off western Antarctica.

*Record low ice at both poles. Three extreme warmups in the Arctic this winter. Yet our 'Conservatives' are still claiming that nothing is happening.*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Bullshit
> 
> View attachment 113369



Clearly your graph is just more fake news....it clearly states that there was much more ice in 2006 and yet, the sat photos don't show anything like that...all this fake news and fake graphs...and fake science is coming back to bite you all in the ass...and I, for one am going to enjoy watching it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All fake news, all the time....


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Show us the real stuff then.  Prove that NSIDC is fake.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Show us the real stuff then.



Already did...clearly the ice in Feb 2017 is very close to the ice in 2006...your graph and you are clearly liars...


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

What is the source of your two images? What does your source claim to have been the ice extent for those periods?  NSIDC showed 2006 to have been an exceptionally low extent year.

However

September 2006 extent: 5.95 million km^2
September 2016 extent: 4.72 million km^2, down 21% in one decade.
SOTC: Sea Ice | National Snow and Ice Data Center


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 20, 2017)

As usual, SSDD pulled stinky facts out of his ass. For both poles, the sea ice is at record lows.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> What is the source of your two images? What does your source claim to have been the ice extent for those periods?  NSIDC showed 2006 to have been an exceptionally low extent year.
> 
> However
> 
> ...



Fake news...all fake all the time...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> As usual, SSDD pulled stinky facts out of his ass. For both poles, the sea ice is at record lows.


All fake news all the time...it is coming back to bite you in the ass...


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2017)

Links?  Evidence? Expert opinions? Wait... let me guess: conspiracy, money and lies.  Right?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2017)

Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

So here is a paper just published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, by Stein, et. al.  They actually looked at the gold standard ice core reconstructions showing the temperature record over the past 10K years studied how the arctic ice actually looked over the same period...  Guess what...when the arctic temperatures over the past 10K years are considered by rational people, it becomes evident that in the present, the arctic has more ice than it has for the bulk of the past 10K years...I have been pointing that out to you wackos for quite some time with this graph...








So Stein et al produced this graph showing what the arctic ice looked like over the past 10K years...and guess what, it puts the claim you guys make of present arctic ice being at its lowest point in over a million years in the shit bin with all the rest of your failed claims..   Here, have a look at what the arctic ice has looked like over the past 10K years...









			
				Stein et al said:
			
		

> Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.”   Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium.  These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length.  Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.









Of special note is the fact that the paper makes no mention of atmospheric CO2 as it is not necessary to explain the present state of arctic ice...I suspect that will become the trend in the future...explaining present conditions without the need to invoke the magic of CO2...

Other papers showing the present "vastness" of arctic sea ice as compared to the past 10K years...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2017)

Greenland is most assuredly not "the Gold Standard".

"Most important is the presence of rapid warming events in Greenland in contrast with usually gradual warming in Antarctica. The relative rarity of rapid cooling events in Greenland and the generally in-phase character of gradual cooling in both hemispheres, are probably equally critical."

http://isolab.ess.washington.edu/isolab/papers/SteigAlley.pdf, Phase Relationships between Antarctic and Greenland Climate Records


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> Greenland is most assuredly not "the Gold Standard".



Of course it is skid mark...but then, to acknowledge that would threaten your belief and perhaps put you on the outs with the glassy eyed chanting cult...

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/.../1957/37906/MitchellLoganE2013.pdf?sequence=1



> Ice cores are considered the gold standard for recording past climate and biogeochemical changes.



The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne



> Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions.



And I could go on and on...there is no doubt that ice cores are the gold standard for climate reconstruction....






Crick said:


> "Most important is the presence of rapid warming events in Greenland in contrast with usually gradual warming in Antarctica. The relative rarity of rapid cooling events in Greenland and the generally in-phase character of gradual cooling in both hemispheres, are probably equally critical."



Can you not even read a simple graph...oh..wait a minute...I am talking to crick...of course you can't read a graph...Here...let me help...






Your source states that rapid cooling events are rare in Greenland...according to the gold standard temperature reconstruction, rapid cooling events are commonplace in Greenland...changes of 2 to 3 degrees over  very short periods of time have been the norm over the past 10 thousand years.....

Further, your source also says that warming in Antarctica is gradual...again...according to the gold standard reconstruction, that also is not in accordance with the facts...here is a graph of the vostok cores covering the past 10K years...again...rapid warming of 1.5 to 3 degrees in a very short time span has been the norm over the past 10K years...in short, your source is full of shit, and you are a dupe for believing him when actual evidence showing he is wrong is readily available..


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> Links?  Evidence? Expert opinions? Wait... let me guess: conspiracy, money and lies.  Right?



Libtard ROE


*1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth you are objecting to. 

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies.

3. Ignore any facts presented. *

4. Ridicule spelling and typos.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence.

6. Employ misdirection, smear people, attack religion* 
*
7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi card

11. Make up stuff

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand when they have been posting about it for the last 2 days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Crick, I'm sure if look back over these posts you can find a spelling error to support your "facts".


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

I might.  But I will NOT find any links to peer reviewed studies supporting your contentions, will I.


----------



## miketx (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> I might.  But I will NOT find any links to peer reviewed studies supporting your contentions, will I.


No, because they don't want to tell people they have no data from thousands of years ago because there is none. All they have are clues to what it might have been like. Back 500 years ago, you would have been the kind of person who had me imprisoned because I claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun.


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

That's an interesting claim since my view is the one supported by thousands of peer reviewed studies whiles yours is supported by nothing. Heliocentrism was never (and could not be) supported by any application of the scientific method


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> That's an interesting claim since my view is the one supported by thousands of peer reviewed studies whiles yours is supported by nothing. Heliocentrism was never (and could not be) supported by any application of the scientific method



Deny on garth....your pseudoscience is beginning to experience its death throes....it is a pleasure to watch...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 4, 2017)

Crick said:


> That's an interesting claim since my view is the one supported by thousands of peer reviewed studies whiles yours is supported by nothing. Heliocentrism was never (and could not be) supported by any application of the scientific method





SSDD said:


> Deny on garth....your pseudoscience is beginning to experience its death throes....it is a pleasure to watch...


...Says the delusional anti-science denier cult troll as his crackpot cult of reality denial inexorably slides down the poop-chute into the septic tank of history.


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That's an interesting claim since my view is the one supported by thousands of peer reviewed studies whiles yours is supported by nothing. Heliocentrism was never (and could not be) supported by any application of the scientific method
> ...



What "death throes" are you watching?  The EPA's budget getting slashed?  Are you insanely stupid enough to believe that's based on the slightest shred of science?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

A thinking person might take note of the number of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis...but hell, I am not talking to a thinking person...am I?


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

Let's see them.  Let's see "the number of papers" skeptical of AGW being published.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> Let's see them.  Let's see "the number of papers" skeptical of AGW being published.



Those supposed "papers" disputing AGW that the denier cultists are always claiming to have are just invisible to us sane people because we don't live in the crackpot 'alternative reality' called '*Denier Cult Bizarroworld*". I'm sure you could find them all there.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> Let's see them.  Let's see "the number of papers" skeptical of AGW being published.



Here is a start...There are about 600 covered in the links below since 2016...kind of crushes the claim of consensus....and settled science..

Skeptic Papers 2016 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2016 (2)
Skeptic Papers 2016 (3)
Skeptic Papers 2015
Skeptic Papers 2014


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see them.  Let's see "the number of papers" skeptical of AGW being published.
> ...



An example of the so-called "scientific papers" on these lists that come from a crackpot denier cult blog.....

*"The Sun's Role in Climate"*
_Chapter (PDF Available) · September 2016 with 702 Reads
In book: Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition), Edition: 2, Chapter: 6, Publisher: Elsevier, Editors: Don Easterbrook, pp.283-306_"

Or, in other words, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper at all....just a pseudo-science book put together by a denier cult nutbag, retired Professor of glacial geology, and stooge for the fossil fuel industry.

*"Don Easterbrook is a Professor Emeritus of Glacial Geology and Environmental and Engineering Geology at Western Washington University. [28]

Don Easterbrook is the editor of Evidence-Based Climate Science, a book which claims to produce data that is “counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.” The book (PDF) includes work by Easterbrook himself, and a range of noted climate change deniers including Steve Goddard, Joseph D’Aleo,Nils-Axel Mörner, David Archibald, Nicola Scafetta, Christopher Monckton, and others. [29], [33]

Easterbrook is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change. The Heartland Institute and its conference sponsors have collectively received millions of dollars in funding from the fossil fuel industry. [30]

In 2013, Easterbrook argued before the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change that peer-reviewed data showing global warming had been “tampered with by NOAA and NASA.” In the same presentation, he also said that ”CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming,” and that “Global warming ended in 1998.” [40]"*
(*source*)

Or check out....

*Denier Don Easterbrook gets it all wrong in his absurd fairytale on WUWT*
HotWhopper
SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
*Denier Don Easterbrook is America's answer to the potty peer from the UK, Christopher Monckton.  He's written an article on WUWT (archived here) in which it's hard to find half a sentence of his that might have a grain of truth to it.  The exceptions would be his direct quotes from an article in National Geographic.

A few weeks ago Anthony Watts told his readers not to be alarmed because ice can't melt when it gets hotter, therefore seas can't rise any faster and New York can't get any wetter.  He didn't phrase it quite like that but that's what his article all boiled down to.  He was referring to this same National Geographic article.

Today Anthony Watts has gone even further and put up an article by denier Don Easterbrook (more of his deceptions here) that rivals his various claims like "the average surface temperature of earth equals minus 30 degrees Celsius as shown by my temperature chart for Central Greenland".

Denier Don is (still) an Emeritus Professor from a University that he's continually embarrassing.  They don't withdraw titles too easily and I guess that he's not the first professor to have "gone emeritus" and won't be the last.

.....(a lot more on the website).....*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2017)

What do you know...one paper out of hundreds...you are a true crackpot thunder...a tragically damaged crackpot..but a crackpot none the less...watch closely in the coming years as your glassy eyed chanting cult is swept into the laughing stock column of history.


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2017)

What percentage of these authors do you think disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC?  One in a hundred?  Less?  I see lots of papers in the first group correlating (and we all know what you love to say about correlations - at least when they're on our side) sunspots and ENSO.  Trouble is, ENSO isn't global warming, is it.  Then there are correlations between sunspots and local variables: bog acidity in northern Ireland, leaf fall timing on the northern California coast, aquifer dynamics in the Huasco region... What we do NOT see a lot of is folks finding that changes in the sun's output is responsible for the warming of the last 150 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> A thinking person might take note of the number of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis...but hell, I am not talking to a thinking person...am I?


OK, link to them. Thus far all we have from you is flap yap and links to sites not credible at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see them.  Let's see "the number of papers" skeptical of AGW being published.
> ...


Laughing out loud for a long time....................
*
The Earth’s climate system recurrent & multi-scale lagged responses: empirical law, evidence, consequent solar explanation of recent CO2 increases & preliminary analysis*

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-38/esd-2016-38.pdf

 Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

1,2 1 5 Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua, Jiutepc, Morelos, 62550, Mexico 2Now, independent consultant, Cuernavaca, Morelos, 62440, Mexico Correspondence to: Jorge Sánchez-Sesma (jorgesanchezsesma@yahoo.com)

Abstract. This paper analyzes the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system, as part of cosmic-solar-terrestrial processes. Firstly, we analyze and model the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system, previously detected for 10 geological and orbital scale processes, with simple non-linear functions, and we estimate a correspondent lag of ~1600-yr for the recently detected ~9500-yr scale solar recurrent patterns. Secondly, a recurrent and lagged linear influence of solar variation on volcanic activity and carbon dioxide (CO2) has been assessed for the last millennia, and extrapolated for future centuries and millennia.* As a consequence we found that, on one side, the recent CO2 increase can be considered as a lagged response to solar activity, *and, on the other side, the continental tropical climate signal during late Holocene can be 15 considered as a sum of three lagged responses to solar activity, through direct, and indirect (volcanic and CO2), influences with different lags of around 40, 800 and 1600 years. Thirdly, we find more examples of this ~1600-yr lag, associated with oceanic processes throughout the Holocene, manifested in the mineral content of SE Pacific waters, and in a carbon cycle index, CO3, in the Southern Atlantic. Fourthly, we propose the global ocean circulation processes, that include the well known meridional overturning circulation, and the thermohaline circulation, as a global mechanism capable of explaining the 20 lagged forcing (volcanic activity & CO2) and continental tropical climate responses to solar activity variations. Finally, some conclusions are provided for the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system with their influences and consequences on present and future climate, and implications for climate modelling are preliminarily analyzed.

*Good God! The increase from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm can be considered as a lagged response? What the hell is that person thinking? We have records for 800,000 years of CO2 levels from the ice cores from Antarctica. There is no previous time where there has been that kind of increase in the period with are seeing it. Not only that, we have records of the amount of fossil fuels that we have burned, creating CO2. 

If that is the level of your 'evidence', you are a fool. Easily refuted by anyone with the slightest logical abilities.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Laughing out loud for a long time....................
> *
> The Earth’s climate system recurrent & multi-scale lagged responses: empirical law, evidence, consequent solar explanation of recent CO2 increases & preliminary analysis.*



Laughing even longer at you thunder...the scientists is simply acknowledging the lagged response of CO2 to temperature that every ice core ever done shows....and you are angry?...interesting...and yet, you moisten your panties over some fake science that is later retracted claiming that CO2 causes warming.

Chant on you glassy eyed cultist...chant on.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

Then he missed the bit where he was supposed correlate sunspots to global temperature since it is THAT to which CO2 is linked.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> Then he missed the bit where he was supposed correlate sunspots to global temperature since it is THAT to which CO2 is linked.




CO2 is only linked to climate in the sense that it's quantity changes in response to temperature changes...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

And when humans (or massive vulcanism or global fires from a large bolide strike) dump billions and billions of tons into the air.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> And when humans (or massive vulcanism or global fires from a large bolide strike) dump billions and billions of tons into the air.



CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What do you know...one paper out of hundreds...you are a true crackpot thunder...a tragically damaged crackpot..but a crackpot none the less...watch closely in the coming years as your glassy eyed chanting cult is swept into the laughing stock column of history.


....Says the anti-science crackpot denier cult troll with the phony lists of not-do-real pseudo-science "_papers_"

Sorry dufus, but it is your cult of braindead reality denial that is sliding down the poop chute into the septic tank of history.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.



Just more raw, anti-science denier cult insanity!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.
> ...



Says the emotionally disturbed glassy eyed chanting cult member.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.



This is, of course, based on your nonsensical claim that the atmosphere will not radiate towards the surface of the planet; an idea that has occurred to not a single other human being on the planet and which is flatly refuted by every shred of thermodynamic science in existence.

You're stupid and insane.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is not capable of altering the global temperature till enough is added to significantly alter the mass of the atmosphere...and there isn't enough raw material on earth to produce enough CO2 for that to happen.
> ...



And yet, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't seem to measure your imaginary back radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature....only with an instrument cooler than the atmosphere, and once again, that isn't back radiation..that is merely energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

it can't be measured and yet you believe....clearly it is you who are stupid...and gullible..


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2017)

When those instruments are manufactured, they are calibrated with a source whose output is calculated from first principles.  Those instruments pass those calibrations.  Your contention is ignorant nonsense.

Let's say I have two bodies, A and B made of the same material, placed within sight of each other in a large empty universe.  A is hotter than B

*Mainstream science says:*


A radiates in all directions based on its temperature
B radiates in al directions based on its temperature
A receives some of B's emissions
B receives some of A' emissions
The NET exchange leads to A cooling off and B growing warmer

*Same Shit Different Day says:*


A radiates selectively, sending B an amount of radiation equivalent to it's unobstructed emissions MINUS B's unobstructed emissions
B radiates selectively, sending A no radiation whatsoever
Their aim and energy throttling are perfect, no matter what the distance between them or their relative motion.  That is, They could be moving past each other at just slightly below light-speed but will still be able to PREDICT what the other body's position and temperature will be when it is struck at some future moment by current emissions. And, it is able to use this information to throttle and aim its own emissions quickly enough to follow a near light-speed encounter or an object on the other side of the universe.
B receives A's restricted emissions
A receives nothing from B
The NET exchange leads to A cooling off and B growing warmer at PRECISELY the same rate as predicted by mainstream science.

Now then, why don't you look up William of Occam and his razor and let us know what HE would have to say about this choice?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> When those instruments are manufactured, they are calibrated with a source whose output is calculated from first principles.  Those instruments pass those calibrations.  Your contention is ignorant nonsense.



They measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...they are not measuring back radiation, and no amount of internal gymnastics will ever make that claim true...


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

I'm afraid that's only true in SameShitWorld.  Out here, it's perfectly possible because it happens every instant of every day.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2017)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid that's only true in SameShitWorld.  Out here, it's perfectly possible because it happens every instant of every day.



What happens every day is idiots fool themselves with instrumentation....again, the only thing being measured is the temperature changes of an internal thermopile...all that data can possibly prove is that the temperature of the thermopile changed...nothing more...and only an abject idiot would assume that there is only one reason the temperature of that thermopile would change...


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

Let's hear all the other reasons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2017)

You have to question all the climate information that came out of the government during the Obama Administration; it needs to be rechecked and then checked again.


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2017)

From Evans et al 2006.  Methodology
P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm^-1 and 0.02 cm^-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, mercury cadmium telluride (MCT) detector with a 1 mm^2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm^-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10^-9 W/(cm^2 sr cm^-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.






Now then, let's hear your complaints.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2017)

Chart with no temperature axis "proves" CO2 raises temperature. 

Sure


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> From Evans et al 2006.  Methodology
> P1.7  Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
> 2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm^-1 and 0.02 cm^-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, mercury cadmium telluride (MCT) detector with a 1 mm^2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm^-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10^-9 W/(cm^2 sr cm^-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.
> 
> ...



No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Chart with no temperature axis "proves" CO2 raises temperature.
> 
> Sure



He also didn't note that, as I have been telling him since I got here that the instrument is cooled with liquid nitrogen... that in order to measure what is mistakenly called back radiation from the atmosphere you have to have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't measuring back radiation, you are just measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an identical instrument with the cooling system off right next to the cooled one and it won't register any back radiation at all..  because it is warmer than the atmosphere and energy doesn't move from cool to warm.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.




