Originally posted by rinselberg: In line with expectations of a continuing reduction in the Arctic cryosphere, the U.S. Coast Guard wants to establish a 5-mile wide shipping route through the Bering Strait, between Alaska and Russia:
Originally posted by rinselberg: An NBC News report looks at the latest findings about the Antarctic cryosphere (land ice + sea ice).
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This is from that new NBC News report : [QUOTE][SIZE=2]The melt rate is accelerating because warmer water is getting into the shallow West Antarctic shelf areas, according to a separate study published Dec. 5 in the journal Science.
NBC News, ? What does Brian Williams remember ? NBC News has been carrying the water for Nobama since he showed up.
Originally posted by cliffw: NBC News, ? What does Brian Williams remember? NBC News has been carrying the water for Nobama since he showed up.
I could find the same content for these specific reports on other venues.
First place to check would be Live Science where I have often picked up the same content that is published on NBC News (.com) and sometimes on FOX News (.com).
Now I cannot say that I know that Live Science is not influenced by NBC News.
But this content is not exclusive to NBC News. It's usually based on a reporter's interpretation of a new research paper or report that comes out in one of the peer-reviewed journals, or appears on an institutional website such as NASA, NOAA or some university.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2015).]
Not, I hasten to warn you, because it’s exciting, well-produced or informative; rather, because of the fascinating light it sheds on the debate about global warming in general and also, in particular, on the ongoing controversy about whether organisations like NASA and NOAA are playing fast and loose with the world’s temperature data sets.
According to the video’s creator and star, Dr Kevin Cowtan, the latter suggestion is a nonsense. Using charts of South American and global temperatures, he painstakingly refutes suggestions by Christopher Booker and also (though tragically I don’t get a mention) by me that there is anything suspect, let alone corrupt or fraudulent, in the adjustments that NASA and NOAA have been making to the raw temperature data from weather stations around the world.
If you stumbled on it by accident on YouTube I think you’d be quite persuaded. Cowtan’s tone is soft and reasonable; the science, as he presents it, seems to stack up: a) there are perfectly valid reasons for these adjustments, to do with homogenising the raw data when it looks out of kilter with neighbouring but possibly more accurate weather stations, and with the changing nature of measuring equipment and b) the adjustments are, in any case, minor – altering the raw data by no more than 3 per cent.
When you Google “Dr Kevin Cowtan” he appears reassuringly neutral in this affair. He works in the Department of Chemistry at the University of York, his current speciality being X-ray crystallography. A proper scientist, then, with no dog in this fight. Or so it looks until you scroll down a bit and see that his other area of research is “climate science.”
My climate science research focuses primarily on problems which are relevant to the public understanding of climate science. With my colleague Robert Way I have been investigating biases in historical temperature record from weather stations. Our primary work concerns temperature change over the past two decades. The main temperature record providers show a slowdown in the rate of warming over this period, however when biases in the temperature record are taken into account, we find that part of the slowdown disappears.
I am also involved in climate science communication, and am contributing to a massive online course run by the University of Queensland. I can offer undergraduate projects in this area for students who are interested to develop science communication skills.
So, not a neutral party after all then, but someone who depends for part of his livelihood on the lavish funding available in academe for those who promote the climate “consensus.” Perhaps, in the interests of full disclosure, he might have mentioned this detail on his YouTube biography. But I mean that only as a very mild and largely inconsequential criticism. What matters is not what Cowtan does for a living (“the motive fallacy”) but whether or not he has got his facts right.
And according to this counterblast from Dave Burton – a US computer programmer, sea level specialist and IPCC expert reviewer on AR5 – he hasn’t.
Burton’s key point is this: where Cowtan claims that all NOAA’s adjustments have done is increased warming by a modest 3 per cent, in actuality they have increased it by 35 per cent. So, far from Cowtan’s assessment that these adjustments are “inconsequentially tiny”, they are in fact quite massively distorting.
Might it be that they reached such wildly different conclusions by using different data? Er, no. Burton reached his conclusions by creating a spreadsheet with decadal data digitized from the exact graph used in Cowtan’s video.
Now I appreciate that in the context of the broader climate debate this might seem a trivial dispute. But I’ve been at this game long enough to be able to assure you that these faux rebuttals like the one offered by Cowtan are absolutely integral to the ongoing survival of the alarmist ‘consensus.’
