"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[Crick]

Satellite data reported by NOAA is even less reliable than the turkeys at NOAA taking temperature readings on the ground.

MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% of U.S. Climate Data Are Corrupted - The Heartland Institute

Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots

www.heartland.org

Bullshit. Given the very close agreement between all the various government agencies producing global temperature data, the odds of it being unreliable - inaccurate - are infinitesimal.

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Flash]

Bullshit. Given the very close agreement between all the various government agencies producing global temperature data, the odds of it being unreliable - inaccurate - are infinitesimal.

View attachment 715268

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

View attachment 715270

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your stupid graphs are mostly based upon false and cherry picked data. Nobody knows what the worldwide temperature was in 1850. Temperature was only measured in a few European and American cities and large parts of the Southern hemisphere and Asia were not recorded. Nobody knows if the temperature change (if any) is natural or man made. Nobody knows what the worldwide temperature of the earth is today because the data is unreliable. For instance, Europe had record heat this summer but the Southern hemisphere had record cool temperature.

I have explained that to you numerous times but you continue to have peanut butter in your ears. You are fucking idiot. Typical for an uneducated Moon Bat.

 

[jc456]

Incorrect. They intend to replace electricity generated from fossil fuels with electricity generated from renewables.

“…As president, Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050…”

Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice | Joe Biden

Joe Biden knows climate change is the greatest threat facing our country and our world, and he has a bold plan for a clean energy revolution.

joebiden.com

ok so, it's added right now then right? why are you shying away from just admitting you fked up?

 

[jc456]

Bullshit. Given the very close agreement between all the various government agencies producing global temperature data, the odds of it being unreliable - inaccurate - are infinitesimal.

View attachment 715268

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

climate.nasa.gov

View attachment 715270

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

you personally can't state the data isn't corrupt. Not even on the planet for that thought.

 

[Crick]

Your stupid graphs are mostly based upon false and cherry picked data.

Your stupid comment is based on lies and ignorance. The raw data and its processing used in the production of those graphs is all publicly available. Additionally, those data are used professionally by thousands of scientists on a day-to-day basis and they would be screaming if they were being fed lies. Yet none of them scream about it. NONE. The charge that all the world's climate scientists are in some huge, monstrous and somehow PERFECTLY secure conspiracy to lie to the world in order to get research grants or to return us to the stone age or to simply destroy civilization is an IDIOTIC FANTASY. I can bury you in data and you know it. You don't have a fucking SPECK of support for this charge. NOT ONE FUCKING SPECK.

Nobody knows what the worldwide temperature was in 1850.

We don't KNOW what the worldwide temperature is TODAY. But climate scientists can make a pretty good estimate. And they can make a pretty good estimate for 1850 as well.

And let me point something out. Imagine I wanted to keep track of the temperature in my front yard, at high noon, over the course of a year. But the only thing I have to measure it with is a cheap thermometer that's never been calibrated (and I don't know how to do it). But I go ahead and carefully record what that thermometer says every day at high noon using as close to the precise same methodology every time. What we will get is a set of data that may well have a positive or negative bias from reality but whose RELATIVE changes - the amount of increase and decrease it shows taking place - matching what a calibrated version of the same instrument would show. This is like the brief disagreement I had with jc546 or crusader frank or the like - or maybe you - who claimed it was necessary to know the exact temperature in 1850 to tell whether or not it had warmed since then. It is not.

Temperature was only measured in a few European and American cities and large parts of the Southern hemisphere and Asia were not recorded.

Which is why scientists use models and proxies.

Nobody knows if the temperature change (if any) is natural or man made.

The science and its data show us several different factors that can raise or lower the Earth's temperatures. Observations and studies of all those factors tells us that the only one with an effect sufficient to have caused the observed warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on the GHGs that human use of fossil fuels has added to the atmosphere. I know you have seen the radiative forcing diagrams that have been posted here dozens of times.

Nobody knows what the worldwide temperature of the earth is today because the data is unreliable.

The data is as reliable as it can be. If you think otherwise, you need to tell us WHY.

For instance, Europe had record heat this summer but the Southern hemisphere had record cool temperature.

How do you know that if the data is all unreliable?

I have explained that to you numerous times but you continue to have peanut butter in your ears. You are fucking idiot. Typical for an uneducated Moon Bat.

You haven't explained jack shit because you have NO science supporting your ignorant assertions.

 

[jc456]

The raw data and its processing used in the production of those graphs is all publicly available. Additionally, those data are used professionally by thousands of scientists on a day-to-day basis and they would be screaming if they were being fed lies.

no one is challenging this. They are challenging the viability of the data. not that it's not publicly available. what a tac

 

[jc456]

You haven't explained jack shit because you have NO science supporting your ignorant assertions.

Ok, are you going to post the agency/ group not funded by the government that agrees with your nonsense yet?

 

[Crick]

no one is challenging this. They are challenging the viability of the data. not that it's not publicly available. what a tac

Are you that stupid? That is PRECISELY what he is challenging.

 

[jc456]

Are you that stupid? That is PRECISELY what he is challenging.

cherry picked data I believe is what he stated.

 

[Crick]

cherry picked data I believe is what he stated.

Do you believe that if the data were cherry picked, that could NOT be ascertained by a third party's examination?

 

[jc456]

Do you believe that if the data were cherry picked, that could NOT be ascertained by a third party's examination?

Cherry picking is self explanatory.

I asked you to state an agency or group not funded by governments that agree with your nonsense.

 

[Crick]

Cherry picking is self explanatory.

I asked you to state an agency or group not funded by governments that agree with your nonsense.

I never saw such a question, but then, I have had you on Ignore for a very long while. There is nothing wrong with these data or the agencies that produce it. However, Berkeley Earth is not a government agency. Does that help?

 

[jc456]

However, Berkeley Earth is not a government agency. Does that help?

They are funded by the government

 

[Crick]

They are funded by the government

I have gone far beyond what is required of me here to validate and link to reliable sources. If you want to see data from someone else, go out and fucking find them yourself.

By the way, you ARE a fucking idiot. From Wikipedia's article on Berkeley Earth:

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

 

[EMH]

They have no ocean rise, because there is no ongoing net ice melt.

That is why they lie about sinking islands in the South Pacific.


Fudge does not melt ice...sorry.

 

[jc456]

I have gone far beyond what is required of me here to validate and link to reliable sources. If you want to see data from someone else, go out and fucking find them yourself.

By the way, you ARE a fucking idiot. From Wikipedia's article on Berkeley Earth:

Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how Berkeley Earth conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

Educational grants from whom?

 

[Crick]

Educational grants from whom?

TROLL

 

[jc456]

TROLL

Follow the money

 

[Crick]

Follow the money

TROLL

 

[flacaltenn]

Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.

Discovery of ‘fingerprint’ confirms alarming predictions of Greenland ice sheet melt

The findings, possible with the help of high-resolution satellite observations, detail the unique pattern of sea level change linked to the Greenland ice sheet.

www.nbcnews.com

Funny thing about this "fingerprint science" for which NO COURSES are taught in universities - it would show only "ice losses" -- but NEVER "ice gains". So the Greenland ice could LOSE and GAIN every 3rd year -- and it never would be accounted for.

And the idea of fitting ONE (fairly) linear process to another linear process is iffy at best. It's NOT proof of causation. Bet I'll concede that Greenland ice loss HAS raised sea levels and they would REMAIN RAISED even if Greenland doubled in ice next decade.