Terribly sorry old chap, but you cannot refute hard science with fantasy bullshit and that is EXACTLY what your contentions re radiative heat transfer are: FANTASY BULLSHIT.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No complaint....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.
> ...



And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...believing that you can is the fantasy....as evidenced by your attempt to claim that sensors that measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile are measuring back radiation....they aren't...the numbers they provide are nothing more than the results of running the amount and rate of the temperature change through a flawed mathematical model...one based on another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2017)

Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice.  That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real.  Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.  Period.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice.  That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real.  Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.  Period.



Mainstream science has said a lot of things that turned out to be false...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere..



And I've pointed out you're a lying sack of shit, as cheap uncooled consumer electronics show that backradiation with great precision.

Everyone knows you're lying about this. So why do you persist with your charade?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere..
> ...




Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.



How about you explain why, instead of just crying at me?

You can't use your "thermopiles!" excuse, because they have no thermopiles.

These cameras clearly show details of the cold sky that's miles away, so clearly it's not from local heating of the camera.

Your theory says it can't work. But it does, so your theory is clearly wrong.

Until you can tell us how a common uncooled IR camera gets detailed images of a cold sky that's miles away, your theory will remain obvious dogshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2017)

AGW and mainstream science have nothing in common; they're parallel lines that never meet.

Science is skeptical and always tests their theories and assumptions. AGW is a lunatic fringe culture that thinks "consensus" is a scientific word


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.





SSDD said:


> And as I have said repeatedly, you can't measure "back radiation" unless you have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...believing that you can is the fantasy....as evidenced by your attempt to claim that sensors that measure nothing more than the temperature changes of an internal thermopile are measuring back radiation....they aren't...the numbers they provide are nothing more than the results of running the amount and rate of the temperature change through a flawed mathematical model...one based on another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model....



Just more of SSoooDDumb's usual completely ignorant anti-science twaddle...

In the real world, from, straight from the darling of the deniers, Dr. Roy Spencer.....

*Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010




*Laypersons are no doubt confused by all of our recent esoteric discussions regarding radiative transfer, and whether global warming is even possible from a theoretical standpoint.

So, let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the “greenhouse effect”.*

*One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: “global warming”.

Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself.

These devices use a thermopile, which is an electronic component that measures a voltage which is proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile.

If you point the device at something hot, the higher-intensity IR radiation heats up the hot-viewing side of the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature it is radiating at (assuming some emissivity…my inexpensive unit is fixed at e=0.95).

If you instead point it at the cold sky, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile loses IR radiation, cooling it to a lower temperature than the inside of the thermopile.




For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature.

If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August.

What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills.

The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.

If you have a day where there are patches of blue and clouds, you can point the thermometer at the clouds and pick up a warmer reading than the surrounding blue sky.

I did it this morning (see photo, above). When I moved from a view of the blue sky to the patch of clouds, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile became warmer…even though the thermopile is already at a higher temperature than the sky. The display would read a few degrees warmer than the reading looking at blue sky.

If you perform this experiment yourself, you need to be careful about the elevation angle above the horizon you are pointing being about the same. Even in a clear sky, as you move from the zenith (overhead), down toward the horizon the path length of sky the IR thermometer sees increases, and so you measure radiation from lower altitudes, which are warmer. This makes the effective sky temperature goes up. (This is ALSO evidence of the greenhouse effect, since looking at the sky above the horizon is like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere overhead. The (apparent) concentration of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere goes up, and so does the intensity of the back radiation.)

Even earlier in the morning, about 5:30, the middle-level clouds were thicker, and I measured a sky temperature in the 50’s F. We will see more evidence of that using air temperatures, below.

This shows that the addition of an IR absorber/emitter, even at a cold temperature (the middle level clouds were probably somewhere around 30 deg. F), causes a warm object (the thermopile) to warm even more! This is the effect that some people claim is impossible.

Remember, the IR thermometer calibrated temperature output is based upon real temperatures, the temperatures on either side of the thermopile.

And if you think this is just an effect of some sunlight reflecting off the cloud….read on.

Evidence from The Box

I have been seeing the same effect in “The Box”, which is my attempt to use the greenhouse effect to warm and cool a thin aluminum plate coated with high-emissivity paint, that is heavily insulated from its surroundings in order to isolate just the radiative transfers of energy between the sky and the plate. This can be considered a clumsy, inefficient version of the IR thermometer. But now, *I* am making actual temperature measurements.

The following plot (click on it for the full-size version) shows data from the last 2 days, up through this morning’s events. The plate gets colder at night than the ambient temperature because it “sees” the cold sky, and is insulated from heat flow from the surrounding air and ground.




In the lower right, I have also circled where thin middle-level clouds came over, emitting more IR radiation downward than the clear sky, and causing a warming of the plate. Since the plate is mostly isolated from heat exchanges with the surrounding air and warm ground, it responds faster than the ambient air temperature to the intensity of “back radiation” downwelling from the sky.

When I woke this morning before sunrise, around 5:30, I saw these mid-level clouds (I used to be a certified aviation weather observer), I measured about 50 deg. F from the handheld IR thermometer.

This supports what people already experience…cloudy nights are, on average, warmer than clear nights. The main reason is that clouds emit more IR downward, change the (im)balance between upwelling and downwelling IR, and if you change the balance between energy flows in and out of an object, its temperature will change. Conservation of Energy, they call it.

(WARNING: a technical detail about the above measurements and their importance to greenhouse theory follows.)

What this Means for the Miskolczi “Aa=Ed” Controversy

Except for relatively rare special cases, the total amount of IR energy downwelling from the sky (Ed) will ALWAYS remain less than the amount upwelling from below and absorbed by the sky (Aa). As long as (1) the atmosphere has some transparency to IR radiation (which it does), and (2) the atmosphere is colder than the surface (which it is), then Ed will be less than Aa…even though they are usually close to one another, since temperatures are always adjusting to minimize IR flux divergences and convergences.

But it is those small differences that continuously “drive” the greenhouse effect.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball...but you are wrong...as usual.
> ...



Have already explained to you hairball...sorry you didn't like it and won't accept the facts since they shoot down your craziness...but for those who are as uninformed as you but actually interested in the truth, I will explain again.

The FLIR detects thermal energy and via a mathematical model, converts it to an image....if the emitter is warmer than the camera's detector, the thermal energy detected by the sensor shows up as an image....The relatively inexpensive uncooled FLIR devices incorporate a microbolometer..it is an array of temperature sensors....point them at something and they detect the amount, and rate of change of temperature...they are not receiving IR...they are detecting the rate and amount of temperature change...high tech thermopiles...and they create an image based on that information....if you point it at an object or region that is cooler than the camera, the detectors start cooling off...if the area or object that you are pointing it at is cooler than the camera, but not a uniform temperature, the detectors cool off at different rates and an image is created from that data...but the image is of very poor quality since it is nothing more than the output of a mathematical model creating a picture from the amount and rate of temperature changes of a bunch of very small, very sensitive thermopiles.

In the cooled cameras, the arrays are cooled to a very low temperature and as such are actually detecting incoming radiation as opposed to the uncooled cameras which, when pointed at a cooler object are measuring the amount and rate of cooling of an array of very small, very sensitive thermopiles...this accounts for the vast difference in image quality...

Here is an image made with a cooled camera of hand print on a wall







Here is the same handprint made with an uncooled camera.






The image made with the cooled camera is actually recording incoming radiation and as a result is quite sharp...the image made with the uncooled camera is measuring the amount and rate of cooling of an array of temperature sensors and is mathematically fabricating the image from that data and as a result, the quality of the image is not even approaching the quality of the cooled camera.


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

I see the hand in both images and the effect does NOT support your radiative fantasy bullshit.  Per your view, the cooled camera should have been swamped with background signal that the uncooled camera shouldn't have seen  These two pictures only prove you a fool.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> I see the hand in both images and the effect does NOT support your radiative fantasy bullshit.  Per your view, the cooled camera should have been swamped with background signal that the uncooled camera shouldn't have seen  These two pictures only prove you a fool.



Of course it does...sorry you aren't smart enough to understand...one is actually receiving thermal radiation because it is cooled to a temperature lower than the emitter...the other is not....it is only measuring the amount and rate of temperature change from an array of very small thermopiles and via a mathematical model, generating an image based on the rate and amount of change across the array...

I still don't expect you to get it, but that is because you are an idiot.


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.

You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing.  Yet it obviously does.  The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.

I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


My god SSDD you are one hell of a liar. You tried to sneak one past us without a link to your source.
Yes, your top photo is a *cooled *camera image of a hand print on a wall.
However your second photo is also a *cooled* camera image of the same hand print 2 minutes later.

Here is the photo of an *uncooled *camera that should be compared to the top photo. It is very sharp but noisier, as would be expected.





No wonder you didn't give a link. It would not have supported your lie. Here is the link.
High-Speed Thermal Imaging for Automation Applications | 2015-05-05 | Quality Magazine
Click the thumbnails and read the captions.

You are now stooping to unconscionable lies to support your fantasy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


Link


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> My god SSDD you are one hell of a liar. You tried to sneak one past us without a link to your source.



My Error...I misread the captions....that hardly makes me a liar...it makes me mistaken...unlike you guys who thrive on deliberate lies...

The fact remains that one camera works via incoming thermal radiation, and the other works via incoming thermal radiation if the source is warmer than the camera, and outgoing thermal radiation from the thermopile array if the source is cooler...when the object is cooler, then the image is generated via a model from the amount and rate of cooling of the array.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.



Both are making images from temperatures...one is making an image from incoming IR radiation....the other is making an image by measuring the rate of cooling that results from pointing the lens of the camera at an object that is cooler than the camera..

Much like your IR thermometer....if the object you are pointing the lens at is cooler than your camera, the temperature is determined by the rate, and amount of temperature change in the internal thermopile...the uncooled camera works on the same principle...an image is derived from the rate and amount of cooling of an array of thermopiles...



Crick said:


> You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing.  Yet it obviously does.  The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.



No...I have stated that it won't receive anything from a source that is cooler than itself...which is precisely how the uncooled camera works...it creates an image based on the rate and amount of cooling of an array of thermopiles...if the source is warmer than the camera, then the image is produced based on the rate and amount of cooling of the array of thermopiles...terribly sorry you can't seem to grasp this simple fact...



Crick said:


> I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.



No crick...I just once again demonstrated how f'ing stupid and clueless you are...this isn't secret knowledge...you could look it up for yourself if you liked...but actually learning something seems to be beyond your range of thought...instead you rely on what you believe..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
> ...



It isn't as if it would be difficult to find, but since you are such a lazy wacko...and I suppose most of your time is taken up by chanting...here, the first link I came to...

Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.



And the lying troll spews some complete bullshit, with not a shred of evidence to back up his insane rejection of reality.......which is how the troll got the name - SSoooDDumb.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> Sorry, but mainstream science says you're talking out your anal orifice.  That data is good. The greenhouse effect is quite real.  Human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.  Period.


oh bull hockey.  you can't prove any of it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ....merely the observation that the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than -80C...As I said...the only way to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface is to either measure during a rare temperature inversion where the surface is cooler than the atmosphere, or with an instrument that has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....otherwise, there is no energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface.
> ...


dude you have no clue.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry thunder...the manufacturer of that thermometer contacted spencer and explained to him how and why he was fooling himself with his instrumentation....there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.





RollingThunder said:


> And the lying troll spews some complete bullshit, with not a shred of evidence to back up his insane rejection of reality.......which is how the troll got the name - SSoooDDumb.





SSDD said:


> It isn't as if it would be difficult to find, but since you are such a lazy wacko...and I suppose most of your time is taken up by chanting...here, the first link I came to...
> 
> Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth



LOLOLOLOL......SOOOO RETARDED!!!!

Your link is to a denier cult wesite that has some idiot denier claiming a lot of unsupported BS about IR thermometers. Meaningless garbage only suitable for deceiving retards like you. That IS NOT what the manufacturer says.....or what all of the scientists say.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.
> 
> You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing.  Yet it obviously does.  The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.
> 
> I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.


why do you think there isn't any background signal?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are fucking out of your mind. Both sensors are making an image out of a temperature change on their sensors. That temperature change is brought about by radiation from the surface they are focused on.
> 
> You have claimed all along that an uncooled sensor should receive nothing.  Yet it obviously does.  The cooled sensor, that YOU say should be swamped with background signal, is the one that shows a blank.
> 
> I'd say you stuck your size 13 foot right into your mouth fool.





jc456 said:


> why do you think there isn't any background signal?



A better question is: *'how do we all know that you have no idea what you are talking about?'
*
Unfortunately, you lack the mental capacity to comprehend the answer.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 9, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Your link is to a denier cult wesite that has some idiot denier claiming a lot of unsupported BS about IR thermometers. Meaningless garbage only suitable for deceiving retards like you. That IS NOT what the manufacturer says.....or what all of the scientists say.



Yeah, why would a thermometer manufacturer construe instruments, with the purpose of measuring the temperature of some object, that avoid wavelengths at which the main GHGs are emitting?  Of course, GHG emissions would contaminate the measurement.  So, this fact confirms the GHE, and the stupid troll fell for another Denialingdong ruse.

Oh, BTW: One ought not feed trolls.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The FLIR detects thermal energy and via a mathematical model, converts it to an image...



Bullshit. The new cameras contain no thermopiles. You lying and saying they do doesn't change that fact. It just confirms that you lie about everything.

The new cameras use CCD's or related technology. Those don't care what the temperature is. They work by quantum effects, when a photon sets off a cascade.

Your idiot theory says that "cool" photons can't hit the CCD's, so such CCD-based cameras can't possibly work.

But such cameras do work.

Hence, you're full of shit.

If you disagree, explain how these CCD-based cameras can work, given that your theory says "cool" photons can't strike them at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



SSDD just grabbed the wrong image, the next image is of the uncooled camera.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Hmmm, you seem very familiar


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The FLIR detects thermal energy and via a mathematical model, converts it to an image...
> ...



They have an array of  microbolometers which are nothing more than very small very sensitive thermopiles...sorry hairball...you have been wrong about this topic every time you bring it up.



mamooth said:


> The new cameras use CCD's or related technology. Those don't care what the temperature is. They work by quantum effects, when a photon sets off a cascade.



I know you wish that were true, but it isn't...if the instrument is cooled, then it receives any IR that is warmer than the array...cheaper instruments that are not cooled create an image based on the amount and rate of change of the array of microbolometers...ie  thermopiles.



mamooth said:


> Your idiot theory says that "cool" photons can't hit the CCD's, so such CCD-based cameras can't possibly work.



They only receive IR that is warmer than the array...like it or not, that is how it is..once again warmer wackos are fooled by instrumentation


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Lucky I didn't misplace a comma or a semicolon...they would have had the glassy eyed chanting police coming to visit me...


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2017)

Why is the background of the image from the cooled camera devoid of image data?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2017)

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the *National Snow and Ice Data Center,* that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....





*Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.*





_*Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center





The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen. 



*_


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Your link is to a denier cult wesite that has some idiot denier claiming a lot of unsupported BS about IR thermometers. Meaningless garbage only suitable for deceiving retards like you. That IS NOT what the manufacturer says.....or what all of the scientists say.
> ...



Typical of warmers...when one myth is destroyed...create an alternate myth...You apparently assume that only downward IR would interfere with the measurement of an object through the atmosphere...while there is no downward radiation, there is plenty of upward radiation leaving the surface that would interfere with accurate measurement of an object through the atmosphere...

They say that if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail...it appears that if you are a member of the glassy eyed chanting cult, everything...and I mean EVERYTHING looks like AGW...or the cause of AGW.  

And yet once again...warmers demonstrate how easily they are fooled by instrumentation...is it genuine ignorance, or are you just that willing to be fooled?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> Why is the background of the image from the cooled camera devoid of image data?



Is this really that far over your head?  If it is a uniform temperature, neither a cooled nor uncooled instrument would be able to create an image....if the background is devoid of temperature variation, then the thermopile array would also be devoid of temperature variation...and the only image the processor could create from that is none...


----------



## mamooth (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> They have an array of  microbolometers



Most of them don't use such technology.

Thermographic camera - Wikipedia
---
Uncooled detectors are mostly based on pyroelectric and ferroelectric materials or microbolometer technology.
---

See the word "or" there? That means IR cameras exist that use pyroelectric and ferroelecric materials, which do not use temperature.

Therefore, your theory is demonstrably crap.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > They have an array of  microbolometers
> ...



The theory is crap because its backed up by Wikipedia?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the *National Snow and Ice Data Center,* that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The denier cultusts' myths about polar ice were thoroughly debunked....but they are too brainwashed and delusional to recognize that fact. 'So sad'.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > They have an array of  microbolometers
> ...



You are beyond stupid hairball...do you know that?

Here, from your thermographic camera link at wiki..



> Uncooled thermal cameras use a sensor operating at ambient temperature, or a sensor stabilized at a temperature close to ambient using small temperature control elements. Modern uncooled detectors all use sensors that work by the change of resistance, voltage or current when heated by infrared radiation. These changes are then measured and compared to the values at the operating temperature of the sensor.



Are you not able to read even easy words and grasp what they mean?  It says right there...using small TEMPERATURE CONTROL ELEMENTS"  i.e. thermopiles...modern uncooled detectors WORK BY THE CHANGE OF RESISTANCE, VOLTAGE, OR CURRENT, when heated by infrared radiation...that also means that when they are cooling due to the fact that the source is cooler than the camera itself...The thermopiles change temperature, and the rate and amount of change is then converted into voltage which is then interpreted into a picture via software...

Here is a pyroelectric sensor...it is a thermopile...it operates based on temperature changes, both positive and negative...






Here, from the Handbook of Modern Sensors:  Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Fraden....  The passage below is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books.



			
				 Handbook of Modern Sensors said:
			
		

> Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object.  For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.
> 
> If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive.  If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object.  *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside.  Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative.  In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive



Ferroelectric sensors work on the same principle but may be incorporated into a film which effectively increases the number of sensors in the array....the operation is still the same..postive flux when the source is warmer than the film...negative flux when the source is cooler...that is to say...once again...when the object is warmer, the energy is moving from the object to the sensor...when the object is cooler, the energy moves from the sensor to the object.  The fact that there can be more sensors in the array due to them being in the form of a film, a more resolved image is possible.

So once again hairball, you are dead wrong...energy does not move from cool to warm and uncooled IR cameras register the cooling of the sensor and produce an image when they are pointed at objects that are cooler than the camera...as I have been telling you for quite some time now...

