Last Month's NASA Temp. Readings Appear Dubious

Dang, reality really gets in the way sometimes. Mother nature really needs to get on board with this global warming thing. How else are we to get all of that wonderful play money that the Government wants to hand out?:wink2:

So what explained the anomaly?

The "science" behind global warming is itself anomalous. Therefore, the explanation is a combination political opportunism, desire for research money, and politicians seeing a chance to completely alter the fundamental structure of the US economy.

Oh, and Al Gore wants to make money off his carbon credit company.

"Desides wrote:

The "science" behind global warming is itself anomalous. Therefore, the explanation is a combination political opportunism, desire for research money, and politicians seeing a chance to completely alter the fundamental structure of the US economy.

Oh, and Al Gore wants to make money off his carbon credit company.

Really? How does your hypothesis explain the rising ocean temperatures and melting glaciers and ice caps?

Here are records of observed temperatures.

NCDC: Observed Trends and Variability in Land and Ocean Surface Temperatures

"Celtkin wrote:

Really? How does your hypothesis explain the rising ocean temperatures and melting glaciers and ice caps?

Alright Celt, I've been curious, "which" glaciers...and which sections of the ice caps?

For example, Alaska's Glaciers grew last year, yet I can recall a story about "the lowest level the ice cap has been at".

And it should also be pointed out that even when the Northern Ice Cap pulls back, the area was not always covered in ice to begin with, why is this an inherently bad thing if it has previously occured?

"Celtkin wrote:

Really? How does your hypothesis explain the rising ocean temperatures and melting glaciers and ice caps?

Average global temperatures are dropping, sea ice levels are growing, Antarctica is not melting, and ice levels near and in the Arctic (in this instance, Canada and Greenland) are increasing as well. I shouldn't even have to mention the long-debunked IPCC hockey stick, but I will, simply to link to yet another study destroying the damned thing. (The thread-starting post contains additional proof of the hockey stick's invalidity: fake data tends to throw results off.)

The danger is global cooling, not global warming. Global cooling is far more threatening to the life on Earth than global warming, especially when you consider two words: crop yields. Another set of important words: lack thereof.

I have one foot on the "build orbital greenhouses" bandwagon.

"padre31 wrote:

Alright Celt, I've been curious, "which" glaciers...and which sections of the ice caps?

For example, Alaska's Glaciers grew last year, yet I can recall a story about "the lowest level the ice cap has been at".

And it should also be pointed out that even when the Northern Ice Cap pulls back, the area was not always covered in ice to begin with, why is this an inherently bad thing if it has previously occured?

Ice shelves suffered major melting over summer
Glaciers Are Melting Faster Than Expected, UN Reports

"Desides wrote:

Average global temperatures are dropping, sea ice levels are growing, Antarctica is not melting, and ice levels near and in the Arctic (in this instance, Canada and Greenland) are increasing as well. I shouldn't even have to mention the long-debunked IPCC hockey stick, but I will, simply to link to yet another study destroying the damned thing. (The thread-starting post contains additional proof of the hockey stick's invalidity: fake data tends to throw results off.)

The danger is global cooling, not global warming. Global cooling is far more threatening to the life on Earth than global warming, especially when you consider two words: crop yields. Another set of important words: lack thereof.

I have one foot on the "build orbital greenhouses" bandwagon.

Only from data last year. Last year was cooler than the trend but the overall trend of since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been a marked increase in global temperatures.

Again, look at the observed data that shows that trend. I never argued that we can predict temperatures 2000 years ago but we know what the measured temperatures have been during the period show in the data I presented in my earlier link.

"Celtkin wrote:

Only from data last year. Last year was cooler than the trend but the overall trend of since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been a marked increase in global temperatures.

The Earth's climate is cyclical over not hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of years. There is no statistical evidence that indicates we are bucking these cyclical trends; currently, we're in a cooling pattern as per the sufficiently long-term data.

The hockey stick model is flawed. If geological change takes hundreds of thousands of years, so too does climate change. It is incorrect to limit data to the past thousand years and then claim human beings are heating up the Earth to untenable levels because we operate coal plants and drive SUVs. Venus got plenty hot on its own.

"Celtkin wrote:

Ice shelves suffered major melting over summer
Glaciers Are Melting Faster Than Expected, UN Reports

From your first link:

More than 90 per cent of Canada's ice shelves have been lost over the past century, with most melting during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.

From the second link:

Not all of the close to 100 glaciers monitored posted losses with some thickening during the same period including Chile's Echaurren Norte glacier while others, such as Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier; Canada's Place glacier; India's Hamtah glacier and the Daniels and Yawning glaciers in the Untied States shrank less in 2006 than they did in 2005.

However, for the close to 30 reference glaciers only one (Echaurren Norte in Chile) thickened over the same period

And there was a rise across the globe in methane levels, yet the Globe cooled, that would seem to debunk the UN theory that "Cow farts are causing global warming.."