As far as the warmist propaganda machine is concerned it really doesn’t matter two hoots whether or not Cowtan has got his facts right. What matters is that whenever the inconvenient subject of doctored temperature data crops up again, the alarmists have their ready-made get out. From a proper actual scientist. So he must know – right?
You can be sure that, if it hasn’t already, Cowtan’s dodgy rebuttal video will soon be linked to by the usual warmist sockpuppeteers in the comment threads below every relevant article. What none of them will mention, of course, is the Burton counter-rebuttal to the Cowtan rebuttal. Integrity has never been these people’s strong point. It’s winning the propaganda war that counts.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the case for a fraud trial against the climate data record gatekeepers seems to be getting stronger and stronger.
Paul Homewood, the blogger who noticed the discrepancies with the Paraguay temperature records, has now turned his attention to the Arctic region. His conclusion after studying the charts before and after is that the scale and geographic range of these adjustments is “breathtaking.”
In nearly every Arctic station from Greenland in the West to Siberia in the East, the data has been adjusted to make the warm period in the 1930s look cooler than it actually was. This, of course, has the effect of making the Twentieth Century warming look much more dramatic than the raw data would suggest.
Will this scandalous apparent evidence-tampering ever get much coverage in the mainstream media? It certainly ought to. Think about it: if Homewood (and Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard, et al) are correct, then what it essentially means is that the entire global warming scare has been sold to us on a false prospectus.
But it won’t, of course, because the mainstream media – in large part, at least – remains wedded to the Man Made Global Warming orthodoxy and therefore only really likes to run stories that prove how totally wrong, evil, and swivel-eyed climate change deniers are.
For example, this story in Nature, which sought to explain away one of the most embarrassing problems the warmist camp has been suffering of late: the abject failure of their fancy computer models to have predicted the planet’s failure to warm since 1998.
According to the lead author of this widely reported study, one Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, it dealt a fatal blow to the sceptics’ case that the warmists’ computer models were a waste of space.
Unfortunately for Marotzke, his case has now, in turn, been demolished in this article by Nic Lewis.
Professor Gordon Hughes, one of the statisticians who reviewed and confirmed Lewis’s findings has commented thus:
“The statistical methods used in the [Marotzke] paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”
Damning indeed.
But here’s a prediction. The rebuttal won’t receive nearly the coverage that Marotzke’s original inept paper did.
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
We're having a heat wave here in Spokane and Northern Idaho. Causing flooding in Idaho. I have absolutely no idea whether there is any connection to climate change or global warming. History will tell. You know, the hindsight thing.
Here we go again..."sure is cold outside, global warming is a scam!"
Meanwhile, the Pacific coast is having record high temperatures. Oregon is so warm that the ski resorts are mostly just seeing rain and some can't even open, like Ski bowl. http://www.skibowl.com/wint...d-weather-conditions
But that doesn't mean global warming is real, just like how you can't stick your hand outside and determine it's false.
Meanwhile, the Pacific coast is having record high temperatures. Oregon is so warm that the ski resorts are mostly just seeing rain and some can't even open,...
The thing is, the GW advocates ARE using it as "proof" and saying this is just "an example of more to come".
There's no doubt that during the Northern Hemisphere's last winter season of record, polar vortex episodes savaged large parts of Canada and the U.S. with severe cold and windchill, and heavy snowfalls. From December 2013 to April 2014. But after the last day of 2014 was recorded, NOAA crunched all of the numbers:
quote
A new report names 2014 as the warmest year since records were first kept in 1880. Across all land and ocean surfaces, the average temperature was up 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit over the 20th century average . . .
NASA and JMA (Japan's weather agency) reached the same conclusion, that 2014 was the warmest year globally since the advent of modern weather records, about 120 years ago.
In January (2015), a report appeared in the Associated Press, based on statements from NOAA:
Alaska and Hawaii aside, over the 48 U.S. states (talkin' 'bout CONUS), 2014 was warmer than 2013
CONUS-wise, 2014 was the 34th warmest year of the approximately 120 years on record
CONUS-wise, 2014 marked 18 consecutive years of temperatures warmer than the 20th-century average
For California, Nevada and Arizona, 2014 was the warmest year in 120 years of modern weather records
For Oregon, Idaho, Utah and New Mexico, 2014 was one of the five warmest years on record
The same report describes 2014 as one of the 10 coldest years on record for Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Michigan.
