1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Last Month's NASA Temp. Readings Appear Dubious

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by maynard, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    NASA needs to be much more careful with such announcements especially with rumors that we may have a new "climate czar" appointed at the federal level.

    The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

     
    hof13, Desides and gafinfan like this.
  2. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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:
     
    Desides likes this.
  3. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    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.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  4. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Really? How does your hypothesis explain the rising ocean temperatures and melting glaciers and ice caps?
     
    unluckyluciano and FinSane like this.
  5. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    FinSane likes this.
  6. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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?
     
  7. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    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.
     
  8. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W

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

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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.
     
  10. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    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.
     
  11. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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..
     
  12. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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-...ange-melting-arctic-clearly-linked-study.html

    and some pictures from the thread

     
  13. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Look at my post and bold or highlight where I talked about SUVs or the hockey stick model.
     
  14. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    DonShula84 likes this.
  15. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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....
     
  16. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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:
     
  17. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    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.
     
  18. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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?
     
  19. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    And therein lays the rub Bro, anecdotal and scientific are not friends..:lol:


    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..

    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:

    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...

    [​IMG]
     
    Celtkin likes this.
  20. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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:
     
  21. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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?
     
  22. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    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
     
  23. jason8er

    jason8er Luxury Box Luxury Box

    7,245
    7,090
    113
    Dec 7, 2007
    Beaufort, SC
    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.
     
  24. cnc66

    cnc66 wiley veteran, bad spelur Luxury Box

    31,582
    17,137
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    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.
     
    Desides and gafinfan like this.
  25. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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:
     
  26. jason8er

    jason8er Luxury Box Luxury Box

    7,245
    7,090
    113
    Dec 7, 2007
    Beaufort, SC
    The only consensus is that it has warmed over the last century or so. That's it. The UN claims to have the worlds top 2500 scientists all agreeing on this anthropogenic global warming issue, but that is some of the worst propoganda out there, and believe me, there is alot of it out there. They do not all agree. They are not even asked to agree. That's not how the IPCC reports even work. Infact, many of the REAL top scientists, some who were actually the lead authors, left in disgust when they saw what was up there. So, not only are many of those so called 2500 not even scientists, not only have many of the actual top scientists left, and not only have many on that list been ignored because their science didn't fit the UN's mandate, but the UN refuses to remove their names from the author lists. Some had to threaten a lawsuit to finally have their names removed.

    And Al Gore? Wow, what can I say about him. Most scientists shutter when they hear him talk. Even the alarmist ones. Why? Because he flat out lies about and embellishes the results of their own work. More more are saying, "Thanks but no thanks" to him as it just destroys credibility and gives more fuel to the opposition.

    The Nobel Prize is no stranger to controversy. But awarding it to Gore has forever tarnished it. Not only have international courts required him to remove up to 9 glarring inaccuracies in his movie (the ones the media shows over and over to scare us) before it can be presented in schools, but I'll bet I could name about 3 times as many. It really is that bad.

    Because the only AGW case you could possibly bring to this table, would be to concentrate on the here and now, ignore the historical record, and start relying on ridiculously useless computer models for the future. When we abruptly switched from global cooling to global warming in the 80's (due to a political event), it was as if we took everything we had learned up to that time about climate science, and threw it all out the window. This is basically what happens when the UN has a mandate and holds 50 Billion Dollars up in the air for anyone how could prove them right.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  27. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Thanks, and with that I'll go back to worring about things that I can control. Which is not to say that there isn't a reason to worry. Being 32 miles from the beach is no safety net as I'm only 10 feet above the high tide mark and only 2 or so miles from the nearest marsh area.:wink2:

    Again Thanks.:hi5:
     
    jason8er likes this.
  28. jason8er

    jason8er Luxury Box Luxury Box

    7,245
    7,090
    113
    Dec 7, 2007
    Beaufort, SC
    :lol: I wouldn't be too worried about that my brother. While Al Gore claims a 20 ft rise in ocean levels in the next 50-100 years or so, the most catastrophic senario the IPCC has come up with is about 23 inches over the same time period. Like I said before, even the IPCC shutters when Al Gore opens his mouth.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  29. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    this topic always comes back to two arguments that often run parallel to each other. there is the healthy science debate and then there is the government angle. we are very much afraid of having trillions of our money being sunk into a fool's errand that makes these financial bail outs look like pocket change. yes we all agree that we should cut back on our emissions if only to live in a cleaner world. thats a given and doesnt need debate. the issue to of what radical extent we go to and the choices involved

    there is all this outcry about the bail outs on having all this money go into something with a high degree of uncertainty. some of these global climate plans are that times 1000. yet for some reason that outcry is muted. i cant figure out why
     
    jason8er likes this.
  30. jason8er

    jason8er Luxury Box Luxury Box

    7,245
    7,090
    113
    Dec 7, 2007
    Beaufort, SC
    Great observation Maynard. I believe, like many others, that we should be using those resources to prepare man for the inevidable climate changes that are on the horizon. On a warmer Earth, life flourishes. On a cooler Earth, life dies. There has been only one consensus dealing with actual science here, as solar physicists are warning of a cooler Earth and have been for some time. As you said, an outcry is muted, but it doesn't puzzle me as to why.
     

Share This Page