One can only wonder how long before you forget that you have been given proof that you are wrong in the form of a respected text on the topic and repeat the same old lie again and again, that the sensors are receiving energy from the cooler object..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It amazes me that the hairball just doesn't seem to get it...she is so convinced that energy moves from cool to warm that she refuses to accept the fact that she is wrong...I provided her with a quote from a text  Handbook of modern sensors:  Physics, designs, and applications which state explicitly that when the object is cooler than the camera, the IR flux is negative..that the energy is moving from the sensor array in the camera to the cooler object..and that the image is made by measuring the speed and amount of heat loss from the sensor array when the object is colder than the camera.

Now watch and see how long before she again makes the claim that IR cameras are proof that energy is moving from cooler objects to the warmer camera


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

LOL Smart photons by any other name still smell the same. LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Smart photons by any other name still smell the same. LOL



How does follow the rules of the road make them "smart" Is a bowling ball "smart because it falls to the ground when releases rather than float off into space?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Smart photons by any other name still smell the same. LOL



Not surprised that that simple explanation was over your head rocks...the crayon version is that if the object is warmer than the camera, the sensor warms up and an image is created by the amount and rate of the sensor in the camera....if the object is cooler, then the sensor starts cooling off...that is because it is losing energy to the cooler object and the image is created using the amount and rate of cooling of the sensor.

and again...smart photons are all yours...because you seem to believe that they must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...just one more logical fallacy on your part while the actual science of how the IR camera works, supports my position...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL Smart photons by any other name still smell the same. LOL
> ...



According to rocks any particle or matter must be smart enough to know the physical law and intimidated enough to actually obey...except for CO2...it doesn't give a rat's ass about the laws of thermodynamics and radiates wherever it damned well pleases and if it violates the laws of thermodynamics...too damned bad for the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

Now SSo DDumb, your betters have repeatedly tried to educate you in the basics of radiative physics, all too no avail. I do not even intend to try.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Now SSo DDumb, your betters have repeatedly tried to educate you in the basics of radiative physics, all too no avail. I do not even intend to try.



Poor old dumb as a bag of rocks.....you would be funny if you weren't so sad...

Here, from The Handbook of Modern Sensors:  Physics, Designs, and Applications  read this passage and see if you can tell me what it means...my bet is that you can't, and it is pointless to provide it for you...but never let it be said that I didn't try to help an idiot better himself...

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books


OK...so what does it say?    And as you can see..or maybe not if you are as stupid as I think you are, it agrees with me and supports my position.  As always, us skeptics operate from a position of science while you glassy eyed chanters operate from a position of stupid belief.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Now SSo DDumb, your betters have repeatedly tried to educate you in the basics of radiative physics, all too no avail. I do not even intend to try.



"your betters"? I had no idea you had a sense of humor


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.

And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.






Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

It appears that the ice has started it's downward trend. At at least three standard deviations below the average. Best hope for a very cold spring in the Arctic.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated..



So you say...and yet, you can't show me a single measurement of a discrete band of GHG radiation made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...seems that you just believe in something with no evidence at all in support of that belief...if there were actual measurements of back radiation made with instruments that didn't have to be cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, then I would believe in back radiation...see how that works...I believe in reality...you believe in .........something other than reality.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



We've been thru this -- thermopiles are old technology. I DESIGN this stuff. Has nothing to do with being "cooler" than the camera OTHER THAN if you want to reduce thermal noise in the device themselves. If that cooling is provided (and I've done it a dozen times in products) --- it doesn't affect the SIGNAL component of the measurement. Only the "electrical noise" that is generated from the component. The SIGNAL component -- remains unchanged. 

On a STRONG signal -- you don't need cooling. Like the headset I developed for fire fighters. 

But if you're trying to detect IR signals from a weak signal -- like a biosample -- you need to reduce the "self--noise" of the component to even FIND the signal. 

Give it up..  Didn't understand this the first time - won't understand it now. We MEASURE IR radiation.. Doesn't matter whether it comes from a artery in your arm or the Sky Gods.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And this supports your hypothesis how?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.
> 
> And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.
> 
> ...



Yeah, step down transformers work because only some of the current flows back upstream to the higher current, most of the current follows OR's imaginary laws of physics, right?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> We've been thru this -- thermopiles are old technology. I DESIGN this stuff. Has nothing to do with being "cooler" than the camera OTHER THAN if you want to reduce thermal noise in the device themselves. If that cooling is provided (and I've done it a dozen times in products) --- it doesn't affect the SIGNAL component of the measurement. Only the "electrical noise" that is generated from the component. The SIGNAL component -- remains unchanged.



Yeah...we have been through it all before..you were wrong then and you are wrong now... You claim to design that stuff, but that is just a claim...one disputed by texts on the topic of modern sensors...

When the object being viewed by the camera is cooler than the camera, the image is produced by the amount and rate of cooling by the sensing array...in exactly the opposite way as when the object being viewed is warmer than the array...in ether event, it is the energy flux that is being measured, and the image is the result of current produced by that flux...

Once again...from Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications; Jacob Braden

Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction:  *the heat goes from the sensor to the object.  *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive



flacaltenn said:


> On a STRONG signal -- you don't need cooling. Like the headset I developed for fire fighters.



If the radiator is warmer than the camera you don't need cooling...If the object is cooler than the camera, then the energy flux is negative...the heat is moving from the camera to the object... 



flacaltenn said:


> But if you're trying to detect IR signals from a weak signal -- like a biosample -- you need to reduce the "self--noise" of the component to even FIND the signal.



Fooling yourself with instrumentation is a large part of what is wrong with climate science...I see it exists in other fields as well...if you want to measure a signal that is cooler than the camera, you have two choices...cool the camera to a temperature lower than the temperature of the object...or measure the rate and amount of cooling that is happening in your sensor as a result of it being focused on a cooler object...you will not be getting any radiation from the object to the warmer array.



flacaltenn said:


> Give it up..  Didn't understand this the first time - won't understand it now. We MEASURE IR radiation.. Doesn't matter whether it comes from a artery in your arm or the Sky Gods.



Of course you do...measuring positive flux coming in to the camera from a warmer object is measuring IR radiation...measuring negative flux going out of the camera as a result of the array being focused on a cooler object is also measuring IR...one is measuring IR coming into the camera...one is measuring IR going out of the camera...both are measuring IR.  It is clear that you either don't understand, or are willing to be less than honest in an attempt to support your belief...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Every observation ever made.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




And more logical fallacy..and more and more and more...it is all you have, isn't it?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...
> 
> Tell me rocks, how does the glassy eyed chant go?



Yeah, the ice amount between 2006 and 2017 seems to be the same, but the ice in the upper part of the picture is smaller, and in the upper left hand corner, you can clearly see land in the 2006 picture in the form of that string of islands, but in the 2017 picture, the islands appear to have disappeared underwater.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



When you install a step down transformer, say from 220 to 110, is it your understanding that half of the current in the 110 side flows back upstream to the 220 side?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And on and on and on with the fake news...it's like you don't know that there are other sources with which to verify your spew...
> ...



Geez guy...those are the Aleutian Islands...rest assured that they have not sunk below the rising seas...but thanks for the laugh anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Those damned free electrons think that they can do whatever the hell  they want to do I suppose...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



They're just "Smart" too I reckon


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm just saying what your video shows, and if your video is wrong (which it is), then maybe the rest of your info is flawed as well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Note that infrared flux which is focused by the lens on the surface of the sensing element is inversely proportional to the squared distance (L) from the object and direction proportional to the areas of the lens and object. For a multifaceted lens, the lens area a relates only to a single facet and not to the total lens area.
> 
> If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: *the heat goes from the sensor to the object. *This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive



I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.

To overcome the DIRECTION of the net flux -- you simply calibrate it. You may choose any set of "net fluxes" that your heart desires to do that. If I for instance calibrate when the sensor is at 70deg with and OBJECT that is 70deg -- that's my absolute "calibration reference" (or I can imply it from other data) .  So let's just assume that's what we do. If I KNOW that's my 70 deg signal reading, than as the OBJECT varies in temperature (holding the sensor at 70deg) the electrical signal will vary plus and minus from that point and can see the shape of the response and calibrate that.

But I'm not done yet. I have to hold the OBJECT at 70deg and find the SAME curve for varying the sensor thru temperature and calculate the compensation curve from that. (*EDIT* Usually it's easier to do this step first)

No black magic -- science and engineering. The fact that the net fluxes can be BIDIRECTIONAL (net flow one way or the other) don't matter a whit. In fact this quote CONFIRMS that they are and don't violate any rule of thermo by being that way.

*Because I've told you before the NET FLUXES never go from cold to hot.  But the photons DO go in each direction at varying rates. *


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Its what we get for letting them be free....give an electron its freedom and it thinks that it is as good as a proton or a neutron...going wherever they want...going up the wire instead of down it...next thing electrons from a 6 volt current will be thinking that they can run up the wire and take up residence in a 12 volt battery.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

The Earth always LOSES the net flux battle with the sky. Nothing is violated. Net flux moves from hot to cold.. 

About the 213th time you've been told that.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.



That's the whole point...they aren't talking about "net" flux...they are talking about flux period...if the lens is focused on an object that is warmer than the sensor array, the flux is positive and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of warming the array registers....if the lens is focused on a cooler object, the flux is negative and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of cooling the array registers...there is no positive flux into the camera if the lens is focused on an object that is cooler than the array.



flacaltenn said:


> To overcome the DIRECTION of the net flux -- you simply calibrate it.



No...to overcome the direction of the FLUX.. you cool the array....or you warm up the object to a temperature warmer than the array.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> The Earth always LOSES the net flux battle with the sky. Nothing is violated. Net flux moves from hot to cold..
> 
> About the 213th time you've been told that.



there is no net flux...net as it is applied to energy movement is an ad hoc construct derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.  Tell me 213 more times..you will be wrong every time...show me a measurement of a discrete frequency of back radiation made with an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.
> 
> And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.
> 
> ...



I'm confused. The mean and confidence levels are derived for just 29 years of observation in that analysis? What makes ANYONE SUSPECT that particular period is a "polar normal"? * All this says is that polar ice is in a FIVE YEAR decline.. *

If you went back and could move the Median 20 years earlier it wouldn't help much because 30 years of observation is NOT SUFFICIENT on a climate scale to be calling ANYTHING "normal"...


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.
> ...



You're not listening again. I told you there's no reason to cool the IR sensor is if you have a strong signal in EITHER direction. Handheld IR gun meters work just dandy on colder objects WITHOUT cooling. I use them to find window leaks all the time. The ONLY time you cool the sensor is if your signal is buried in self generated thermo-electric noise and you need more dynamic range to even SEE it. (you can also time integrate. in a sense take longer exposures).

What's the sense of measuring the temperature of an object if you have to WARM it to measure it??


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

Can't continue this here. If I have time tonight -- I'll snip out this Alt-GHouse stuff and put in the "Questions -- GHouse"" thread where it really belongs.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> Conditions in context
> ...



There's the OP to this thread....

.....And here's supporting evidence.



RollingThunder said:


> The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the *National Snow and Ice Data Center,* that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Case closed!

Meanwhile, the dingbat denier cult dimwits argue futilely about science that they are mentally incapable of understanding.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 10, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the *National Snow and Ice Data Center,* that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....
> ...


what about polar ice?  it's still ice.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> Conditions in context
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> There's the OP to this thread....
> 
> .....And here's supporting evidence.
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> what about polar ice?  it's still ice.



That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "_polar ice_" when it melts? WATER!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> You're not listening again. I told you there's no reason to cool the IR sensor is if you have a strong signal in EITHER direction.





I'm listening fine..and also paying attention to what the author of The Handbook of Modern Sensors is saying...you apparently aren't either because you think you know everything, or you don't want to hear anything that disagrees with your beliefs...


Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.



flacaltenn said:


> Handheld IR gun meters work just dandy on colder objects WITHOUT cooling.



Dandy is a relative term...the don't produce as high a quality image as the cooled instruments because the image produced in the uncooled instruments is generated from the rate and amount of cooling of the sensor array...not as fast or as accurate as having the array cooler than the source so that the image can be generated from warming of the array.



flacaltenn said:


> I use them to find window leaks all the time.



Yeah...and Roy Spencer used them all the time as well and was sure that he was measuring back radiation when he pointed his at the sky till the manufacturer of his device sent him an email telling him that me most certainly was not measuring back radiation with that instrument..."experts" apparently fool themselves all the time with their instrumentation.



flacaltenn said:


> The ONLY time you cool the sensor is if your signal is buried in self generated thermo-electric noise and you need more dynamic range to even SEE it. (you can also time integrate. in a sense take longer exposures).



Not true, but you go ahead and believe that if you like...



flacaltenn said:


> What's the sense of measuring the temperature of an object if you have to WARM it to measure it??



Again, if the object is cooler, the image is produced by the rate and amount of cooling the sensor array detects...it isn't receiving incoming flux from a cooler object..the flux is outbound from the warmer sensor.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...and Roy Spencer used them all the time as well and was sure that he was measuring back radiation when he pointed his at the sky till the manufacturer of his device sent him an email telling him that me most certainly was not measuring back radiation with that instrument..."experts" apparently fool themselves all the time with their instrumentation.



BS! Your attempted 'proof' of that denier cult myth was a link to a denier cult blog that did not quote or link to any such email from the supposed "_manufacturer_" to Roy Spencer, but only had some denier dufus claiming that crap without any evidence.

And what does your nonsense have to do with the melting Arctic ice, you silly wanker?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.
> ...


Northwest Passage | trade route, North America

Since the end of the 15th century, Western explorers have attempted to establish a commercial sea route north and west around the American land barrier encountered by Christopher Columbus. Such an accomplishment would realize an objective that has eluded humankind since King Henry VII of England sent John Cabot in search of a northwest route to East Asia in 1497. Five years earlier, Columbus had set out in search of a westward route after conquest of the Middle East by the Ottoman Turks in the mid-15th century disrupted Europe’s overland routes to the East. The Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama sailed south around Africa and reached India in 1498; another Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, sailed southwest around South America to the East Indies (present-day Indonesia) in 1521; and Dutch explorers vainly sought a comparable passage to the northeast around Russia.

*We have historic records of the attempts to traverse the Northwest Passage going back to almost the time of Columbus. This was not done until 1906, in a voyage that lasted 3 years. In an 80 ton re-inforced herring boat. Last fall a very large luxury liner made the passage. Obviously there has been a massive decrease of ice in the last century.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.



No -- that's not the reason. Has little to do with magnifying the Signal portion of the electrons sitting in each pixel well of the camera. The temperature of the sensor can only affect the area outside of it in terms of altering the exchange between it and any other IR emitters in it's field of view.  If you're imaging a snowman 100 ft away, the tiny couple mm sensor being cooled is such a small fraction of snowman's projected photon emission field as to be completely negligible. *Besides, you're cooling the SENSOR -- not the lenses or the body of the camera.* So there is nothing "colder" in the emission field of the snowman. And it would not change the overall photon flux from the snowman anyway because it emits at rate proportional to its temperature only. If you put a colder NAKED 36 mm object 100 ft away it would theoretically cause a faster snowman loss rate for that single 36mm point at 100 ft. Amounts to nothing tho.. Because of simple geometry. And because under that exchange, it only changes the temperature of snowman over time. And the amount of time it takes to snap a photo wouldn't allow significant snowman heat loss at that geometry.

If it's a full 2D imager with pixel sites, then the electrons sitting in each photo well are either from light conversion or from self-generated "Johnson" electrical noise. The cooling only lowers the self generated thermal noise of the sensor. So that the signal to noise ratio of the electrons in that well increases. It also increases your "exposure time" that you can use because the lower thermal noise component allows more room in the wells for signal to integrate over time. This alone improves the image quality.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> No -- that's not the reason. Has little to do with magnifying the Signal portion of the electrons sitting in each pixel well of the camera.



That's nice...but not what the manufacturers of the instruments say...In general, they note that cooled camera are much faster than uncooled cameras, produce a much more detailed image.

For someone who professes to be an "expert" you are a bit thin on the basics...and appeal to complexity doesn't make you right.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2017)

I'm going to build a pinhole camera out of a shoebox.  I try it out on a nice sunny day and it makes an image.  But the image is a bit washed out and and low contrast.I get some advice.  Paint the inside of the shoebox black.  The pictures come out much nicer. I made no change whatsoever in the 'behavior' of the image making photons. Amazing!


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 11, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.
> ...



What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.

The facts about the rapid loss of Arctic ice have been repeatedly posted on this thread, debunking the denier cult myths.....while the denier cult dimwits exchange pointless BS about IR sensors.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.



Actually what you are seeing, you tragically abused dolt, is a response to the hairball's incessant claim that thermal cameras are proof that energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics...not that I actually expected that you could keep up, or anything like that...just to let you know what you are seeing since it is clear that you had no idea..


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.





SSDD said:


> Actually what you are seeing, you tragically abused dolt, is a response to the hairball's incessant claim that thermal cameras are proof that energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics...not that I actually expected that you could keep up, or anything like that...just to let you know what you are seeing since it is clear that you had no idea..


Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "_the second law of thermodynamics_", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "_the second law of thermodynamics_", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.



How about that...even when you are told what you are seeing, you don't get it...how is that not surprising thunder?  And thunder, you calling anyone either stupid or ignorant is just to much irony....even for this board.  We all know by now that your angry name calling response to anyone who disagrees with you is the result of deep seated intimidation...following you around from your childhood...you would be so much happier if you would seek help...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 12, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "_the second law of thermodynamics_", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.





SSDD said:


> How about that...even when you are told what you are seeing, you don't get it...how is that not surprising thunder?  And thunder, you calling anyone either stupid or ignorant is just to much irony....even for this board.  We all know by now that your angry name calling response to anyone who disagrees with you is the result of deep seated intimidation...following you around from your childhood...you would be so much happier if you would seek help...



Your delusions are, as always, hilariously demented, SSoooDDumb. As are your continued efforts to drag this thread about the rapidly melting 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with your sheer idiocy. Everyone can plainly see that what you hallucinate you are "_seeing_" and "_knowing_" amounts to stark insanity.

Meanwhile....Arctic ice is rapidly declining....




