Polar ice caps same size as 1979

[Faun]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

These numbnuts make up whatever's convenient for them.

 

[task0778]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

These numbnuts make up whatever's convenient for them.

What a coincidence.

 

[mamooth]

I also know that there have been no leads such as those in the 1987 picture since then.

If you're not babbling pseudoscience crankery yet another time, you'll be able to show everyone the evidence to back up your insane claim that there have been no leads in the ice since 1987. That means actual evidence, and not just more of your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" ramblings, which are all you've showed us so far.

If you are just babbling pseudoscience crankery, you'll snarl out some insults, reiterate your kook political conspiracy theory yet another time, and then pointedly refuse to back up your deranged claim in any way.

Please proceed.

 

[toobfreak]

You? An "image expert???"



Let's put this to a test .... Obama's two documents of birth he had posted online .... real or fake?

Right. You are going to "test" me on my knowledge by how I answer your question to an issue you have no idea the true answer to. FWIW, the Record of Birth was proven altered in Adobe Photoshop making it not genuine, and I personally know the expert who examined it, his name is Reed Hayes. He is the top FDE in Hawaii where the documents reside.

 

[Faun]

You? An "image expert???"



Let's put this to a test .... Obama's two documents of birth he had posted online .... real or fake?

Right. You are going to "test" me on my knowledge by how I answer your question to an issue you have no idea the true answer to. FWIW, the Record of Birth was proven altered in Adobe Photoshop making it not genuine, and I personally know the expert who examined it, his name is Reed Hayes. He is the top FDE in Hawaii where the documents reside.

LOLOL

I knew you were a fraud. Thanks for confirming it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

BUT.......BUT............WE MUST SAVE THE POLAR BEARS FROM DROWNING!

 

[mamooth]

More actual science:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

http://webs.ono.com/reclim11/reclim16a.pdf

 

[toobfreak]

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

Another person posting like a fool who obviously does not even read other people's posts. I AM an image expert, don't give a crap whether you believe that or not, don't need to prove a thing to you, and WHAT I SAID was that just because someone has an image and posts it to the web and says its from NASA, the nature of digital is that anything can be faked, anything changed, so the image would need corroboration! That said, the other thing I said is that the image, I don't care if you have FIFTY others just like it, PROVES NOTHING over such a short time frame. It is a fallacy to assume that trends will continue in the same directions over a longer period both before and after the alleged time frame without scientific evidence to back it up. Random normal variations in climatic cycles can produce such melting, then ten years from now or thirty, the ice could be back thicker and larger than ever.

Wouldn't it be funny if politicians enact sweeping environmental restrictions on carbon crushing industry, losing jobs, then a few years after we begin into the next mini-ice age and they are scrambling looking for ways to warm things up and wish they had that little bit of CO2, etc., to try to keep more heat in???!

 

[mamooth]

You'd think an "image expert" would know that sea ice extent isn't calculated from any image. It's taken from the raw numerical data that the microwave sounders return. Images are just a convenient way to display things for us, as they're easier to look at than a giant array of numbers.

Hence, the "but the images are altered!" conspiracy theories look especially dopey, as do the people who peddle them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

What about data from NSIDC?



Here faun since you like Cartoons ..





.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

What about data from NSIDC?



Here faun since you like Cartoons ..





.

You'd think an "image expert" would know that sea ice extent isn't calculated from any image. It's taken from the raw numerical data that the microwave sounders return. Images are just a convenient way to display things for us, as they're easier to look at than a giant array of numbers.

Hence, the "but the images are altered!" conspiracy theories look especially dopey, as do the people who peddle them.

Here is the link for the data from the National Snow and Ice Center ..