Of all the nonsense, it is interesting to note that Canada lost the most ice surface in the 30's and 40's especially with the revised data showing that period in time was the warmest on record, unlike the current hysterical theories...

No SUV's in the 30's and only a fraction of the fossil fuel consumption..hmm..

"padre31 wrote:

From your first link:

From the second link:

And there was a rise across the globe in methane levels, yet the Globe cooled, that would seem to debunk the UN theory that "Cow farts are causing global warming.."

Of all the nonsense, it is interesting to note that Canada lost the most ice surface in the 30's and 40's especially with the revised data showing that period in time was the warmest on record, unlike the current hysterical theories...

No SUV's in the 30's and only a fraction of the fossil fuel consumption..hmm..

Who is talking about methane and SUVs? The observed data shows the earth has warmed since the industrial revolution. That is the point I made and the anecdotal evidence supports those data. :lol:

Here is an earlier thread. The two links I gave you this morning were just the first two I found. There are more links and data in this thread.

http://forums.thephins.com/science-technology/13521-climate-change-melting-arctic-clearly-linked-study.html

and some pictures from the thread

"Celtkin wrote:

Bro, I am not familiar with the site you cited or but here is alternative perspective:

Glaciers in retreat
(NYTimes)

RETREATING GLACIERS SPUR ALASKAN EARTHQUAKES
(NASA)

Warming Triggers ‘Alarming’ Retreat of Himalayan Glaciers

Antarctic glaciers show retreat
(BBC)

Tropical Glacier Retreat
(Realclimate.org)

"Desides wrote:

The Earth's climate is cyclical over not hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of years. There is no statistical evidence that indicates we are bucking these cyclical trends; currently, we're in a cooling pattern as per the sufficiently long-term data.

The hockey stick model is flawed. If geological change takes hundreds of thousands of years, so too does climate change. It is incorrect to limit data to the past thousand years and then claim human beings are heating up the Earth to untenable levels because we operate coal plants and drive SUVs. Venus got plenty hot on its own.

Look at my post and bold or highlight where I talked about SUVs or the hockey stick model.

"Celtkin wrote:

Look at my post and bold or highlight where I talked about SUVs or the hockey stick model.

I posted a link to this data:

Here is data published in 2006

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

Do you believe this data is wrong?

Sorry Celt, but the pictures you posted are oversized for my little lappy's screen.

But let's follow the the evidence, is that the lowest that single glacier has ever been? Is such retraction a part of the normal colling/warming cycle?

And what of the reports that other glaciers have not lost as much mass, or indeed gained mass, that is not picture worthy, but it does fit into the mix of information.

And I've also already posted that the information Hanson used was fatally flawed before hand, now he has issued even more flawed data, at what point should his entire body of work be questioned?

And it should also be pointed out that the NOAA data does not account for the release of heat from the Atlantic Ocean into space two years ago, that is odd....

"padre31 wrote:

Sorry Celt, but the pictures you posted are oversized for my little lappy's screen.

But let's follow the the evidence, is that the lowest that single glacier has ever been? Is such retraction a part of the normal colling/warming cycle?

And what of the reports that other glaciers have not lost as much mass, or indeed gained mass, that is not picture worthy, but it does fit into the mix of information.

And I've also already posted that the information Hanson used was fatally flawed before hand, now he has issued even more flawed data, at what point should his entire body of work be questioned?

And it should also be pointed out that the NOAA data does not account for the release of heat from the Atlantic Ocean into space two years ago, that is odd....

Bro, none of that matters for my statement. I simply said that temperature have been rising and that glaciers have been retreating. I was not trying to correlate cause and effect but rather to state the observable data and the anecdotal evidence.

I don't exclude evidence. Take a look at the older thread that I pointed you to. In that thread there is a link to an article that discusses the few glaciers that gained mass and offer an explanation of the event.

As for the release of heat from the Atlantic Ocean into space, you will need to get me up to speed on. I am not aware of a more that normal release of heat to space two years ago. A link will work so that I can read about that event.

Oh, and who the hell is Hanson? How did yet another unrelated person/topic/event sneak into this discussion? :lol:

"Celtkin wrote:

Look at my post and bold or highlight where I talked about SUVs or the hockey stick model.

Your benchmark, "since the beginning of the industrial revolution," is the same span of time highlighted by the hockey stick graph. The entire point of that graph is to affirm that average global temperatures are warming and that human activity is the cause. Both are false claims. The hockey stick, which is the centerpiece argument in favor of manmade global warming, is the result of bad data and bad methodology. This means the argument that man is causing global warming is based on a lie.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests global cooling as part of a long cyclical trend, not global warming as caused by mankind. The cause of global cooling is still unknown, and it would be nice if the global warming advocates who do so in the name of getting research funds would fess up and start helping out in identifying the causation of the downward trend we're on. Or maybe they could help figure out a way to insulate the food supply, perhaps through space-based greenhouses.