*Monthly February sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 3.0 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Meanwhile....Arctic ice is rapidly declining....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ever wonder why that graph always starts at 1978 thunder...of course you don't...but we knew what the arctic ice looked like a good long while before then...you exhibit the difference between faith and curiosity...you accept on faith and aren't curious at all...you accept what you are told and run with it...I suppose your upbringing and the associated trauma leave you little other recourse.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

You know that from your collection of three or four old photographs that show ice, right?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> You know that from your collection of three or four old photographs that show ice, right?



You think the first pictures we took from space were in 1978?  Do you think at all?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 13, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> 
> 
> ...



/---- Sure it is Spanky- sure it is


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

Do you have some data that shows something different?


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You know that from your collection of three or four old photographs that show ice, right?
> ...



I think the first time we ever took a picture from which you could measure the entire pole's ice extents was from a satellite bucko.

There were earlier satellite photos.  Here, have a look.  They just make things worse.  
"Lost" Satellite Photos Reveal Surprising Views of Earth in the 1960s


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 13, 2017)

*Meteorologists refute EPA head on climate change*
Source: *The Hill*

The American Meteorological Society wrote a letter to Pruitt Monday saying he is wrong.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” the group’s executive director, Keith Seitter, wrote in the letter.

“This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world,” Seitter said. “We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”

He added that “mischaracterizing the science” is not a good place to start in constructive policy debates surrounding climate, and offered his organization’s assistance in helping Pruitt to understand the data.

-snip-

Read more: Meteorologists refute EPA head on climate change




* Inside GOP's Latest Effort to Gut Science at the EPA*
Two House bills that have been released from committee would effectively prevent the government from using the best available science to protect the public.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> Do you have some data that shows something different?




Hell there is all sorts of data that shows how dishonest that graph is...it deliberately starts at a period of peak ice so as not to show the wide variation of coverage...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Meteorologists refute EPA head on climate change*
> Source: *The Hill*
> 
> The American Meteorological Society wrote a letter to Pruitt Monday saying he is wrong.
> ...



Tell you what is going to happen...Pruitt et al are going to start asking for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claims of this so called consensus...and you know what is going to happen?...only this time it will be happening out in public...the same thing that happens here when I ask for such evidence...no one is going to be able to produce it.


----------



## Crick (Mar 13, 2017)

Wanna bet?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 13, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Cellblock2429 said:


> --- Sure it is Spanky- sure it is



Hilarious example of one of the denier cultists favorite delusional arguments....a logical fallacy technically referred to as an '*argument from ignorance*'.....or, in this case, just utter stupidity from a denier cult retard.

*Argument from Ignorance - (Ad Ignorantium)
LogicallyFallacious
(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> Wanna bet?



Typical glassy eyed cultist....see that you are loosing and what do you do?...double down on the fraud...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Hilarious example of one of the denier cultists favorite delusional arguments....a logical fallacy technically referred to as an '*argument from ignorance*'.....or, in this case, just utter stupidity from a denier cult retard.



I think it is just too f'ing sweet the way you, a bonified member in good standing of the glassy eyed chanting cult, assign cult names to others and throw them out as if you believe that means something....


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 14, 2017)

Now SSo DDumb, when you work as hard as you have to earn the moniker, be pleased with your just deserts.

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download





Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Image 4 of 4 (play slideshow) Download






*Looks like the sea ice at both poles is about 4 standard deviations from normal. It is going to be in interesting year for the scientists that study the Arctic and Antarctic.*


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 14, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> ...


Oh I hurt your feelings. Maybe this post will soothe your mind:
ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data | Zero Hedge

Dr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Britain's Mail on Sunday today revealed astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2017)

*http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study*

*How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study*

By Warren Cornwall, Paul VoosenFeb. 8, 2017 , 1:00 PM

A former scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington, D.C., made waves this past weekend when he alleged that climate scientist Thomas Karl, the former head of a major NOAA technical center, “failed to disclose critical information” to the agency, journal editors, and Congress about the data used in a controversial study published in Science in June 2015. Karl was the lead author of that paper, which concluded that global surface temperatures continued rising in recent years, contrary to earlier suggestions that there had been a “pause” in global warming.

John Bates, who retired from NOAA this past November, made the claims in a post on the prominent blog of Judith Curry, a climate researcher who recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and has walked the line between science and climate contrarians over the past decade. Bates’s complaints were also the centerpiece of a storypublished Sunday by David Rose of the United Kingdom’s The Mail on Sunday, a tabloid, which claimed that national leaders “were strongly influenced” by the “flawed NOAA study” as they finalized the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the *Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But ScienceInsider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail. *

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks.* But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.*

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, *Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,”* he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the *NOAA research has generally proved accurate*. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of *a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods*.

Researchers say the *Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office*, the U.K. government’s climate agency, *which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts*, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Now SSo DDumb, when you work as hard as you have to earn the moniker, be pleased with your just deserts.



Moron...my moniker refers to you and yours....  and your charts and claims are just more fake news and fake science...all fake all the time...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Cellblock2429 said:


> --- Sure it is Spanky- sure it is





RollingThunder said:


> Hilarious example of one of the denier cultists favorite delusional arguments....a logical fallacy technically referred to as an '*argument from ignorance*'.....or, in this case, just utter stupidity from a denier cult retard.
> *Argument from Ignorance - (Ad Ignorantium)
> LogicallyFallacious
> (also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)*





Cellblock2429 said:


> Oh I hurt your feelings.


Nope! I just laughed a lot at your gullible stupidity, blockhead.









Cellblock2429 said:


> ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
> ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data | Zero Hedge
> 
> Dr John Bates' disclosures....as Britain's Daily Mail reported.....



And there's even more gullible stupidity from the blockhead!

The Daily Mail is a ditzy Rupert Murdoch rag that has about the same credibility in Britain as The National Enquirer does in this country.

As for Dr. Bates' "_disclosures_", as Crick just pointed out....
*"Dr. Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”*
***
Moreover, other independent scientific studies have confirmed those results in the Karl scientific study that Bates was having an issue with....
*
Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed
By Jim Spencer
January 4, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.






The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency’s scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn’t answering its requests quickly enough.

The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,” Hausfather said. “They were not in any way cooking the books.”

NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don’t have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.

In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.

Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren’t part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.

“This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,” Trenberth said in an email.

Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Hausfather’s study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .*


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......

.....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....

*Canada’s Melting Ice Caps Are a Big Driver of Rising Sea Levels*
*The Queen Elizabeth Islands’ glaciers – forming the third biggest contributor to sea-level rise after Antarctica and Greenland – are melting at a dramatically increasing rate. Journal author Romain Millan explains why it started happening in 2005.*
NewsDeeply
BY Maura Forrest
PUBLISHED ON:  Mar. 9, 2017
*Canada's northernmost reaches are the Queen Elizabeth Islands, a mass of 13 large islands and hundreds of smaller ones that fan out into the Arctic Ocean just west of Greenland.

There are eight major ice caps and ice fields in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, which account for 25 percent of Arctic land ice, not including Greenland. Many of the glaciers flow directly into marine basins, including the Arctic Ocean, Baffin Bay and Nares Strait.

Before 2000, these glaciers and ice caps were mostly stable. Though they were shrinking slightly, the changes were relatively small from year to year.

But new research published in the journal Environmental Research Letters shows that in 2005 there was a dramatic difference as Arctic temperatures climbed.

ArcticDeeply recently spoke with lead author Romain Millan, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, who says the Queen Elizabeth Islands are now a major contributor to sea-level rise.

Millan explained how the glaciers of the Queen Elizabeth Islands are changing, how they’re contributing to global sea-level rise and what the future may hold for Canada’s Arctic ice caps.





Romain Millan sets up weather monitoring equipment on Zachariae glacier in northeast Greenland. (Anders Anker Bjørk)

ArcticDeeply: What is happening to the glaciers on the Queen Elizabeth Islands?
Romain Millan: What you have to understand is that there are two main processes that are driving ice loss. You have surface melt and you have discharge of icebergs into the oceanfront n. Before 2005, these two processes were about equal, so the mass losses were equally shared between these two processes. But after 2005, there was a drastic increase in the surface melt due to warmer air temperatures.

Before 2005, the surface melt was at an average of three gigatonnes per year, but after 2005, it increased to 30 gigatonnes of ice per year – so it was multiplied by 10. If we look at the curve of the mass losses, there is an obvious change in 2005. It increased very suddenly.

AD: Did the weather suddenly get much warmer in 2005?
Romain Millan: There was an increase of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9degrees Fahrenheit) between 2005 and present. Warmer temperatures melt ice at the surface of the glaciers. Some might be absorbed on land, but most of the runoff goes into the ocean.

For the period we studied, which is the last 25 years, these glaciers contributed to 1mm (0.04in) of sea-level rise. So if all the glaciers in this region were to melt completely, it would contribute to 8mm (3.4in) of sea-level rise.”

AD: How did you measure this – the ice discharge and the surface melt?
Millan: For the icebergs calving in the ocean, what we did is we gathered ice velocity estimates from satellite data during the last 25 years. After, we combined those data with ice thickness measurements from NASA. When you combine the velocity with the ice thickness measurements, you can infer the ice discharge in the ocean.

And for the surface melt, we used the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model that is developed by European colleagues. Once you have the ice discharge, you combine it with the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (surface melt estimates) and you have a measure of the total mass losses.

AD: 1mm (0.04in) of sea level rise over 25 years doesn’t sound like all that much. Why should people be concerned about this?
Millan: If the climate continues to warm up as it was projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the contribution to sea-level rise is going to continue to increase significantly.

After Greenland and Antarctica, the Queen Elizabeth Islands are the main contributor to sea-level rise. (But) the numbers for Greenland and Antarctica are much larger. If Antarctica were to melt completely, it would contribute to a 70m (230ft) sea-level rise.

AD: To what extent are we locked into this surface melt? Can we change the path these glaciers are taking?
Millan: Carbon dioxide has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. Even if we stop emissions completely, there will still be CO2 in the atmosphere for years so temperatures will continue to increase. So I have to say I’m not sure if we can do anything to counteract the melt of these glaciers now.

But this study is more of a warning signal about what’s happening to the climate on Earth.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.*


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......
> 
> .....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....
> 
> ...


/---- To stop this you need to pay more in taxes. Now get out your check book and start sending more $$$$ to Washington. Chop Chop.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......
> 
> .....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....
> 
> ...


 /---- Uh Oh ---- NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses ...
https://www.nasa.gov/.../nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-loss...
Oct 30, 2015 - Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking ...... of old ice (5 years or older) left throughout the Arctic sea ice cap during ...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2017)

Der Spiegel is Germany`s New York Times version of idiotic left wing propaganda.
Yesterday they featured an article that cited a bunch of ice-hole "scientists" suggesting this hair-brained study:
Arctic ice management
_*1.1 The Urgent Need to Deal With Climate Change*
The climate is warming, and the rate of change is highest in the Arctic, where summer ice is vanishing at an accelerating rate. According to the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal
We propose that winter ice thickening by wind-powered pumps be considered and assessed as part of a multipronged strategy for restoring sea ice and arresting the strongest feedbacks in the climate system.We propose that winter ice thickening by wind-powered pumps be considered and assessed as part of a multipronged strategy for restoring sea ice and arresting the strongest feedbacks in the climate system.
.....we consider the idea to be worthy of future study. (We note that Sev Clarke also has suggested building “Ice Shields” by having wind-pumped seawater brought to the surface to freeze, adding to a growing lens of ice._
Another batch of these ice-holes "calculated" that a flight from Europe to San Francisco causes the melting of 5 square meters of ice.
Which goes to show that these "scientists" have gone into full retard mode.
They claim they can do the math to show that 400ppm CO2 + the CO2 from that airplane is 400+ 0.00000000000....?00x ppm globally and that melts 5 m^2 of arctic ice.
Instead of admitting that they used the phony CO2 & ice cover correlation and apportioned an estimated part of that CO2 to aviation which was then divided by the average number of transatlantic flights....which is exactly the same way idiots like Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi would "calculate" it for their flock of sheep heads.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics


Troll. Millions of scientists say you are wrong when it comes to radiation exchange. Your opinion is meaningless, troll.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......
> 
> .....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....
> 
> ...





Cellblock2429 said:


> ---- To stop this you need to pay more in taxes. Now get out your check book and start sending more $$$$ to Washington. Chop Chop.



And the deranged denier cult dimwits, like ol' blockhead, are still stupid enough and gullible enough to believe their fossil fuel industry puppetmasters who tell them that global warming is strictly a political issue...and not the well confirmed scientific fact that it is.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Der Spiegel is Germany`s New York Times version of idiotic left wing propaganda.
> Yesterday they featured an article that cited a bunch of ice-hole "scientists" suggesting this hair-brained study:
> Arctic ice management
> _*1.1 The Urgent Need to Deal With Climate Change*
> ...



And the denier cult retard, poopybrain, once again moronically struggles with science that is way, way beyond his cretin-level comprehension.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics
> ...



Did you mean to cut off part of my statement?  

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong...every observation and every measurement ever taken supports me while all those "millions" can't provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> And the denier cult retard, poopybrain, once again moronically struggles with science that is way, way beyond his cretin-level comprehension.



Thunder...we all know that all this is way past your comprehension...it is obivious because you are careful never to use your own words in any manner beyond juvenile name calling and mindless ranting....you can't discuss the topic on your own...and most of the bilge you post is off topic, debunked, or just more fake science produced to feed the fake news industry.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.
> ...


and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises?  LOL!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ....energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics





Wuwei said:


> Troll. Millions of scientists say you are wrong when it comes to radiation exchange. Your opinion is meaningless, troll.





SSDD said:


> And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong...


And that's a big part of your severe affliction by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as well as your insanity.....you are idiotically wrong about climate science, but you are way too stupid and mentally incompetent to comprehend that fact even when the entire world scientific community tells you that you are wrong. Which they have!





SSDD said:


> every observation and every measurement ever taken supports me while all those "millions" can't provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.


Another totally bogus and fraudulent denier cult propaganda meme with no connection to reality.

Your pitifully delusional unsupported statements are, as always, hilariously crackpot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2017)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.
> 
> What do you call "_polar ice_" when it melts? WATER!


and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises?  LOL!!!!![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Do you never tire of fake news about fake science?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.


Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 16, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.
> 
> What do you call "_polar ice_" when it melts? WATER!





SSDD said:


> and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises?  LOL!!!!!





Old Rocks said:


>





SSDD said:


> Do you never tire of fake news about fake science?



Do you never tire of keeping your head up your ass, SSoooDDumb?

Enormous amounts of ice from the glaciers on Greenland and on the shores of the Arctic Ocean have already melted and are continuing to melt......of course sea levels are rising as a result, you flaming retard.

Only insane people regard solid science as "_fake news_".

In the real world, 'fake news' refers to the bogus made-up crap coming from Trump, Breitbart, FauxNews, and the traitor Trump's Russian allies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 16, 2017)

Our resident ignoramouses apparently do not know the history of Lysenkoism, and the damage done to Soviet agriculture. And we will see the same kind of damage to our educational and scientific systems under the orange bozo and his fascists.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Our resident ignoramouses apparently do not know the history of Lysenkoism, and the damage done to Soviet agriculture. And we will see the same kind of damage to our educational and scientific systems under the orange bozo and his fascists.




So the answer is no..you never tire of either fake news nor fake science.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.
> ...



Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.





Wuwei said:


> Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.





SSDD said:


> Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.



It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

In the real world, here's a pretty good explanation of the matter....

*Scientific consensus*
*Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.*


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.


Spoken like a troll. Consensus in radiation physics is unanimous.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 16, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term


See post #174, moron.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses



Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.
> ...



So lets see a single measurement of a discrete band of radiation from a source cooler than the instrument being used to detect it.  Actual evidence to support what is, to date, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  Consensus doesn't mean anything in science....hell damned near the entire world of science has been found dead wrong several times in the past couple of years...anyone who accepts consensus, especially in science, is doing so for reasons that are not scientific in the least.


----------



## gipper (Mar 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses
> ...


I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists.  WTF!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term



If you want to see the sort of, and sheer number of people who accept consensus as science, look at the Milgram experiment...it is an experiment that looks at how compliant people are to authority...or the appearance of authority.  It involves one test subject administering an electric shock to another test subject and shows that nearly 65% of people were willing to administer what they believed would be a fatal electric shock to another individual based on nothing more than the instructions of someone they perceived to be an authority.

Belief in consensus, when there is no actual evidence to support the consensus exhibits that sort of capitulative obedience to authority...believe because "I" say to believe...believe because "authority" says to believe...accept...OBEY.

That sort of non thinking acceptance seems to be the norm among warmers...they rant and rave about the impending disaster and when you ask for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim, they can't produce, but rave all the more that the perceived authority is correct and that we must OBEY.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term
> ...



Tell me thunder...do you have any idea how often * the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity *on a very wide variety of scientific topics has been dead wrong?  Do you have any idea how often, especially in relatively new fields of scientific research, the consensus has been dead wrong?...here is a clue...damned near always.

Accepting consensus when there is no actual evidence in support of their claims is being dominated by perceived authority...you would play right into such a situation thunder considering the abuse you suffered as a child which left you intimidated by and angry at anyone who disagrees with you.  It gives you an opportunity to believe you are right and to be supported by people you believe are "the" authority...and allows you to internally justify your anger at those who are not in agreement with you.  

Too damned bad that your upbringing has led you to being that sort of person.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

gipper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Not only does it exist...it is bigger now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.


----------



## gipper (Mar 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term
> ...


Bingo!!!

These brainwashed obedient fools already live in Orwell's 1984 and don't know it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

gipper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I can only say that I thank my parents for raising me with enough backbone to tell anyone who is bullshitting me, including authority, to bite my shiny metal ass.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.



More importantly, we know that the "consensus" was occasionally wrong because the scientific community, being the self-correcting endeavor it is, settled for another theory as a candidate with a higher explanatory value as the new consensus.  So, dismissing "consensus" obliterates scientific progress itself, and in reality undermines the troll's position, for without a shifting consensus he wouldn't know the previous consensus was "wrong", or rather, of lower explanatory value.  Moreover, the fringe attacking the consensus was wrong infinitely more often than the consensus, just as the denialingdongs are wrong infinitely more often.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.
> ...


well sorry son, no such thing as science and consensus.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.
> ...


so funny, consensus must now be proven wrong to move to another and to another.  How can that be consensus if it changes?  That's SSDD point and Mine and others in here.  consensus is nothing more than propaganda to a political position.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.
> ...


too funny. then why is the sun's corona hotter than the surface?  Why is the atmosphere on earth cooler than the surface?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So lets see a single measurement of a discrete band of radiation from a source cooler than the instrument being used to detect it. Actual evidence to support what is, to date, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Consensus doesn't mean anything in science....hell damned near the entire world of science has been found dead wrong several times in the past couple of years...anyone who accepts consensus, especially in science, is doing so for reasons that are not scientific in the least.


