Second lowest minimum for Arctic ice

[LaDexter]

One Earth polar circle has growing sea ice, the other has shrinking sea ice, and hence there is nothing "global" about sea ice, ruling out anything "global" as the cause of either...

 

[Old Rocks]

And Antartic sea ice levels hit a new high a couple of years ago. Ohnoooesss we're all going to die from a new ice age!

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

And now, oh my, it is almost two deviations low;

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

 

[Theowl32]

One Earth polar circle has growing sea ice, the other has shrinking sea ice, and hence there is nothing "global" about sea ice, ruling out anything "global" as the cause of either...

That, or Florida would have been gone, if it is what the ignorant brainwashed op constantly implies with his stupid left wing propaganda posts.

 

[Crick]

Within 2 standard deviations... Normal

Freeze and ice recovery has started. Without warm flows the ice will rebound this year substantially. Cold flows are present in both oceans now and the Atlantic conveyor is now settled and will remain so for about 30 years.

NOAA canceled the La Niña even though we are firmly in one and the region 3-4 ocean temps continue to fall..

NOAA and NSIDC have doctored their data so badly its useless.. Trying to influence the election cycle..

More breathless Matthew postings and crying WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....

Bobby, did you notice that the subject of this thread is Arctic sea ice? Apparently not.

 

[Theowl32]

Within 2 standard deviations... Normal

Freeze and ice recovery has started. Without warm flows the ice will rebound this year substantially. Cold flows are present in both oceans now and the Atlantic conveyor is now settled and will remain so for about 30 years.

NOAA canceled the La Niña even though we are firmly in one and the region 3-4 ocean temps continue to fall..

NOAA and NSIDC have doctored their data so badly its useless.. Trying to influence the election cycle..

More breathless Matthew postings and crying WOLF, WOLF, WOLF....

Bobby, did you notice that the subject of this thread is Arctic sea ice? Apparently not.

Holy shit.

 

[Crick]

One Earth polar circle has growing sea ice, the other has shrinking sea ice, and hence there is nothing "global" about sea ice, ruling out anything "global" as the cause of either...

That, or Florida would have been gone, if it is what the ignorant brainwashed op constantly implies with his stupid left wing propaganda posts.

So, Mr Owl, are you in agreement with LaDexter regarding the polar ice and global warming?

 

[Theowl32]

One Earth polar circle has growing sea ice, the other has shrinking sea ice, and hence there is nothing "global" about sea ice, ruling out anything "global" as the cause of either...

That, or Florida would have been gone, if it is what the ignorant brainwashed op constantly implies with his stupid left wing propaganda posts.

So, Mr Owl, are you in agreement with LaDexter regarding the polar ice and global warming?

You and everyone like you are brainwashed sacks of ignorant shit. We have shown the lie A LONG TIME AGO.

I am not going to waste my fucking time telling you about the carbon green scam foisted on us you piece of shit.

All of you, without exception, are fucking idiots.

 

[Crick]

So you don't want to disagree with him but you're afraid to say you agree. Does that make you confident in the validity of your own position? What IS your position?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Sour Owlshits position is that he doesn't know a thing about the science, but he more qualified to make judgements on the science than scientists that have spent decades studying the science. LOL. Typical willfully ignorant knownothing 'Conservatives'.

The cryosphere is telling us that we are changing the climate. Changing it at a speed that may cause us major grief. The Arctic Ice has a major affect on the weather. That we are losing more of it every decade should give us pause, maybe consider what the consequences may be.

 

[LaDexter]

The cryosphere is telling us that we are changing the climate

No, the cryosphere told the satellites and balloons it was not warming, and your left wing liar heroes FUDGED the data so now they claim it is "warming" even thought the DATA said it was not...

 

[Crick]

What data are those?

 

[Theowl32]

What data are those?

Why don't you go and blow your methane out of your ass and smile like the rest of us?

 

[jc456]

Ol' Sour Owlshits position is that he doesn't know a thing about the science, but he more qualified to make judgements on the science than scientists that have spent decades studying the science. LOL. Typical willfully ignorant knownothing 'Conservatives'.

The cryosphere is telling us that we are changing the climate. Changing it at a speed that may cause us major grief. The Arctic Ice has a major affect on the weather. That we are losing more of it every decade should give us pause, maybe consider what the consequences may be.

sure!!!!!

 

[jc456]

What data are those?

really?

 

[LaDexter]

For the 90,261st time...


IN 2005, the highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere, prompting crick's heroes to FUDGE BOTH series with UNCORRELATED "corrections..."


Main argument against climate models proven incorrect | Weather Underground



"data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" so they got FUDGED to keep the taxpayer's money flowing into crick's pocket....

 

[Crick]

Don't you recall having thrown this link at us before? Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models to attempt to prove that data exist refuting model outcomes? From the article to which you've linked:

The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So, do you believe Christy sold out or what? The simpler conclusion is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Theowl32]

Don't you recall having thrown this link at us before? Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models to attempt to prove that data exist refuting model outcomes? From the article to which you've linked:

The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So, do you believe Christy sold out or what? The simpler conclusion is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Dont you have carbon credits to go buy? Go buy them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't you recall having thrown this link at us before? Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models to attempt to prove that data exist refuting model outcomes? From the article to which you've linked:

The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So, do you believe Christy sold out or what? The simpler conclusion is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Dont you have carbon credits to go buy? Go buy them.

My goodness, proving again what a dumb fuck you are, Owl. You ignorant denialists post links and fail to read them. We read them and find out what they really said. Then you post some stupendously stupid ass comment that only increases our contempt for your intellectual capabilities.

 

[Crick]

Dont you have carbon credits to go buy? Go buy them.

If you are unwilling or unable to actually participate in this debate, YOU might find some alternative activity with which to engage yourself. We'll do our best to carry on without you.

 

[Theowl32]

Dont you have carbon credits to go buy? Go buy them.

If you are unwilling or unable to actually participate in this debate, YOU might find some alternative activity with which to engage yourself. We'll do our best to carry on without you.

The debate is over idiot. It has been over for years now.

Now, go purchase your fucking carbon credit, go yell in your pathetic left wing echo chambers about man made global warming, and feel good about yourself as you ignore ALL of the facts.

I am done debating you pieces of shit. I refuse to push the rock up the hill constantly.

I am only here, to laugh at you. That is it.