filenames=list.files(path=”C:/agw/sea ice/north sea ice/nasateam daily/”, pattern = NULL, all.files = TRUE, full.names = FALSE, recursive = TRUE)
trend=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)
date=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)
masktrend=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)

for(i in 1length(filenames)-1))
{
fn=paste(”C:/agw/sea ice/north sea ice/nasateam daily/”,filenames,sep=””) #folder containing sea ice files

a=file(fn,”rb”)
header= readBin(a,n=102,what=integer(),size=1,endian=”little”,signed=FALSE)
year=readChar(a,n=6)
print(year)
day=readChar(a,n=6)
print(day)
header=readChar(a,n=300-114)
data=readBin(a,n=304*448,what=integer(),size=1,endian=”little”,signed=FALSE)
close(a)

if(as.integer(year)+1900<=2500)
{
date=1900+as.integer(year)+as.integer(day)/365
}else
{
date=as.integer(year)+as.integer(day)/365
}
if(i==1)
{
holemask= !(data==251)
}
datamask=data<251 & data>37 ## 15% of lower values masked out to match NSIDC

trend=sum(data[(datamask*holemask)==1])/250*625
}

###mask out satellite F15
satname=substring(filenames,18,20)
satmask= satname==”f15″

newtrend=trend[!satmask]
newdate=date[!satmask]



.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

What about data from NSIDC?



Here faun since you like Cartoons ..





.

Great, so you agree the images are accurate. That aside, you'll note, despite the OP's claim the polar ice caps are the same as they were in 1979, they are not the same...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, almost the same.

Sorry faun, but as an expert image analyst and image processor, I don't believe everything I see. Want me to tell you all about digital? Do you want to know how easily I can make that polar ice totally disappear, put it back as it was or even move the countries around to put Russia where Canada ought to be? Takes more than an internet posted exif-jpeg picture to convince me. Besides, so what if the ice did melt over a few years? As I pointed out earlier, what matters is LONG-TERM variation. 5 years from now, all that ice could be right back. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

LOL What a fool you are. You come here and state that you are an image expert and that the data from NASA is fake. Yet you give nothing to back that up with. Next you will be like Silly Billy and claiming that you are an atmospheric physicist, while posting drivel that indicates that you don't understand the simplest of physics.

If NASA is faking the data, how come the satellites from the EU, Japan, China, and Russia are seeing the same thing? And why would every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University all say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Are you positing an international conspiracy involving millions of scientists? Is your little tin hat on a bit too tight?

What about data from NSIDC?



Here faun since you like Cartoons ..





.

Great, so you agree the images are accurate. That aside, you'll note, despite the OP's claim the polar ice caps are the same as they were in 1979, they are not the same...

Great what, you watch the entire video?...it was interesting actually

.

 

[IanC]

The polar ice caps have shrunk over the last 35 years but there is no death spiral. The ice is also cyclical, and '79 was a high point.

 

[mamooth]

The ice is also cyclical, and '79 was a high point.

The data I posted shows that's bullshit. There is no cycle. 1979 was not a high point.

That's been pointed out to you before, and you don't care. You say what your religion tells you to say, regardless of what the data says.

 

[IanC]

Redirect Notice

IPCC graph showing that '79 was high. Other data from other sources show ice levels going higher and lower during last century.

 

[mamooth]

IPCC graph showing that '79 was high

1975 is higher, so your own graph disproves your claim.

It's also a cherrypciking fallacy in multiple ways. You refuse to look back further, when extents were higher. And you refuse to look at better data, even when it's presented to you.

Other data from other sources show ice levels going higher and lower during last century.

No, sources show extent being quite steady for over a thousand years, then starting a steady declining from about 1970. There is no cycle visible, just a decline.

 

[Old Rocks]

The polar ice caps have shrunk over the last 35 years but there is no death spiral. The ice is also cyclical, and '79 was a high point.

No death spiral?

Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia

 

[Old Rocks]

For 400 years, they have been searching for the Northwest Passage. Only in this century has the ice declined to the point that on some years since 2000, the Northwest Passage is open for unarmored ships like this one, that went through the passage last year.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sonuvagun, Weren't we told the ice caps would be totally gone by now? From what I can tell, reality has once again not cooperated with the alarmist predictions. The ice advances and recedes, just like always. I wouldn't say that AGW doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to be the imminent catastrophe that it's painted as being.


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

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as "proof" of a global warming crisis.) ...

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

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

We took our polar satellite passes and their output of photos and compared them to the 1979 sets of ice coverage and found them to be within +/- 0.1%. IN other words no discernible change. SO this bit of data truth coming out is of no surprise to me. I have also noted that they are now slated to bring back on line some 450 ground stations globally, using the same technology used in the US-CRN site setup and redundancy systems.

The days of making shit up to infill data sets is fast coming to an end.. And with it will be the end of AGW and its fantasies.