It has been observed, measured, and tested. The cosmic microwave background at 2.7 K hit an antenna at ambient temperature and was reflected and detected by a warmer detector at 4 K. See this post and the ones that follow.

Does SSDD have a point that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Mar 17, 2017)

You people are crazy!  We must save the ice!  Life on earth thrives on ice fields and glaciers!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> More importantly, we know that the "consensus" was occasionally wrong because the scientific community, being the self-correcting endeavor it is, settled for another theory as a candidate with a higher explanatory value as the new consensus.  So, dismissing "consensus" obliterates scientific progress itself, and in reality undermines the troll's position, for without a shifting consensus he wouldn't know the previous consensus was "wrong", or rather, of lower explanatory value.  Moreover, the fringe attacking the consensus was wrong infinitely more often than the consensus, just as the denialingdongs are wrong infinitely more often.



Sorry glassy eyes...historically, the scientific consensus has almost always been wrong...especially where relatively new fields of study are concerned...and of course, climate science will correct itself...eventually, but not until such time as it is depoliticized....and when its self correcting nature finally asserts itself over its current politicized status...history is going to view you in the same light as we view doctors who believed bleeding their patients was good medicine and washing their hands was a waste of time...look back through history and quake at all of the bullshit that at one time was mainstream science...and was accepted as consensus for far longer than climate science has even existed.

you people are laughable...and by the way...regarding the failed radiative greenhouse model...ie  adding the incoming flux from the sun to the imaginary flux from the atmosphere to reach a total of 479wm2....here is actual evidence that the hypothesis is a failure...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.





Wuwei said:


> Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.





SSDD said:


> Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.





RollingThunder said:


> It would be hard to find a more *totally insane* denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.
> 
> In the real world, here's a pretty good explanation of the matter....
> 
> ...





SSDD said:


> Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.



A hilariously non-responsive and totally insane rant from the denier cult anti-science cretin who moronically rejects and dismisses science, scientific research and the scientific conclusions and consensus that naturally result, based on the laws of physics and the research. There is a good reason these bamboozled dipshits are referred to as 'DENIERS', or 'reality deniers'. SSooooDDumb exemplies that reason with his totally ignorant braindead insistence that the scientific consensus is usually wrong - which is a particularly insane denier cult myth.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 17, 2017)

gipper said:


> I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists.  WTF!



You "_would have thought_" that nonsense because you are an ignorant denier cult nutjob, gimper, too brainwashed and full of lies and misinformation to know which end is up.

In the real world, no climate scientists have ever predicted that the "_polar ice cap_" would have "_disappeared long ago_".....that is strictly a fraudulent denier cult myth for deceiving the retards.

i know you won't be able to understand this actual science, gimper, given the fact that you have the attention span of a fruitfly and the intelligence of a brain damaged squirrel, but for the normal people reading this, here's what the actual science has been saying.....

*Arctic Sea Ice Decline*
WeatherUnderground
(excerpts)
*In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.*

*Temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the 21st century. Winter temperature has increased more than summer temperature, which is a trend that is expected to continue. While some have suggested that these variations in temperature and associated sea ice melt are a natural cycle, recent research tells us that the Arctic was in a 2,000 year cooling trend before the 20th century and its influx of greenhouse gases.

Sea ice is generally moderated by sunlight—it grows in the winter and melts in the summer—  More at link.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You tell 'em, Bender!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 18, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists.  WTF!
> ...



Arctic will be ice free by 2005
Arctic will be ice free by 2010
Arctic will be ice free by 2015
Arctic will be ice free by 2030

We're cereal this thyme


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 18, 2017)

gipper said:


> I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists.  WTF!





RollingThunder said:


> You "_would have thought_" that nonsense because you are an ignorant denier cult nutjob, gimper, too brainwashed and full of lies and misinformation to know which end is up.
> 
> In the real world, no climate scientists have ever predicted that the "_polar ice cap_" would have "_disappeared long ago_".....that is strictly a fraudulent denier cult myth for deceiving the retards.
> 
> i know you won't be able to understand this actual science, gimper, given the fact that you have the attention span of a fruitfly and the intelligence of a brain damaged squirrel, but for the normal people reading this, here's what the actual science has been saying.....





RollingThunder said:


> *Arctic Sea Ice Decline*
> WeatherUnderground
> (excerpts)
> *In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.*
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Arctic will be ice free by 2005
> Arctic will be ice free by 2010
> Arctic will be ice free by 2015
> Arctic will be ice free by 2030
> ...



And the CrazyFruitcake pointlessly spews some more exceptionally crazy gibberish based on his delusional denier cult myths that have no connection to reality. As usual for this particular troll.

In the real world, the Arctic has been rapidly melting for some time and ice extententvand volume has diminished enormously from the levels that had prevailed for many thousands of years.

Scientists had thought, several decades ago, that it would probably take until around 2100 for the Arctic Ocean  to be completely ice free in the summertime.....but the speed at which the ice is actually disappearing has startled Arctic scientists, many of whom now think that it may be ice free in the summer within a decade or two.

Right now in the Arctic....

*Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.*
*(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)





Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
*
And, BTW, the graph above that shows a decline of only 3% per decade, that only is referring to the extent in February, in the deepest winter, close to the maximum extent for the year.

At the end of summer, when the Arctic sea ice is near its minimum, the rate of decline per decade is much higher, over 10% per decade.





_*Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 10.4 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center*_


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2017)

And yet, thunder, the arctic is is at a greater extent now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.



			
				Stein et al said:
			
		

> Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.” Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium. These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length. Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 18, 2017)

gipper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You mean that you are still playing the ignoramous? The Northwest Passage was predicted to open up in the latter half of this century. It opened in 2007, and last year, a very large luxury cruise liner transited the Passage. That you have to tell lies about what was predicted, and what has actually occurred is an indication of your basic dishonesty.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Still spewing the same old lies...I asked you before and you ran away...and since it is fun to see you run away, I will ask you again...Looking at this gold standard temperature reconstruction made from ice cores taken above the arctic circle, tell me rocks...what do you think the arctic ice has looked like for most of the past 10,000 years?






This is what it looked like according to someone who actually paid attention in class..


----------



## gipper (Mar 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted. 

WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


*Supplement to: Stein, R et al. (2017): Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean). Journal of Quaternary Science, doi:10.1002/jqs.2929*

In this study, we present new detailed biomarker-based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii)* significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.* This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface-water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation. The short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.

*So, we have been steadily increasing ice area for 4500 years in the Arctic. But now we are very rapidly melting that increase. In other words, something has changed the natural progression of the Milankovic Cycles. *


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2017)

Again....since it is clear that you can't bear to tell the truth...how does the volume of arctic ice now compare with the volume of arctic ice for most of the past 10,000 years?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2017)

gipper said:


> ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted



The polar ice cap hasn't melted. It's still right there, in Antarctica.



> WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.



How about you learn the basics before jumping in? You'll look less brainwashed and clueless that way.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Again....since it is clear that you can't bear to tell the truth...how does the volume of arctic ice now compare with the volume of arctic ice for most of the past 10,000 years?



What does that dishonest evasion have to do with the fact that M. cycles are driving the earth into a cooling phase? The current "natural" cycle is cooling, hence it is not possible for "warming" to be part of the natural cycle.

And can you make up your mind? You fliipflop helplessly between "there's no warming" and "the warming is a natural cycle!". It really kills your credibility, the way you can't settle on a consistent conspiracy theory.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So fking what?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And yet, thunder, the arctic is is at a greater extent now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.



Your propaganda memes are improving, SSoooDDumb, but they are still just denier cult bullshit. Clever of your puppetmaster propaganda pushers to pick "_the past 10,000 years_", since that is almost true, albeit irrelevant.....if you had claimed the '_past 5000 years_', that would be dead wrong.

Scientists are well aware that at the end of the last period of heavy glaciation around ten or eleven thousand years ago, the Earth warmed up and that that very slow gentle warming continued for thousands of years until it culminated in a period in mid-Holocene, called the '*Holocene Thermal Maximum*', which was almost as hot as it is now and Arctic sea ice was almost as low. After that, for the last 5000 years, natural orbital cycles were causing a long slow cooling and Arctic ice expanded to average extents for the last thousand years or so that were about what was considered normal Arctic ice in 1800 or so. The world has now warmed up in just a century by as much as it had cooled over the previous 5000 years.

In the real world....Arctic sea ice is at the *lowest extent and volume* it has been for the last four or five thousand years, at least......possibly as much as 125,000 years ago during the peak of the previous interglacial.

*Kaufman et al. (2009) reconstructed past Arctic temperatures, and confirmed that the Arctic had been cooling for at least the past 2,000 years prior to the 20th Century, and found an Arctic temperature 'hockey stick' (Figure 1).





Figure 1: Arctic temperature change reconstructed by Kaufmann et al. (2009)including data updated for corrigendum and including instrumental measurements for the Arctic region (60 to 90° N) from NASA. 

Perhaps the authoritative paper on Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years is Kinnard et al. (2011), which used a combination of Arctic ice core, tree ring, and lake sediment data to reconstruct past Arctic conditions.  The results are shown in Figure 2.
*
*

*

_*Figure 2: Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al., with a 40-year low pass filter applied.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, and thus it is a close approximation of current conditions, even though the extent is not as low as current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing.*_
*
Based on the Kinnard results, Arctic sea ice extent is currently lower than at any time in **at least** the past 1,450 years. 

Polyak et al. (2010) looked at Arctic sea ice changes throughout geologic history and noted that the current rate of loss appears to be more rapid than natural variability can account for in the historical record.

"The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."*







SSDD said:


> [QuoteStein et al]
> Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.” Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium. These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length. Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.





SSDD said:


> [IMGhttp://*notrickszone*.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768x496.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> [IMGhttp://*notrickszone*.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-Koch-Since-1200-768x411.jpg[/IMG]



Such desperate hokum and deceit, SSoooDDumb!  LOLOLOLOL. 

A partial quote from a scientific paper that leaves out the key part where thay say: "*significantly increased sea ice extent during the last 4.5 thousand years".....*

....And then two altered, meaningless graphs from a lying denier cult blog.

LOLOLOLOL


----------



## gipper (Mar 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted
> ...


No need...I know bullshit when I see it and particularly when it comes from the criminal ruling class. Stop being a dupe for the ruling class.  

The high priests of the Church of Warmers said many years ago, the polar ice caps will melt and coastlines the world over, would be underwater.  Why did you choose to believe lies from the criminal ruling class?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 19, 2017)

gipper said:


> ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted





mamooth said:


> The polar ice cap hasn't melted. It's still right there, in Antarctica.





gipper said:


> WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.





mamooth said:


> *How about you learn the basics before jumping in?* You'll look less brainwashed and clueless that way.





gipper said:


> *No need.*..I know bullshit when I see it and particularly when it comes from the criminal ruling class. Stop being a dupe for the ruling class.
> 
> The high priests of the Church of Warmers said many years ago, the polar ice caps will melt and coastlines the world over, would be underwater.  Why did you choose to believe lies from the criminal ruling class?



Yup! You sure enough have "_no need_" to "_learn the basics_"', gimper, you are obviously too retarded to understand them anyway. You should know "_bullshit_", bozo, considering how full of it you are. Otherwise, you are totally clueless.

No, dumbass, climate scientists DID NOT predict that the "_polar ice caps_" would have melted by now, or that coastlines "_the world over, would be underwater_" by now. That's one of your deranged and fraudulent denier cult myths. The ice at both poles *is, in fact, *melting at accelerating rates, with the rate of melting higher around the North Pole.....but NO ONE claimed that they would be all melted by now, you silly liar. No climate scientists ever said that all the "_coastlines, the world over_", would be underwater by now. Sea levels *are rising at an accelerating rate* and places like Miami are already experiencing experiencing periodic flooding, which will only get worse.

Why do you choose to believe the fraudulent, anti-science, self-serving propaganda produced by the fossil fuel industry in their criminal attempts to deceive the public about the scientifically confirmed reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its inevitable and consequent climate changes? Is it mostly just your severe retardation? Or is it more your braindead allegiance to your crackpot semi-fascist political and economic ideologies?


----------



## gipper (Mar 19, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted
> ...


Al Gore, the high priest of your church, did.  You will no doubt be excommunicated for that post.  I hope you won't cry or have a mental break down.  Maybe if you go warmer confession, they will grant you absolution.  

Warmers really do make me LMFAO!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 19, 2017)

gipper said:


> ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted





mamooth said:


> The polar ice cap hasn't melted. It's still right there, in Antarctica.





gipper said:


> WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.





mamooth said:


> *How about you learn the basics before jumping in?* You'll look less brainwashed and clueless that way.





gipper said:


> *No need.*..I know bullshit when I see it and particularly when it comes from the criminal ruling class. Stop being a dupe for the ruling class.
> 
> The high priests of the Church of Warmers said many years ago, the polar ice caps will melt and coastlines the world over, would be underwater.  Why did you choose to believe lies from the criminal ruling class?





RollingThunder said:


> Yup! You sure enough have "_no need_" to "_learn the basics_"', gimper, you are obviously too retarded to understand them anyway. You should know "_bullshit_", bozo, considering how full of it you are. Otherwise, you are totally clueless.
> 
> No, dumbass, climate scientists DID NOT predict that the "_polar ice caps_" would have melted by now, or that coastlines "_the world over, would be underwater_" by now. That's one of your deranged and fraudulent denier cult myths. The ice at both poles *is, in fact, *melting at accelerating rates, with the rate of melting higher around the North Pole.....but NO ONE claimed that they would be all melted by now, you silly liar. No climate scientists ever said that all the "_coastlines, the world over_", would be underwater by now. Sea levels *are rising at an accelerating rate* and places like Miami are already experiencing experiencing periodic flooding, which will only get worse.
> 
> Why do you choose to believe the fraudulent, anti-science, self-serving propaganda produced by the fossil fuel industry in their criminal attempts to deceive the public about the scientifically confirmed reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its inevitable and consequent climate changes? Is it mostly just your severe retardation? Or is it more your braindead allegiance to your crackpot semi-fascist political and economic ideologies?





gipper said:


> Al Gore, the high priest of your church, did.



Nope! He didn't say anything like that either, numbnuts, not that it would matter since he isn't a climate scientist but just a messenger. You really are quite insane!


----------



## gipper (Mar 19, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted
> ...


You really are a BELIEVER...good for you.  Could you at least understand what your church espouses?

Watch as San Francisco and Florida MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There it goes....oh nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Oh no....we are all going to DIE!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 19, 2017)

gipper said:


> ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted





mamooth said:


> The polar ice cap hasn't melted. It's still right there, in Antarctica.





gipper said:


> WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.





mamooth said:


> *How about you learn the basics before jumping in?* You'll look less brainwashed and clueless that way.





gipper said:


> *No need.*..I know bullshit when I see it and particularly when it comes from the criminal ruling class. Stop being a dupe for the ruling class.
> 
> The high priests of the Church of Warmers said many years ago, the polar ice caps will melt and coastlines the world over, would be underwater.  Why did you choose to believe lies from the criminal ruling class?





RollingThunder said:


> Yup! You sure enough have "_no need_" to "_learn the basics_"', gimper, you are obviously too retarded to understand them anyway. You should know "_bullshit_", bozo, considering how full of it you are. Otherwise, you are totally clueless.
> 
> No, dumbass, climate scientists DID NOT predict that the "_polar ice caps_" would have melted by now, or that coastlines "_the world over, would be underwater_" by now. That's one of your deranged and fraudulent denier cult myths. The ice at both poles *is, in fact, *melting at accelerating rates, with the rate of melting higher around the North Pole.....but NO ONE claimed that they would be all melted by now, you silly liar. No climate scientists ever said that all the "_coastlines, the world over_", would be underwater by now. Sea levels *are rising at an accelerating rate* and places like Miami are already experiencing experiencing periodic flooding, which will only get worse.
> 
> Why do you choose to believe the fraudulent, anti-science, self-serving propaganda produced by the fossil fuel industry in their criminal attempts to deceive the public about the scientifically confirmed reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its inevitable and consequent climate changes? Is it mostly just your severe retardation? Or is it more your braindead allegiance to your crackpot semi-fascist political and economic ideologies?





gipper said:


> Al Gore, the high priest of your church, did.





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! He didn't say anything like that either, numbnuts, not that it would matter since he isn't a climate scientist but just a messenger. You really are quite insane!





gipper said:


> You really are a BELIEVER...


....Yup, in science, evidence, rationality and logic...yes, I confess, I am a "_BELIEVER_".....unfortunately those are all things you, like a good little denier cult nutjob, reject, deny or are too stupid to understand.

I already told that former Vice-President Gore never claimed that any large scale flooding would be happening by now, gimper, although he certainly says that that will eventually happen as the planet warms up, a fact that is affirmed by virtually all of the climate scientists on Earth....and I also told you that what Gore says doesn't matter as far as the scientific facts are concerned because he isn't a climate scientist, just a messenger trying to convey the science to the public. You are still really quite insane!


----------



## gipper (Mar 19, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted
> ...


You are very good at researching, but alas being a warmer means you are a dupe for the ruling class and don't know it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 19, 2017)

gipper said:


> ...and yet Manhattan, Fire Island, Florida  , and the entire coastline of the USA is unchanged. You Warmers claimed it would be under water when the polar ice cap melted





mamooth said:


> The polar ice cap hasn't melted. It's still right there, in Antarctica.





gipper said:


> WTF dummy...stop being a dupe for the criminal ruling class.





mamooth said:


> *How about you learn the basics before jumping in?* You'll look less brainwashed and clueless that way.





gipper said:


> *No need.*..I know bullshit when I see it and particularly when it comes from the criminal ruling class. Stop being a dupe for the ruling class.
> 
> The high priests of the Church of Warmers said many years ago, the polar ice caps will melt and coastlines the world over, would be underwater.  Why did you choose to believe lies from the criminal ruling class?