"Desides wrote:

Your benchmark, "since the beginning of the industrial revolution," is the same span of time highlighted by the hockey stick graph. The entire point of that graph is to affirm that average global temperatures are warming and that human activity is the cause. Both are false claims. The hockey stick, which is the centerpiece argument in favor of manmade global warming, is the result of bad data and bad methodology. This means the argument that man is causing global warming is based on a lie.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests global cooling as part of a long cyclical trend, not global warming as caused by mankind. The cause of global cooling is still unknown, and it would be nice if the global warming advocates who do so in the name of getting research funds would fess up and start helping out in identifying the causation of the downward trend we're on. Or maybe they could help figure out a way to insulate the food supply, perhaps through space-based greenhouses.

The entire point of the graph is to show the data, not to prove a point by NOAA and I disagree that a preponderance of the evidence suggest anything of the sort. I think that one can interpret the data in a number of ways, including that man may be contributing to many changes in the environment, including temperature.

For the final time -- the hockey stick model made "predictions" of paleoclimate and that methodology may have been flawed. That is your song -- not mine. I showed you recorded (observed) temperatures plotted on a graph. Do you dispute that data?

"Celtkin wrote:

Bro, none of that matters for my statement. I simply said that temperature have been rising and that glaciers have been retreating. I was not trying to correlate cause and effect but rather to state the observable data and the anecdotal evidence.

And therein lays the rub Bro, anecdotal and scientific are not friends..:lol:

I don't exclude evidence. Take a look at the older thread that I pointed you to. In that thread there is a link to an article that discusses the few glaciers that gained mass and offer an explanation of the event.

Either way though, the idea that "The Earth is on a irreversible warming trend that will lead to everyone eating their dogs in a bleak desert where once verdant lushness was" is a bit hysterical to say the least..

As for the release of heat from the Atlantic Ocean into space, you will need to get me up to speed on. I am not aware of a more that normal release of heat to space two years ago. A link will work so that I can read about that event.

I have lost that link Bro, not trying to cop out on the discussion, but I simply cannot find the article that details the release of heat and the effect it had on stiffling Hurricane strength and intensity...:sad:

Oh, and who the hell is Hanson? How did yet another unrelated person/topic/event sneak into this discussion? :lol:

Hanson is the NASA employee who much of the current global warming information is based on, he has been proven wrong several times so far.

As to the "Cow flatulence leads to Global Warming" here is some of the kookery:

Cow farts cause Global Warming

Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study - Telegraph

Now I don't have a problem with Scientists trying to make a buck, but come on, putting fart catchers on cows is just a boondoggle...

"padre31 wrote:

And therein lays the rub Bro, anecdotal and scientific are not friends..:lol:

Oh, but they are my friend. If is often from correlating observations that leads to scientific questions that ask if the two are related. :hi5:

"Celtkin wrote:

Oh, but they are my friend. If is often from correlating observations that leads to scientific questions that ask if the two are related. :hi5:

Hmm...as long as they support a predetermined outcome?

:lol:

Funny thing is, the Earth is cooler in Bush's last year in office then it was in his first year, thusly we have seen the word games begin:

It is no longer "Global Warming" the man centered enthusiasts now deem it "Climate Change" a much more amorphous term don't you think?

"padre31 wrote:

Hmm...as long as they support a predetermined outcome?

:lol:

Funny thing is, the Earth is cooler in Bush's last year in office then it was in his first year, thusly we have seen the word games begin:

It is no longer "Global Warming" the man centered enthusiasts now deem it "Climate Change" a much more amorphous term don't you think?

Never in my experience of science and I have a fair bit of it. :wink2:

I think that man can and does contribute to global warming and that we are seeing some cyclic changes in cooling due to decreased sunspot activity or perhaps a long-overdue visit from our next ice age OR it could have something to do with pirates.

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

"padre31 wrote:

I have lost that link Bro, not trying to cop out on the discussion, but I simply cannot find the article that details the release of heat and the effect it had on stiffling Hurricane strength and intensity...:sad:

The oceans releasing their heat like that is called an "El Nino". And yes, that does reduce storm intensity. The Earth saw much more intense storms during its cooler periods. The media continues to try and push the exact opposite though, along with a long line of other fallacies on this subject.

we are in a cooling period of reduced solar energy, the thing preventing the ice age is mans contributions to the atmosphere. It is a fact that exposed land and sea mass absorbs more energy than white snow and ice, so the problem is exaserbating itself. If the current melting trend worlwide dumps enough fresh cold water to interupt the Gulfstream, break out the hoodies. I don't want global warming, Florida's land mass is cut in half, an ice age, on the other hand would give us a new coastline more than 100 miles further west, but the more than a mile of ice on nyc would drive all those evil jet lovers to here.

The one thing that bothers me, I'm by no means an expert or smart guy in this matter, is that there seems to be no consensus by those who are supposed to know. And please forget Al Gore, he is the LAST politician that I would trust to make a sound judgment about anything where money is involved.

If I have read everything correctly please explain to me how one can properly judge a trend that may take 100,000's of years to change by only studing the last 300 or so years? Or do I just not know enough to talk about it? Enlighten me, someone.:yes: