Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
if you feel you need a hockey-helmet to protect your denial from this very compelling information... then... you're gonna need... more:
NASA's Grace satellite's data show that both Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass; since 2003:
- Antarctica losing ice mass @ ~ 147 billion tons of ice per year
- Greenland losing ice mass @ ~ 258 billion tons of ice per year
- Greenland losing ice mass @ ~ 258 billion tons of ice per year
Wonder if Waldo can convert to pie charts... They are colorful and pleasant to look at.
We all know how trustworthy NASA is.
NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates Data Quality Act | Watts Up With That?
NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates Data Quality Act | Watts Up With That?
So that was 2012...and NASA GISS explained that the GHCN- Not NASA's data set, but it's used by NASA- had changed from version 3.1 to 3.2. NOAA who maintains the data, released a technical bulletin about the change on August 1, 2012:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf
Furthermore, and to the idiot posters at WUWT, anyone can download NASA GISS code and the GHCN version they want, and make comparisons to see the impact.
That's called transparency.
And reads like stereo installation instructions in Japanese to the layman.
Is there any wonder sceptics are so plentiful?
Want to talk rocks? I could go on for hours. Now there is some geek speak that will lose damn near everyone.....fast.
I forget all these referrers. Canbyte is taking a cue from the announced agreement tween China and USA.
Well, it's a start.
Well, it's a start.
do you have any clue as to how large an organization NASA is? With this comment of yours in reply to those NASA Grace satellite data sourced graphics detailing Antarctic/Greenland ice mass loss, your grand conspiracy needs to ramp itself up here because you've now set your conspiracy heights to also include NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and by extension Caltech. Well done Walter, well done!
Well, if you want to be skeptical about temperature homogenization procedures, and track the dataset, it helps to be aware of these things! The fellow who wrote that guest post at WUWT obviously wasn't aware, but knows how to copy numberts into a spreadsheet.
We deserve better skeptics than that.
exactly! Notwithstanding, of course, GHCN is not the only raw data source... as you surely know, other raw data sources from other organizations confirm the integrity of GHCN data by providing similar results. But why would that dissuade these fake-skeptics around here when they can simply rely upon (former) TV weatherman "Tony Willard Watts" and his grand denier misinformation machine at WTFIUWT! They can simply lap up the pablum from a "blog scientist"... cause everyone knows, denier blog science rules!
in reply to your post we get one of those fake-skeptics here lamenting that your linked article is "too much for his layman-self"! Much easier to gravitate to denier blog references then!
if I follow the timing correctly, Walter's nonsense link reflects upon the "much-ado-about-nothing" concerns over warmest year rankings put forward by NASA & NOAA... that resulted in a mega-meltdown on WTFIUWT (and other denier blogs) and quite literally had the waters churning with blog post after blog post for weeks on end! The more targeted aim of their vitriol was at NOAA/NCDC. In line with that same transparency theme you emphasized, NOAA equally presented it's rationale for version change/correction - here: again, TRANSPARENCY!
Waldo,
Bear isn't a fake skeptic. Unlike a lot of people you will run into discussing this topic, he asks genuine questions, and modifies his views when he learns of new information. That's exactly what everyone should do, but unfortunately it's not what even most people do, at least in this topic.
Bear isn't a fake skeptic. Unlike a lot of people you will run into discussing this topic, he asks genuine questions, and modifies his views when he learns of new information. That's exactly what everyone should do, but unfortunately it's not what even most people do, at least in this topic.
Skeptics and alarmists need to start looking at the Holocene as a whole. Basing everything on atmospheric chemistry while ignoring geophysical leads me to believe we're watching a street corner one act play.
are you in a mega-flap to get some recent posts buried? Just how furious are you prepared to ply your bull**** here? You keep flapping your lips about inconsequential predictions made by a few scientists... of course you do! That allows you to ignore all the real information that's hurtin' your ears and messin' with your failed misconceptions! Of course, the real way to mess with you types is to simply let you flail away and in a page or two, resurrect the posts you're trying to bury! :mrgreen:
yes, I do cut him a little slack in that regard; however, when he plies his "liar/dishonesty" routine at me, I'll throw his shyte right back at him!