RollingThunder said:


> Yup! You sure enough have "_no need_" to "_learn the basics_"', gimper, you are obviously too retarded to understand them anyway. You should know "_bullshit_", bozo, considering how full of it you are. Otherwise, you are totally clueless.
> 
> No, dumbass, climate scientists DID NOT predict that the "_polar ice caps_" would have melted by now, or that coastlines "_the world over, would be underwater_" by now. That's one of your deranged and fraudulent denier cult myths. The ice at both poles *is, in fact, *melting at accelerating rates, with the rate of melting higher around the North Pole.....but NO ONE claimed that they would be all melted by now, you silly liar. No climate scientists ever said that all the "_coastlines, the world over_", would be underwater by now. Sea levels *are rising at an accelerating rate* and places like Miami are already experiencing experiencing periodic flooding, which will only get worse.
> 
> Why do you choose to believe the fraudulent, anti-science, self-serving propaganda produced by the fossil fuel industry in their criminal attempts to deceive the public about the scientifically confirmed reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its inevitable and consequent climate changes? Is it mostly just your severe retardation? Or is it more your braindead allegiance to your crackpot semi-fascist political and economic ideologies?





gipper said:


> Al Gore, the high priest of your church, did.





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! He didn't say anything like that either, numbnuts, not that it would matter since he isn't a climate scientist but just a messenger. You really are quite insane!





gipper said:


> You really are a BELIEVER...





RollingThunder said:


> ....Yup, in science, evidence, rationality and logic...yes, I confess, I am a "_BELIEVER_".....unfortunately those are all things you, like a good little denier cult nutjob, reject, deny or are too stupid to understand.
> 
> I already told that former Vice-President Gore never claimed that any large scale flooding would be happening by now, gimper, although he certainly says that that will eventually happen as the planet warms up, a fact that is affirmed by virtually all of the climate scientists on Earth....and I also told you that what Gore says doesn't matter as far as the scientific facts are concerned because he isn't a climate scientist, just a messenger trying to convey the science to the public. You are still really quite insane!





gipper said:


> You are very good at researching....


If, by that, you mean that I am good at understanding and explaining the scientific facts that debunk your anti-science denier cult myths, dogmas, and lies.....then, yes, I am pretty good at that, as our exchanges demonstrate very clearly.







gipper said:


> but alas being a warmer means you are a dupe for the ruling class and don't know it.


....but alas, you being an ignorant and very delusional denier cult nutbagger means that you are a dupe of the billionaires and corporate executives at the top of the fossil fuel industry who are using you and the other denier cult cretins as 'useful idiot' foot soldiers in their propaganda war against the future of our world, as they try to protect their profit streams and their stock prices from the implementation of the very necessary legal limits on carbon emissions....and you are too stupid to be able to recognize that fact.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again....since it is clear that you can't bear to tell the truth...how does the volume of arctic ice now compare with the volume of arctic ice for most of the past 10,000 years?
> ...



Do you have the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim?...of course you don't.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, thunder, the arctic is is at a greater extent now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.
> ...



Shortening one's view...espeically where natural cycles are involved is not good science...shortening one's view in order to make claims that will be acted on politically is  nothing more than replacing science with political propaganda.  In actual science, where natural cycles are evolved, the longer the view the better...and when something happens that is outside of natural variability, then you know something unusual is going on...at present, nothing is happening that is even close to the boundaries of natural variability.


----------



## Crick (Mar 20, 2017)

Picking views irrelevant to human history to get the result you're looking for is dishonest.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 20, 2017)

When data contradicts denier religious beliefs, deniers madly try to deflect from the topic. And being data always contradicts deniers now, they're always deflecting.

Getting back on topic, the Arctic sea ice maximum for 2017 was reached, and set a new record low.

Lowest maximum on record (again)
---
It's a new lowest maximum record, and the third time in a row that extent stayed below the 14 million km2 mark. The previous lowest max on record was reached in 2015 (13.942 million km2), almost beaten last year (13.959 million km2), but this year SIE went lower still and peaked at 13.878 million km2.
---


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Picking views irrelevant to human history to get the result you're looking for is dishonest.



We are talking about natural cycles you idiot...shortening one's views of natural cycles in an effort to discount the larger view and attempt to focus on some minor change that can be blamed on humans is dishonest...you know as well as I that if one looks at the larger view, the claims that you wackos are making become truly comical...natural cycles are important without regard to human history and the more you know about them, the more you realize that our impact on them is non existent...I'm afraid that your thinking represents the sort of pseudoscientific dishonesty that climate science is guilty of.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> When data contradicts denier religious beliefs, deniers madly try to deflect from the topic. And being data always contradicts deniers now, they're always deflecting.
> 
> Getting back on topic, the Arctic sea ice maximum for 2017 was reached, and set a new record low.
> 
> ...




Again...taking the short view because you believe you can make political gain of it when in fact, even the lowest volume represented there is far greater than the volume of arctic ice has been for most of the past 10,000 years...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Picking views irrelevant to human history to get the result you're looking for is dishonest.





SSDD said:


> We are talking about natural cycles you idiot.



Nope! We are not talking about "_natural cycles_", you lying retard, because *you can not point to any* that could be causing this abrupt rapid warming. Just saying "natural cycles" like it was a magic word means nothing. You *have to be able to identify* such supposed cycles....and you can't because, for one thing, you are an ignorant retard, and, most importantly, *there aren't any* that could possibly be responsible for the warming.

The only "_natural cycles_" affecting the climate for the last 5000 years have been causing a slow cooling. It is the *un-natural* addition to the atmosphere of massive amounts of previously deeply sequestered carbon dioxide, caused by human activities, that has caused the current rapid abrupt warming the world has experience over the last century or so.

*Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene*
*RealClimate*
*Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf*
16 September 2013
(excerpts)
*Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years – that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013).

Over the last decades, numerous researchers have painstakingly collected, analyzed, dated, and calibrated many data series that allow us to reconstruct climate before the age of direct measurements. Such data come e.g. from sediment drilling in the deep sea, from corals, ice cores and other sources. Shaun Marcott and colleagues for the first time assembled 73 such data sets from around the world into a global temperature reconstruction for the Holocene, published in Science. Or strictly speaking, many such reconstructions: they have tried about twenty different averaging methods and also carried out 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with random errors added to the dating of the individual data series to demonstrate the robustness of their results.

To show the main result straight away, it looks like this:




Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene – after the end of the last Ice Age – global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)*


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> When data contradicts denier religious beliefs, deniers madly try to deflect from the topic. And being data always contradicts deniers now, they're always deflecting.
> 
> Getting back on topic, the Arctic sea ice maximum for 2017 was reached, and set a new record low.
> 
> ...






SSDD said:


> Again...taking the short view because you believe you can make political gain of it when in fact, even the lowest volume represented there is far greater than the volume of arctic ice has been for most of the past 10,000 years...



You take whatever long or short view you imagine you can turn into your idiotic "_political gain_" bullshit, SSoooDDumb, but that has nothing to do with what science tells us is the reality of the current situation.

The current extent and volume of the Arctic sea ice is very definitely much lower than it has been for pretty much the entire last 5000 years, and that is what is relevant to human civilization and the un-natural human caused climate changes that threaten our civilization, our agricultural systems and the viability of the Earth's ecology and biosphere.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2017)

Wow, this thread was started in 2009.  And the Arctic ice is STILL THERE!  Holy crap batman!  The claim was it was going to be gone by 2013!  Here's the BBC report making that claim...  I love these necro threads.  They demonstrate just how divorced from reality you anti science nutjobs are.

*Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'*
*Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
*
*BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'*


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 20, 2017)

westwall said:


> Wow, this thread was started in 2009.  And the Arctic ice is STILL THERE!



Nope! Not all of it. Since 2009, approximately 10% of the sea ice that was there has melted.

Right now in the Arctic....

*Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.*
*(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)





Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
*
And, BTW, the graph above that shows a decline of only 3% per decade, that only is referring to the extent in February, in the deepest winter, close to the maximum extent for the year.

At the end of summer, when the Arctic sea ice is near its minimum, the rate of decline per decade is much higher, over 10% per decade.





_*Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 10.4 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center*_








westwall said:


> The claim was it was going to be gone by 2013!  Here's the BBC report making that claim...
> 
> *Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
> Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.*
> ...



Oooooh, one scientist out of thousands made a prediction that differed from those of his colleagues......and you denier cult nutbagger all get your panties in a twist.....

Of course, what he was actually saying was:

*A paper by principal investigator Professor Wieslaw Maslowski in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences sets out some of the findings so far of the research project:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."*



*Please do NOT post full articles. Post a snip from the article, link, and your comment.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, this thread was started in 2009.  And the Arctic ice is STILL THERE!
> ...









Thanks for the BIG pictures!  Do they help you concentrate?  I have heard that dumb people need big pictures because they can't understand the words.  Seems to apply to you.  But, for all of that my point stands.  You all claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013......and it's NOT!

That qualifies as an epic fail clown boy.  We are FOUR long years beyond the "END OH MY GOD!", and still the ice is there.......laughing at you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 20, 2017)

westwall said:


> You all claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013......and it's NOT!



And there is the outright, bald-faced, denier cult *LIE*........

....As the evidence I just posted *proves!
*
Most climate scientists are still saying that the Arctic might be ice free in summers by 2030 or maybe sooner. Given current trends, It _could_ happen by 2020 (or 2019, which would verify Professor Makowski's prediction of 2016 plus or minus three years).
*
That is all the denier cultist have now....lies.....and outright denial of reality.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You all claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013......and it's NOT!
> ...










Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya clown boy but the only liar in this thread is you and your fellow anti science religious nutjobs.   You all have been bleating that the Arctic would be ice free on multiple dates throughout the 1990's and 2000's.  That is an inconvenient fact that you blatherers can't dodge.  That's the beauty of the internet.  It exposes all of your lies and mistakes.






http://archive.350.org/sites/all/files/science-factsheet-updated2011.pdf


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 21, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Most climate scientists are still saying that the Arctic might be ice free in summers by 2030 or maybe sooner. Given current trends, It _could_ happen by 2020 (or 2019, which would verify Professor Makowski's prediction of 2016 plus or minus three years).



Let the denialingdongs have their victory.  The direst prediction didn't pan out.  There's much to crow about, chest pounding and all.  Makowski was *WRONG!*  The Arctic ice is still there, laughing at all of us!

In the real world the trend is clear: The arctic summer ice will be gone, and fairly soon:






That's like crowing about hitting a massive boulder with their car some seconds later than predicted, in geological time scales.  They're judging themselves.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2017)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download





Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Mr. Westwall, ever since you have been on this board, you have been predicting cooling. So what has happened? See above, plus 3 years in a row of rising and record temperatures. You prognostications are as accurate as those of Silly Billy.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Still showing the short view for no other reason than to attempt to generate anxiety...when the fact is that in actual science, where cycles are involved, one needs to take as long a view as possible...not convenient for you, of course, because when one takes the long view, one sees that there is more ice now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...a great deal more ice...






Of course you aren't interested in science...you are interested in politics and generating anxiety where none is warranted...you are a political hack who ignores the long view because it is not convenient to your politics.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2017)

Thanks olfraud.  Yet more BIG pictures that show the Arctic ice STILL THERE!  How about showing the sea ice extent for 1979 when it was lower than it is today.  How come you don't show that?  Why did they choose to start their baseline as 1970 when sea ice was at its highest extent in decades?  Why oh why would they do something so fraudulent as that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 21, 2017)

westwall said:


> Thanks olfraud.  Yet more BIG pictures that show the Arctic ice STILL THERE!  How about showing the sea ice extent for 1970 when it was lower than it is today.  How come you don't show that? Why did they choose to start their baseline as 1970 when sea ice was at its highest extent in decades?  Why oh why would they do something so fraudulent as that?



Your denier cult myths are still just lies, walleyed. Your questions are insane because they are based on your fraudulent denier cult myth that Arctic sea ice was somehow at a lower extent "_for 1970_". Of course you offer no evidence! Historical records indicate that throughout the Twentieth Century, Arctic sea ice extents at their minimum extents at the end of summer, averaged about 7 million square kilometers, while over the last decade, extents have dropped to as little as 3.4 million square kilometers.

In the real world, Arctic sea ice has plunged to a lower extent and volume over the last decade than it has ever been for at least 5000 years.

In the real world....

*Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.





Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

In recent years, satellite data have indicated an even more dramatic reduction in regional ice cover.

The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached a new record low in 2012 of 3.41 million square kilometers, 44 percent below the 1981-2010 average, and 16 percent below the previous record in 2007. Over the last 13 years, a new record was set four times (2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012) and several other years saw near-record lows, particularly 2008 and 2011. On September 10, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent dipped to 4.14 million square kilometers, reaching a statistical tie with the 2007 minimum for second-lowest in the satellite record. As NSIDC reported in September 2016, the 10 lowest September ice extents over the satellite record have all occurred since 2007.
(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 21, 2017)

Ice increases...ice decreases...right now, there is far more ice in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,0000- years...and for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at all up there....what's your point?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2017)

westwall said:


> Thanks olfraud.  Yet more BIG pictures that show the Arctic ice STILL THERE!  How about showing the sea ice extent for 1970 when it was lower than it is today.  How come you don't show that?  Why did they choose to start their baseline as 1970 when sea ice was at its highest extent in decades?  Why oh why would they do something so fraudulent as that?


Because, as you know very well, in 1979 we put up satellites that gave a daily picture of the polar ice extant. Why are you such a fraudulent liar? Is someone paying you to post half truths and outright lies here? Because that is what you constantly do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Ice increases...ice decreases...right now, there is far more ice in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,0000- years...and for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at all up there....what's your point?


For most of the Earth's history, there has been no worldwide human agriculture depending on a stable climate. And, for most of the last 10,000 years, there has not been 7+ billion people on this planet at once. And, during that past 10,000 years, we have never had the rapid warming that we are seeing today. In fact, the last time the climate changed very quickly, the Younger Dryas, we lost, in North America, 45 of 61 genera of large mammals.

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia

The Late Pleistocene extinction event saw the extinction of many mammals weighing more than 40 kg.


In North America around 45 of 61 genera of large mammals became extinct.
In South America 58 of 71
In Australia 17 of 18
In Europe 21 of 37
In Asia 24 of 46
In Subsaharan Africa only 8 of 50


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks olfraud.  Yet more BIG pictures that show the Arctic ice STILL THERE!  How about showing the sea ice extent for 1970 when it was lower than it is today.  How come you don't show that?  Why did they choose to start their baseline as 1970 when sea ice was at its highest extent in decades?  Why oh why would they do something so fraudulent as that?
> ...








There were satellites up in 1970 that did the same.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 21, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ice increases...ice decreases...right now, there is far more ice in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,0000- years...and for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at all up there....what's your point?
> ...


....because manmade global warming, right?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That`s right but the data these satellites collected did not fit the narrative.
There are publications that state that there was no clear trend, but they are all behind a paywall.
There was also a lot of data collected by submarines that mapped ice extent and thickness with upward looking sonar since 1958.
And then before that time there are all these whaling records that can give you pretty accurate information where the edges of the sea ice were.
So it`s not as if the Goracles had no data, the data contradicts the claim that there is a correlation between sea ice and CO2.
When it comes to temperature, the absence of direct measurements never stopped these scoundrels from producing data pretending to be accurate to a fraction of a degree using proxies.


----------



## IanC (Mar 22, 2017)

Old Rocks, crick and others here have a habit of cherrypicking their definition of cherrypicking.

Honest people know that the evidence for human caused climate change is equivocal, only fanatics are certain.


----------



## Olde Europe (Mar 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks, crick and others here have a habit of cherrypicking their definition of cherrypicking.
> 
> Honest people know that the evidence for human caused climate change is equivocal, only fanatics are certain.



There's high certainty among the world's climate scientists that global warming is happening, and human activity is its main driver.  On the other side of that debate we have the Merchants of Doubt, the same odious figures deployed that sold doubt about the harmful effects of smoking.  Towards which of the sides you lean defines you.

There's cherry-picking alright, such as letting the temperature record begin in 1998.  And then, there's the data-driven record, and analyses based on that (h/t to RollingThunder):






And no, the picture doesn't change in any relevant way whether or not pre-satellite data is included: The Arctic sea ice is collapsing since the 1950s, and at an accelerating rate.



Old Rocks said:


> Is someone paying you to post half truths and outright lies here?



No matter how tempting, unless you can provide an actual invoice, I think you shouldn't do that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 22, 2017)

Can any of the warmers show us a lab experiment that controls for all variables except for a change in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?  They seem sooooooooooo certain


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> That`s right but the data these satellites collected did not fit the narrative.


Another denier cult lie. Why do you lie all the time, poopybrains?

The satellite data does, in fact, show a definite warming trend.

*Latest Global Temps*
*Dr. Roy Spencer*



*Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures*







polarbear said:


> There are publications that state that there was no clear trend, but they are all behind a paywall.


Another bullshit denier cult myth. "_Oh, they are there, but you can't see them_" LOLOLOL.......you denier cult nutbaggers are SO gullible and SO hypocritical. You *only* trust the supposed 'science' that your cult tells is there but can't show you. LOLOLOL.





polarbear said:


> There was also a lot of data collected by submarines that mapped ice extent and thickness with upward looking sonar since 1958.


Data from submarines indicates that the Arctic sea ice was thicker and larger in extent in the '50s and '60s.

From: *Modern Day Climate Change*
*Figure 7.9 (Rothrock, et al., 1999) shows sea ice thickness has substantially declined. Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season in the Arctic has decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s.*

*




Figure 7.9: Mean sea ice draft: Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft for 1958 to 1997.*






polarbear said:


> And then before that time there are all these whaling records that can give you pretty accurate information where the edges of the sea ice were.


And those records also indicate a much larger Arctic ice extent in the past, no matter what lies your cult clings to.

From the experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center....

*Arctic sea ice before satellites*
JANUARY 2011
*What do we know about Arctic sea ice extent before the satellite records began in 1979? Those satellite records show that Arctic sea ice has been declining at an increasing pace since 1979 -- enough data to see a strong signal of climate change. But scientists also want to know what sea ice was like before satellites were there to observe it. What do we know about sea ice conditions before 1979, and how do we know that?
*
*

*
_*Sea ice charts of the Arctic Ocean show that ice extent has declined since at least the 1950s. Credit: NSIDC and the UK Hadley Center*_
*
Historical data on sea ice
To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s.  Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean.  However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.*








polarbear said:


> So it`s not as if the Goracles had no data, the data contradicts the claim that there is a correlation between sea ice and CO2.


Another denier cult lie! In the real world, the data fully supports the scientifically confirmed connection between the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice and the rapidly rising Arctic temperatures driven by the enormous 46% increase in CO2 levels.








polarbear said:


> When it comes to temperature, the absence of direct measurements never stopped these scoundrels from producing data pretending to be accurate to a fraction of a degree using proxies.



Another example of the really insane crackpot conspiracy theories the denier cultists are gullible enough to swallow about all of the world's scientists conspiring to fool them....that are really all these deranged denier cult wackos have left to support their denial of reality.


----------



## xyz (Mar 22, 2017)

Huge benefits to Russia:
In Russian Arctic, a new major sea port

Russian Arctic city hopes to cash in as melting ice opens new sea route to China

This map shows the massive scale of Russia's planned fortification of the Arctic

(also note Exxon, in other words, Tillerson's role in this):
Russia Wants To Melt More Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 22, 2017)

^ No warming in 2 decades


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

Polar, Westwall, flap yap, post links from a credible source that shows that the ice in the '70's was not in the general and accelerating decline that we have seen in the satellite data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ No warming in 2 decades


Now we understand, you are blind. LOL


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 22, 2017)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210160103.htm


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

*Global sea ice diminishing, despite Antarctic gains*
Date:
*February 10, 2015*
Source:
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Summary:
Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210160103.htm

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download







Image 4 of 4 (play slideshow) Download






*You posted an article from two years ago. Here is the present conditions both the Arctic and Antarctic. I will give you a little leeway this time, but post out of date data again, presenting it as current, and I will know that you are completely dishonest, stupid, or, more likely, both.*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 22, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar, Westwall, flap yap, post links from a credible source that shows that the ice in the '70's was not in the general and accelerating decline that we have seen in the satellite data.


Excuuuuuse me?
We have to show what? It's *you* (&the end is nigh squealers) who say that it has accelerated *after* the 70's.
*We *don't have to show anything ! Why should the burden of proof be different in this case?
When it comes to assertions like illegal immigration,drugs and crime you liberals not only demand we provide the proof but make it a racist issue to collect and present the data because you know full well what the results will show. This is no different, so go get the sonar data the US & British Navy has compiled and show us that arctic sea ice behaves any different *after* 1970...then we'll talk.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-...volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png


*Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years*

Christophe Kinnard,
Christian M. Zdanowicz,
David A. Fisher,
Elisabeth Isaksson,
Anne de Vernal
& Lonnie G. Thompson

Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature

479,

509–512

(24 November 2011)

doi:10.1038/nature10581
Received

24 December 2010 
Accepted

21 September 2011 
Published online

23 November 2011

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

*Not even a need to talk. We know what we are seeing now has not happened in the past thousand years.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

Scientists have pieced together historical records to reconstruct Arctic sea ice extent over the past 125 years. The results are shown in the figure below. The red line, showing the extent at the end of the summer melt season, is the most critical:http://nsidc.org/research/bios/fetterer.html





Historical documents reveal Arctic sea ice is disappearing at record speed | Dana Nuccitelli

*More information on the present anomolous Arctic Sea Ice melt.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2017)

Arctic sea ice is approaching the limit of natural variability

Using a new chemical technique, scientists have managed to document the expansion and decline of Arctic sea ice over the past 125,000 years.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to reconstruct Arctic sea ice in the past from a Greenland ice core,” says co-author Paul Vallelonga, associate professor from the Niels Bohr Institute Centre for Ice and Climate, at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

While sea ice is currently declining rapidly and has reached record lows in the last decade, it still has some way to go before it exceeds the minima that was last seen 8,000 years ago. But according to the new study, we were already about 90 per cent of the way there, even before the record breaking lows of 2015 and 2016.

The results redefine the natural limit of sea ice decline in the Arctic over the last 10,000 years, says Vallelonga.

“It’s good news that we’re still within the Arctic’s “natural threshold” if you like. But over the last 40 years we’ve seen sea ice changing rapidly, and we’re fast approaching this minimum level,” he says.

*Now I can continue to post links as to the fact that the present rapid decrease in Arctic Sea Ice is not normal or natural in cause.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No warming in 2 decades



And there's is the stark insanity of these denier cult wackos.

Even when the evidence is staring them in the face, like that graph, they deny it.

Even when the facts are that the world just experienced three successive 'hottest year on record' in a row, with 16 of the 17 hottest years on record occurring in this century since 2000, Arctic sea ice is at its lowest extent and volume in at least 5000 years, and rising sea levels are already causing problems in many places around the world....the braindead deniers still chant their deranged denier cult dogmas that the Earth isn't rapidly warming, the Arctic ice isn't melting and the sea levels aren't rising.


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No warming in 2 decades
> ...









What was that little hater dupe?

Here's one graph that shows that the year 1971 was much lower than the present day.  It wasn't till 1975 that the Polar ice began to recover, and then it bloomed thanks to the record cold that we suffered through.  That is why you cherry picking silly people choose 1979 as your start point.  To go earlier exposes your lies.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> Conditions in context
> ...



Do you live on arctic ice?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ^ No warming in 2 decades
> ...


No, but you must be a moron. 

See the red line that peaks in 98 and 99?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


LOL  Little box in the upper left corner shows the extent of the ice that is being measured. It is not at all the whole arctic. In fact, it is not even a major fraction of it. Once again you are busted in a purposeful lie, Mr. Westwall. A really stupid and self evident one at that. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 23, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No warming in 2 decades





RollingThunder said:


> And there's is the stark insanity of these denier cult wackos.
> 
> Even when the evidence is staring them in the face, like that graph, they deny it.
> 
> Even when the facts are that the world just experienced three successive 'hottest year on record' in a row, with 16 of the 17 hottest years on record occurring in this century since 2000, Arctic sea ice is at its lowest extent and volume in at least 5000 years, and rising sea levels are already causing problems in many places around the world....the braindead deniers still chant their deranged denier cult dogmas that the Earth isn't rapidly warming, the Arctic ice isn't melting and the sea levels aren't rising.





westwall said:


> Here's one graph that shows that the year 1971 was much lower than the present day.  It wasn't till 1975 that the Polar ice began to recover, and then it bloomed thanks to the record cold that we suffered through.  That is why you cherry picking silly people choose 1979 as your start point.  To go earlier exposes your lies.



The denier cult troll, the walleyedretard, always tries to pass off bogus pseudo-science from denier cult blogs as if it was actual science, but it is always just bullshit propaganda. His source this time is a nutjob blog called 'https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.'.

In the real world....from the experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center....

*Arctic sea ice before satellites*
JANUARY 2011
*What do we know about Arctic sea ice extent before the satellite records began in 1979? Those satellite records show that Arctic sea ice has been declining at an increasing pace since 1979 -- enough data to see a strong signal of climate change. But scientists also want to know what sea ice was like before satellites were there to observe it. What do we know about sea ice conditions before 1979, and how do we know that?
*
*

*
_*Sea ice charts of the Arctic Ocean show that ice extent has declined since at least the 1950s. Credit: NSIDC and the UK Hadley Center*_
*
Historical data on sea ice
To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s.  Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean.  However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2017)

And yet the graph I presented shows that the Arctic ice was even lower in the 1970-71 time frame than it is now.  Fully documented, but it exposes your lie for what it is, a lie.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> Conditions in context
> ...




About time,  those mile high glaciers in Illinois made it a bitch to go to work a few million years ago. ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> And yet the graph I presented shows that the Arctic ice was even lower in the 1970-71 time frame than it is now.  Fully documented, but it exposes your lie for what it is, a lie.


No, it does not. It shows a small percentage of ice north of Canada.






The little picture in the upper left hand corner of the graph shows the area that graph covers. Not a major portion of the Arctic Ice. You continue to push a lie.


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the graph I presented shows that the Arctic ice was even lower in the 1970-71 time frame than it is now.  Fully documented, but it exposes your lie for what it is, a lie.
> ...









But it is the most variable depending on the temps and the wind.  It is an excellent proxy for the conditions throughout the Arctic.  Kind of like how manns proxy's are supposed to be so useful to determine the global temp, only he used but a single tree, while this is a quite large region of the Arctic.  In other words olfraud, you fail, yet again.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the graph I presented shows that the Arctic ice was even lower in the 1970-71 time frame than it is now.  Fully documented, but it exposes your lie for what it is, a lie.
> ...


Here is that thumbnail in the upper left:




The white portions are 10/10 ice cover.
Do you actually believe that there is abruptly any less ice in the area lat 70N -long60W which Environment Canada did not survey?
One thing is for sure, the NW passage was not navigable without using ice breakers and even the Nares Straight between Ellesmere Island and Greenland was still frozen. Many times in the past it's open at that time.
The Hudson Bay ice cover is also perfectly normal for July and matter of fact this is mentioned here:
Hudson Bay Sea Ice Highest Since 1992  |  The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
_We are seeing one of the extremes in Hudson Bay sea ice variability this year, not only in extent but in distribution of ice. Ice coverage on Hudson Bay this year at 28 July was twice what it was in 2009, the last “late” ice breakup year for which detailed ice maps are available (409 vs. 204 thousand km2), according to NSIDC MASIE ice maps. Canadian Ice Service data show 2015 coverage for the week of 30 July was the highest since 1992.

The odd pattern of ice distribution presents a conundrum. Have a look at the maps and graphs below.

 The amount of sea ice left on Hudson Bay this year is comparable overall to the “good old days” (before every early breakup year was blamed on man-made global warming)_


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 23, 2017)

In the real world, this video graphic accurately represents the amount Arctic sea ice that has been lost in just the last three decades.

*PIOMAS sea ice volume minimum - credit: Andy Lee Robinson*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2017)

Sea Ice : Feature Articles

*The largest loss of sea ice is north of Siberia and Alaska. The area shown on that map retains a much higher percentage of ice due to ocean currents. You can readily see that on this map from last year. *


----------



## westwall (Mar 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> 
> *The largest loss of sea ice is north of Siberia and Alaska. The area shown on that map retains a much higher percentage of ice due to ocean currents. You can readily see that on this map from last year. *







Wow.  Would you look at that!  There's STILL ice up there.  So....when is it going to go away?  So far I think there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone....and still it is there.....laughing at you!


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2017)

Pretty sad commentary, Mr. Westwall. After all, you are the fellow that has continually predicted a major cooling, and it has just continued to get warmer. And, yes, there was still some ice last summer. But a 1000 passenger luxury cruise transited the Northwest Passage, and the Northeast Passage was also open.

And this year we are starting with the least ice at the maximum that we have ever seen at this time of year in the Arctic. And the same for the Antarctic, except it is the least they have ever seen at their low extent. And remains way below two standard deviations from the norm.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Pretty sad commentary, Mr. Westwall. After all, you are the fellow that has continually predicted a major cooling, and it has just continued to get warmer. And, yes, there was still some ice last summer. But a 1000 passenger luxury cruise transited the Northwest Passage, and the Northeast Passage was also open.
> 
> And this year we are starting with the least ice at the maximum that we have ever seen at this time of year in the Arctic. And the same for the Antarctic, except it is the least they have ever seen at their low extent. And remains way below two standard deviations from the norm.








No, it will be getting cooler.  Falsified, and massaged "data" don't count when you claim that the last year was the "warmest evah!"  The facts are that the world has not warmed over the last 20 years.  It is poised to experience a major drop in global temps as the Sun go's quiet.  That is a fact.  In another three years or so it will be so obvious that the world is getting colder that no amount of BS lies will be able to cover for your failed theory.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Pretty sad commentary, Mr. Westwall. After all, you are the fellow that has continually predicted a major cooling, and it has just continued to get warmer. And, yes, there was still some ice last summer. But a 1000 passenger luxury cruise transited the Northwest Passage, and the Northeast Passage was also open.



Actually, it hasn't continued to get warmer...just more fake science and fake news...it hasn't warmed in a couple of decades...

And as to the northwest passage, it has been open for most of the past 10,000 years.  This gold standard arctic temperature reconstruction derived from ice cores taken above the arctic circle clearly shows that for most of the past 10,000 years, it has been considerably warmer than it is now.  It also shows periods of temperature change far in excess of anything we have seen in much shorter periods of time...






You have shown some graphs produced by pseudoscientists producing fake science for the fake news claiming ice has been greater during that period, but they fly in the face of that gold standard temperature reconstruction...the graph below is of more recent vintage and correlates nicely with the GOLD STANDARD temperature reconstruction and shows that the volume of ice at present far far far exceeds the volume of ice the arctic has had for the majority of the past 10,000 years...it also shows quite clearly that the amount and rate of change the arctic has seen in the past far exceeds anything we have seen placing what slight warming there has been well within the bounds of natural variability...your claims of CO2 fueled disaster are just fake news supporting fake science...its all fake all the time with you rocks.






And this year we are starting with the least ice at the maximum that we have ever seen at this time of year in the Arctic. And the same for the Antarctic, except it is the least they have ever seen at their low extent. And remains way below two standard deviations from the norm.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty sad commentary, Mr. Westwall. After all, you are the fellow that has continually predicted a major cooling, and it has just continued to get warmer. And, yes, there was still some ice last summer. But a 1000 passenger luxury cruise transited the Northwest Passage, and the Northeast Passage was also open.
> ...


LOL  We have heard this song and dance from you before. And all it has done is warm. And it will continue to warm. And you will continue to lie about that warming. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> 
> *The largest loss of sea ice is north of Siberia and Alaska. The area shown on that map retains a much higher percentage of ice due to ocean currents. You can readily see that on this map from last year. *





westwall said:


> Wow.  Would you look at that!  There's STILL ice up there.  So....when is it going to go away?  So far I think there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone....and still it is there.....laughing at you!



It is only in your fraudulent, deliberately deceptive denier cult mythologies that "_there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone_". 

In the real world, not too many years ago, the consensus among climate scientists studying the Arctic was that it might take until 2100 for the Arctic to be ice free in the summers.....now, after watching the unexpected speed at which the ice cap is melting, most of these scientists are saying that it will probably be ice free by 2030 or possibly sooner. It has never been the scientific consensus that the north polar ice would all be melted by now.

The world is laughing at you anti-science, reality-challenged denier cult nutjobs.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  We have heard this song and dance from you before. And all it has done is warm. And it will continue to warm. And you will continue to lie about that warming. LOL



Sorry rocks....the only place it is warming is in computer models...and tortured data records....and I damned well hope it continues to warm...cold is the killer...not warmth.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  We have heard this song and dance from you before. And all it has done is warm. And it will continue to warm. And you will continue to lie about that warming. LOL





SSDD said:


> Sorry rocks....the only place it is warming is in computer models...and tortured data records....and I damned well hope it continues to warm...cold is the killer...not warmth.



You are either a paid troll pushing bullshit for money, or you are an insane retard, completely lost in a delusional rightwingnut fantasy world full of crackpot conspiracy theories, SSoooDDumb. Nobody with even half a brain can honestly look at the evidence and then say that kind of wacko nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> You are either a paid troll pushing bullshit for money, or you are an insane retard, completely lost in a delusional rightwingnut fantasy world full of crackpot conspiracy theories, SSoooDDumb. Nobody with even half a brain can honestly look at the evidence and then say that kind of wacko nonsense.



Nope...I am just a guy who doesn't believe bullshit promoted without the first shred of actual evidence...you, on the other hand, described yourself to a T.

And I would suggest that you believe that bullshit precisely because you only have half a brain.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> ...


That's why these boat loads of idiots get stuck in the ice on their global warming cruises.
They figure these pictures are satellite images instead of computer generated color coded graphics.
It's happening at both poles and on occasion even ice breakers got stuck in the non-existing ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2017)

You go where the ice is, you take the chance of getting stuck. Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Mr. Westwall presented a map and graph and tried to claim the graph represented the whole of the Arctic. He is a liar, do you intend to repeat his lies?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> You go where the ice is, you take the chance of getting stuck. Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Mr. Westwall presented a map and graph and tried to claim the graph represented the whole of the Arctic. He is a liar, do you intend to repeat his lies?


How was he lying? It was not the whole arctic but did show the part you keep harping on.
The stuff you keep posting are not maps. They are washed data reprocessed into color coded gifs & jpegs.
In the process the sat radar scan return is stuffed into arbitrary categories which clips off everything below 15% and for everything above 100% ice cover it uses an average thickness.
Then they proceed and morph that amputation into a total ice volume, these ridiculous spaghetti graphs you keep posting
Reality looks a lot different from these graphs and digital art pictures:


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

In the real world....here is NASA's satellite photography.....actual photographic evidence.










_*This image shows the multiyear sea ice in 1980.*_





*This image shows the multiyear sea ice in 2012. 
*


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> ...








Show us the science then silly boy.  Show us the science.  Not computer generated fiction.  But real science.  Go ahead, I dare you.


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> In the real world....here is NASA's satellite photography.....actual photographic evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








No junior.  Those are computer generated cartoons.  Sheesh you're dumb.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> 
> *The largest loss of sea ice is north of Siberia and Alaska. The area shown on that map retains a much higher percentage of ice due to ocean currents. You can readily see that on this map from last year. *





westwall said:


> Wow.  Would you look at that!  There's STILL ice up there.  So....when is it going to go away?  So far I think there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone....and still it is there.....laughing at you!





RollingThunder said:


> It is only in your fraudulent, deliberately deceptive denier cult mythologies that "_there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone_".
> 
> In the real world, not too many years ago, the consensus among climate scientists studying the Arctic was that it might take until 2100 for the Arctic to be ice free in the summers.....now, after watching the unexpected speed at which the ice cap is melting, most of these scientists are saying that it will probably be ice free by 2030 or possibly sooner. It has never been the scientific consensus that the north polar ice would all be melted by now.
> 
> The world is laughing at you anti-science, reality-challenged denier cult nutjobs.





westwall said:


> Show us the science then silly boy.  Show us the science.  Not computer generated fiction.  But real science.  Go ahead, I dare you.



OK, little retard, here ya go....


*NOAA: 'Arctic Is Warming at Least Twice as Fast as the Rest of the Planet'*
Dec. 14, 2016
*The Arctic broke multiple climate records and saw its highest temperatures ever recorded this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) annual Arctic Report Card released Tuesday. 





Map: Temperatures across the Arctic from October 2015-September 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 average. Graph: Yearly temperatures since 1900 compared to the 1981-2010 average for the Arctic (orange line) and the globe (gray).NOAA

The report shows surface air temperature in September at the highest level since 1900 "by far" and the region set new monthly record highs in January, February, October and November. "The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," report author and NOAA climate scientist Jeremy Mathis told NPR.