Speaking of predictions, was the earth to remain at the lowest point of the Holocene without industrialization?
I believe the whole "climate warming/change" is just a way of some people making HUGE dollars at the general public's expense and governments are too chicken sh*t to ignore them. When you look at who is promoting this climate change BS, it's people who will not be affected (or very little) and its the "little" guys who will be (and are) footing the bill. Does it stop Gore from flying all over hell's half acre? NO. Does it stop the Gore's and Suzuki's from living in palatial homes that are the size of 3 or 4 of the "average" home? No - have you seen what they live in and how many they have?
Sorry, but I think when it comes to weather/climate - its ALWAYS changed and always will and while we "humans" can do our best not to POLLUTE our air and water, there is little else we can do to stop it. Pollution is not the same as CO2 emissions. CO2 as claimed, is NOT a pollutant. Good grief, our plants rely on it, we expel it when we breathe, but I'm guessing that the "greeners" would be happy to see a lot of us die! Population growth yuh know....
This whole thing is about money and the greedy want more and they want us to pay. I shouldn't think so, but because of gutless governments, pay we will and through the nose. That's the unfortunate part. And the "agreement" (an oxymoron if anything) between the US and China -Seriously?? I'm guessing Obama must really think people are stupid and China is laughing like hell.
JMHO
Sorry, but I think when it comes to weather/climate - its ALWAYS changed and always will and while we "humans" can do our best not to POLLUTE our air and water, there is little else we can do to stop it. Pollution is not the same as CO2 emissions. CO2 as claimed, is NOT a pollutant. Good grief, our plants rely on it, we expel it when we breathe, but I'm guessing that the "greeners" would be happy to see a lot of us die! Population growth yuh know....
This whole thing is about money and the greedy want more and they want us to pay. I shouldn't think so, but because of gutless governments, pay we will and through the nose. That's the unfortunate part. And the "agreement" (an oxymoron if anything) between the US and China -Seriously?? I'm guessing Obama must really think people are stupid and China is laughing like hell.
JMHO
This is what I love about you flat-Earthers, the extreme microcosm in which you live is soooo simple. The big picture eludes you, or rather, the willful ignorance on your part prevents you from seeing the reality.
Sure, the hue and cry started with 'global cooling' and later morphed to '(anthropogenic) global warming' which promptly changed gears to 'climate change'..... Interestingly, what preceded each redirection was a raft of failed projections (substantiated by failed models) to rest on the final marketing device we know as Climate Change. (NB: I italicized the phrase to proffer the implied doom of the circumstance)
Possibly the most laughable element of Climate Change is the implied suggestion that there is some form of climate stasis in which Mother Gaia must exist, otherwise, catastrophe and doom, right?
Here's the 411 for ya'll... Take a page from the remarkably obvious hints that Petros has offered and look into the global, historical (climate) experience that we have observed.... The word 'holocene' may be helpful in your potential (hopeful) enlightment.
Add to that the other various discussion points that you dismiss as unacceptable and you'll start to see a pattern, one in which your movement has been 180 degrees wrong each and every time.
With all the aforementioned in mind, your posts deserve the kind of responses that I have offered, namely 'how's that ice free North pole by 2013 treatin' ya?'... The beauty of the comment is in it's simplicity... Dire prediction followed up with catastrophic consequences, supported by pretty graphs, and here we are, yet another failed projection backed up by yet another failed model..
As per your flimsy excuse that the ice free North by 2013 was proffered by 'inconsequential predictions made by a few scientists', well, fact is, if we add up all of the failed predictions, models and commentary, there are no scientists of consequence remaining that have any legitimacy that can support your fantasies on Climate Change