Report Card Highlights

* The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900 and new monthly record highs were recorded for January, February, October and November 2016.

* After only modest changes from 2013-2015, minimum sea ice extent at the end of summer 2016 tied with 2007 for the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.

* Spring snow cover extent in the North American Arctic was the lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1967.

* In 37 years of Greenland ice sheet observations, only one year had earlier onset of spring melting than 2016.

* The Arctic Ocean is especially prone to ocean acidification, due to water temperatures that are colder than those further south. The short Arctic food chain leaves Arctic marine ecosystems vulnerable to ocean acidification events.

* Thawing permafrost releases carbon into the atmosphere, whereas greening tundra absorbs atmospheric carbon. Overall, tundra is presently releasing net carbon into the atmosphere.

* Small Arctic mammals, such as shrews, and their parasites, serve as indicators for present and historical environmental variability. Newly acquired parasites indicate northward sifts of sub-Arctic species and increases in Arctic biodiversity.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> ...


,







No retarded one, that is yet more computer derived fiction.  Do you even _*KNOW*_ what is real and what isn't?   I am beginning to think not.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> No retarded one, that is yet more computer derived fiction.  Do you even _*KNOW*_ what is real and what isn't?   I am beginning to think not.



Of course he can't differentiate between what is real and what isn't...none of them can.  If they had their feet planted firmly in reality, they wouldn't be victims of the scam.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Sea Ice : Feature Articles
> 
> *The largest loss of sea ice is north of Siberia and Alaska. The area shown on that map retains a much higher percentage of ice due to ocean currents. You can readily see that on this map from last year. *





westwall said:


> Wow.  Would you look at that!  There's STILL ice up there.  So....when is it going to go away?  So far I think there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone....and still it is there.....laughing at you!





RollingThunder said:


> It is only in your fraudulent, deliberately deceptive denier cult mythologies that "_there have been 2 or 3 different years that have come and gone where the ice was going to be gone_".
> 
> In the real world, not too many years ago, the consensus among climate scientists studying the Arctic was that it might take until 2100 for the Arctic to be ice free in the summers.....now, after watching the unexpected speed at which the ice cap is melting, most of these scientists are saying that it will probably be ice free by 2030 or possibly sooner. It has never been the scientific consensus that the north polar ice would all be melted by now.
> 
> The world is laughing at you anti-science, reality-challenged denier cult nutjobs.





westwall said:


> Show us the science then silly boy.  Show us the science.  Not computer generated fiction.  But real science.  Go ahead, I dare you.





RollingThunder said:


> OK, little retard, here ya go....
> 
> 
> *NOAA: 'Arctic Is Warming at Least Twice as Fast as the Rest of the Planet'*
> ...


,





westwall said:


> No retarded one, that is yet more computer derived fiction.


Nope, you poor deluded imbecile, that is *science*, something you moronically deny.

And these are NOT "_computer derived fiction_", as your wacko anti-science denier cult myths tell you....they are, *in fact*, real images of the Arctic ice extent derived from NASA satellite photography.





_*This image shows the multiyear sea ice in 1980.*_





*This image shows the multiyear sea ice in 2012. 
*


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2017)

"Image"..  Not a photograph nimrod.  In other words it is made up, fictional, not reality.


----------



## Crick (Mar 25, 2017)

Derived from NASA satellite photography.

If you think they're false, show us WHY you think so and show us what you think the multi-year ice has actually done - using a reliable source, of course.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> "Image"..  Not a photograph nimrod.  In other words it is made up, fictional, not reality.


You are so stupid, walleyed, you don't understand what simple words actually mean. "_Image_" DOES NOT MEAN "_made up, fictional, not reality_", you poor deluded dumbshit.

In the real world....

*Image - noun
* a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

* an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.

* form; appearance; counterpart; copy.

verb
* to picture or represent.

* to reflect the likeness of.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> "Image"..  Not a photograph nimrod.  In other words it is made up, fictional, not reality.


You are so stupid, walleyed, you don't understand what simple words actually mean. "_Image_" DOES NOT MEAN "_made up, fictional, not reality_", you poor deluded dumbshit.

NASA does indeed take photographs with orbital satellites of the entire Earth, including the Arctic. Those actual real world photos are what is used to generate those comparison pictures of Arctic ice loss that I posted.

In the real world....

*Image - noun
* a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

* an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.

* form; appearance; counterpart; copy.

verb
* to picture or represent.

* to reflect the likeness of.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 25, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "Image"..  Not a photograph nimrod.  In other words it is made up, fictional, not reality.
> ...








"LIKENESS OF".  In other words, dumbshit, they can make it look however they wish.  It is not an "ACCURATE REPRESENTATION."  Look up the difference silly boy.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> "Image"..  Not a photograph nimrod.  In other words it is made up, fictional, not reality.





RollingThunder said:


> You are so stupid, walleyed, you don't understand what simple words actually mean. "_Image_" DOES NOT MEAN "_made up, fictional, not reality_", you poor deluded dumbshit.
> 
> NASA does indeed take photographs with orbital satellites of the entire Earth, including the Arctic. Those actual real world photos are what is used to generate those comparison pictures of Arctic ice loss that I posted.
> 
> In the real world....





RollingThunder said:


> *Image
> - noun
> * a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
> 
> ...





westwall said:


> "LIKENESS OF".  In other words, dumbshit, they can make it look however they wish.  It is not an "ACCURATE REPRESENTATION."  Look up the difference silly boy.



"_LIKENESS OF_" *DOES NOT MEAN* "_they can make it look however they wish", _you poor deluded retard. The images from NASA that I posted are, in fact, very "_ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS_" of the satellite photography.

Your demented denial of this fact rests entirely on your insanely crackpot belief that all of the world's scientists who study some aspect of the Earth's climate systems are *ALL* part of a huge conspiracy to falsify their data.....and you are too stupid and too much of a troll to realize how absolutely insane you sound.


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2017)

Westwall, he is correct.  The arguments you've all fallen back on all require a massive, near universal and perfectly executed conspiracy lasting decades.  The idea is insane on its face.  Look at yourself.  Is this how you want the world to perceive you?  Insane?  Ignorant?  Self-deluded?  Have the balls to admit what the evidence actually says.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> Derived from NASA satellite photography.
> 
> If you think they're false, show us WHY you think so and show us what you think the multi-year ice has actually done - using a reliable source, of course.


Okay why don't you try and find a genuine image showing the polar ice cover.
google it using this or any other search term and choose "image".
ice cover satellite image - Google Search
All you get is stuff like this:





Is it real or is it "memorex" ?
It's not real:
_This image was compiled using data gathered by NASA's Aqua satellite on Sept. 3, 2010. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio_
Obviously so, just look at the colors on the land  mass. That's how a photo of a globe you can get at Walmart looks like.

There are real images_:



_
For some strange reason they will not post a real image like this one of the entire arctic region or post all the segment images to give you a complete set.


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2017)

And here is a real image of today's Arctic ice extents



*Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year*
March 22, 2017


Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 7. This is the lowest maximum in the 38-year satellite record. NSIDC will post a detailed analysis of the 2016 to 2017 winter sea ice conditions in our regular monthly post in early April.
*Overview of conditions*
On March 7, 2017, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.42 million square kilometers (5.57 million square miles), the lowest in the 38-year satellite record. This year’s maximum extent is 1.22 million square kilometers (471,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 97,000 square kilometers (37,000 square miles) below the previous lowest maximum that occurred on February 25, 2015. This year’s maximum is 100,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles) below the 2016 maximum, which is now third lowest. (In 2016, we reported that year’s maximum as the lowest and 2015 the second lowest. An update to the Sea Ice Index last summer has changed our numbers slightly.)

www.nsidc.org


----------



## Crick (Mar 26, 2017)

And if you'd like to argue that your images are real and mine aren't, I'll show you photographs of dinosaurs, blue aliens and women with three breasts.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> For some strange reason they will not post a real image like this one of the entire arctic region or post all the segment images to give you a complete set.



That's because of things called "clouds" that make visual spectrum images useless for determining total sea ice extent

You understand what a cloud is, and how clouds will block visible light, right? Given the near-complete lack of scientific knowledge and engineering common sense displayed by essentially all conservatives on every subject, I have to start by asking about such basic concepts.

Ice extent maps are generated from satellite microwave sounder instruments, which are unaffected by clouds. Here's an example.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 4, 2017)

Meanwhile....back on topic in the real world....Arctic ice is significantly lower in extent so far this year than it was back in 2012, the last '_lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record_' year.....the previous record low extent having occurred in 2007. If this trend continues through to the minimum extent in mid-September, 2017 will easily wind up as the new '_lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record_' year.

To give you an idea of the scale of the recent ice losses as the Arctic melts, 2012's minimum sea ice extent was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007.  This is an area about the size of the state of Texas.

Looking at it in a larger context, the September 2012 minimum was 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, which is an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. The minimum extent in 2012 was 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. The decline in sea ice extent this year, 2017, looks like it may wind up being even larger.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2017)

Crick said:


> Derived from NASA satellite photography.
> 
> If you think they're false, show us WHY you think so and show us what you think the multi-year ice has actually done - using a reliable source, of course.









Sooooo, if it is "derived" why change it?  "Derived" implies change.  How about posting what was ACTUALLY photographed?  Maybe because what is being photographed doesn't conform to pre conceived ideas?

Kind of like this "enhanced image" provided by NASA....?

This is what they produced based on data "derived" from the satellite.








But this is what the satellite actually recorded.  Kind of a huge difference don't ya think?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2017)

What a fucked up liar you are, Mr. Westwall. You cherry pick one period, and try to pretend that represents the whole year. You are as fucked up mentally as your orange clown idol.

NASA Viz: A New Picture of Carbon Dioxide


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> What a fucked up liar you are, Mr. Westwall. You cherry pick one period, and try to pretend that represents the whole year. You are as fucked up mentally as your orange clown idol.
> 
> NASA Viz: A New Picture of Carbon Dioxide








Yeah, it's fun to "visualize" when you get to play with the data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> What a fucked up liar you are, Mr. Westwall. You cherry pick one period, and try to pretend that represents the whole year. You are as fucked up mentally as your orange clown idol.
> 
> NASA Viz: A New Picture of Carbon Dioxide


^ totally faked


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2017)

Figure 4 : Processed data from Nov 16 – Dec 31, 2014






Figure 5 : Processed data from Jan 1 – Feb 15, 2015






Figure 6 : Processed data from Feb 16 – Mar 31, 2015






Figure 7 : Processed data from Apr 1 – May 15, 2015





Figure 8 : Processed data from May 16 – Jun 30, 2015






Figure 9 : Processed data from Jul 1 – Aug 15, 2015

Also, reader “edimbukvarevic” provides this map of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for comparison:






Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations

*A lie by misdirection is still a lie, Mr. Westwall, and you again stand branded a liar by your own posts.*


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 5, 2017)

* Satellite sees "lumpy" layer of CO2 *






*An instrument aboard a seven-year-old satellite designed to help weather forecasters is proving to be a powerful new tool in climate monitoring by detecting the distribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. *

And it turns out, NASA scientists say - contrary to conventional thinking that the greenhouse gas is spread uniformly over the planet in a well mixed layer - the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder instrument detects a distinctly "lumpy" pattern of CO2 in the mid-troposphere some 3-7 miles up.

Scientists reported their findings this week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

This NASA image shows the *the monthly average of carbon dioxide in the middle of the troposphere made from data acquired by the infrared sounder during July 2009.* These maps are the first-ever depictions of the global distribution of CO2 based solely on observations.​

*NASA Satellite Sends Back Most Detailed View of CO2*

_Published:_ *December 18th, 2014*
SAN FRANCISCO — It’s been a busy five months for NASA’s newest carbon dioxide-monitoring satellite, snapping up to 1 million measurements a day of how carbon dioxide moves across the planet. Now NASA scientists have shared the first global maps created using that data, showing one of the most detailed views of CO2 ever created.



 CO2 concentrations around the world in early November.
*Click image to enlarge. *Credit: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

*The satellite — known as OCO-2 — has been in orbit since July.* While it’s returned some preliminary data, NASA showed off its global reach for the first time on Thursday at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting.

According to deputy project science Annmarie Eldering, previous CO2-monitoring satellites were returning just 1-2 percent of the data that OCO-2 is sending back to Earth. And while the satellite can’t peer through clouds, it has still provided scientists with a staggering amount of information to create comprehensive maps of CO2 and plant growth.

“Measuring an atmospheric gas to a fraction of a percent makes OCO-2 one of the most challenging remote sensing missions that have ever been attempted,” Paul Wennberg, a professor at Caltech, said.

And yet all systems appear to be go and if preliminary results are anything to judge by, the data should be fascinating. NASA showed off two maps that are an amalgamation of 600,000 measurements taken over 12 days from the end of October.

*The first map shows CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.* Hot spots over the Eastern Seaboard and parts of China are clearly visible, a sign of the heavy industry on the ground.  South America and parts of Africa also show high CO2 levels, which scientists said is most likely due to burning fields and forest to clear them for agriculture.​
Different years, different times of the year, different instruments, different measurements (atmosphere vs. middle of the troposphere).

Staggering.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Figure 4 : Processed data from Nov 16 – Dec 31, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Indeed it is.  Which is why i find it amusing that you can post these "processed" images and not realize they are fake.  It takes a special breed of stupid to not figure that one out.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 5, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Figure 4 : Processed data from Nov 16 – Dec 31, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> ...





westwall said:


> Indeed it is.  Which is why i find it amusing that you can post these "processed" images and not realize they are fake.  It takes a special breed of stupid to not figure that one out.



Actually, in the real world......"_it takes a special breed of_" *utterly insane crackpots* to dive so deep into pathologically crazy conspiracy theory ideation that you actually seriously imagine that there is a world wide conspiracy by *almost all of the scientists on the planet* to "_fake_" *ALL* of the evidence supporting human caused, CO2 driven global warming. Plus the obvious insanity of your unspoken background assumption that you are an omniscient super-genius who can spot this omni-present scientific fakery that passes peer-review because you are way smarter than _everybody_ else. LOLOLOLOLOL........too bad you are so crazy, walleyed, on top of such severe retardation.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2017)

Back-to-back big northeasters, and increased calving off of Greenland due to warming, and what do you get? More icebergs pushed by the wind into the shipping lanes.

Huge fleet of icebergs hits North Atlantic shipping lanes
---
More than 400 icebergs have drifted into the North Atlantic shipping lanes over the past week in an unusually large swarm for this early in the season, forcing vessels to slow to a crawl or take detours of hundreds of kilometres.
---


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Back-to-back big northeasters, and increased calving off of Greenland due to warming, and what do you get? More icebergs pushed by the wind into the shipping lanes.
> 
> Huge fleet of icebergs hits North Atlantic shipping lanes
> ---
> ...


There would be even more calving if the ice uphill were more massive than it is. A large mass of ice is not solid rock.
Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 56, No. 200, 2010
Creep and plasticity of glacier ice: a material science perspective.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Back-to-back big northeasters, and increased calving off of Greenland due to warming, and what do you get? More icebergs pushed by the wind into the shipping lanes.
> 
> Huge fleet of icebergs hits North Atlantic shipping lanes
> ---
> ...





polarbear said:


> There would be even more calving if the ice uphill were more massive than it is. A large mass of ice is not solid rock.
> Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 56, No. 200, 2010
> Creep and plasticity of glacier ice: a material science perspective.



Your usual meaningless, ignorant, reality-free twaddle, poop4brains.

In the real world....a sudden dramatic increase in the number of icebergs compared to previous years indicates that the glaciers on the coast of Greenland are moving faster than before....and they are moving faster because the planet is heating up.

*The Greenland ice sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), roughly 80%    of the surface of Greenland. It is the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometres (1,500 mi) long in a north-south direction, and its greatest width is 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern margin. The mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 metres (7,005 ft).[1] The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.2 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point. It is not the only ice mass of Greenland – isolated glaciers and small ice caps cover between 76,000 and 100,000 square kilometres (29,000 and 39,000 sq mi) around the periphery. If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt, it would let ad to a global [sea level rise of 7.2 m (24 ft).[2] The Greenland Ice Sheet is sometimes referred to under the term inland ice. It is also sometimes referred to as an ice cap.




Outline map of Greenland with ice sheet depths. 

Many scientists who study the ice melt in Greenland consider that a two or three °C temperature rise would result in a complete melting of Greenland’s ice.[5] Positioned in the Arctic, the Greenland ice sheet is especially vulnerable to climate change. Arctic climate is believed to be now rapidly warming and much larger Arctic shrinkage changes are projected.[6] The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years since detailed records have been kept and is likely to contribute substantially to sea level rise as well as to possible changes in ocean circulation in the future if this is sustained. The area of the sheet that experiences melting has been argued to have increased by about 16% between 1979 (when measurements started) and 2002 (most recent data). The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records.[6] The number of glacial earthquakes at the Helheim Glacier and the northwest Greenland glaciers increased substantially between 1993 and 2005.[7] In 2006, estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year. A more recent study, based on reprocessed and improved data between 2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers (47 cu mi) per year.[8] These measurements came from the US space agency's GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, launched in 2002, as reported by BBC.[9] Using data from two ground-observing satellites, ICESAT and ASTER, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters (September 2008) shows that nearly 75 percent of the loss of Greenland's ice can be traced back to small coastal glaciers.[10]

If the entire 2,850,000 km3 (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise 7.2 m (24 ft).[2] Recently, fears have grown that continued climate change will make the Greenland Ice Sheet cross a threshold where long-term melting of the ice sheet is inevitable. Climate models project that local warming in Greenland will be 3 °C (5 °F) to 9 °C (16 °F) during this century. Ice sheet models project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the ice sheet (over centuries), resulting in a global sea level rise of about 7 metres (23 ft).[6] Such a rise would inundate almost every major coastal city in the world. How fast the melt would eventually occur is a matter of discussion. According to the IPCC 2001 report,[2] such warming would, if kept from rising further after the 21st Century, result in 1 to 5 meter sea level rise over the next millennium due to Greenland ice sheet melting. Some scientists have cautioned that these rates of melting are overly optimistic as they assume a linear, rather than erratic, progression. James E. Hansen has argued that multiple positive feedbacks could lead to nonlinear ice sheet disintegration much faster than claimed by the IPCC. According to a 2007 paper, "we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in paleoclimate data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway."[11]
*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2017)

But will it help?






*LOL*


----------