The United States represents 2% of the entire planet's surface area. (Not qualified there as CONUS, or all 50 states).
So, for those who consider a global perspective, the Fat Lady of 2015 weather records cannot sing before January 1, 2016--something to keep in mind, even as the current winter weather continues to savage the already stricken regions of eastern Canada and the U.S. with even more record low temperature readings, windchill and snow events.
Well, anyone could start with the reports from NBC News, and work their way back to the original statements from the various agencies--NOAA, NASA and JMA. For example:
"The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–December 2014 was the highest on record among all years in the 135-year period of record, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-14-2015).]
the reports of temperature altering and we still want to believe this propaganda?
Both the poles are within their standard deviation, with the Antarctic going above it's standard deviation for part of the year.
In any event the scare mongering of the past 18 years that the Maldives would be under water, just hasn't come true. The polar bear population is expanding There is no increased hurricane activity, all since these things were forecast. And where are the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be here? And why are we still getting record winters?
When you get government paid scientists working for Obumble's administration, God only knows what kind of nonsense they'll come up with
A new report considers the relationship between 2015's recent and ongoing winter assault on large swathes of the U.S. and Canada, and what scientists think about the implications for their ideas about global warming.
"What the massive snowfall in Boston tells us about global warming" Chris Mooney for the Washington Post, February 10
That's a long explanation to try to explain ocean currents. All it takes is a relatively small change to move tropical water north. It happens in the Pacific and the Atlantic.
To try to say that inland cold is affected by Atlantic heat when the prevailing winds blow west to east in the Northern Hemisphere is pretty thin.
We could all be freezing in the dark and these yo-yo's would still be calling it Global Warming.
Like I posted earlier, both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are within the standard deviation.
Of course the weather varies allot. It always has and always will.
I appreciate the interest there (Arn), in following my link.
What I think I got from that report (from the Washington Post) is that the current abundance of snow in the Northeast is related to ocean surface temperatures that are currently at record levels on the warm side, along the Atlantic seaboard. Warmer ocean surface temperatures that translate into more humidity in the marine air layers, just off the Atlantic seaboard. When that moisture-enriched marine air gets pulled inland over New York and New England by the winds that circulate around these winter storms, the higher levels of humidity in that air translates into record amounts of snowfall as this marine air comes into contact with colder temperatures inland. "More", "higher".. relative to what had been the previous norms.
There is another winter storm "Octavia" on an eastwards trajectory in the "queue", but Octavia is predicted to track further southwards, and bring marine air from the Gulf of Mexico inland over the southern states, causing rain and possibly snow/sleet/ice for parts of that region.
So warmer ocean surface temps--just part of the explanation for what is going on.
The other part has to do with what is bringing this cold air out of the Arctic and on its trajectory across the eastern U.S. and Canada.
"Polar Vortex"
Two factors that drive the Polar Vortex.
The more obvious factor would be high pressure systems originating over the Pacific Ocean and driving northeastwards, across Alaska and sometimes all the way north to the North Pole. That would disrupt the normal circulation of Arctic air and push cold air from the Arctic across the eastern U.S. and Canada.
And what would contribute to high pressure systems developing over the Pacific Ocean? Warmer ocean surface temperatures. Not inconsistent with a global warming trend.
The less obvious factor . . .
quote
There's also evidence that global warming is changing weather patterns in the Arctic and elsewhere, which could be responsible for some of the intense winter storms that have hit the United States in recent years.
Rising polar temperatures are shrinking the Arctic ice cap, making it smaller and thinner. Less ice means more of the sun's summer heat is stored in the ocean instead of being reflected back into the atmosphere. One way the shrinking ice changes weather is by pushing winter air south. When the stored ocean heat gradually escapes in autumn, it changes the pattern of an atmospheric wind called the polar vortex, streaming frigid Arctic air into North America and Europe, scientists think.
Someone might interject that if global warming is already such a reality, how could there be any such frigid Arctic air to sweep across the eastern U.S. and Canada and cause everyone to say "it's the Polar Vortex"..?
That's because global warming is only so far along in its progress. The Arctic is trending warmer, but it is still very cold, relative to what people had been experiencing across the eastern U.S. and Canada, before the extreme Polar Vortex episodes of last year's winter, and now even more so during the present winter.
I would like to enter this conversation to comment on the Washington Post article recently posted. First, I think it is important that we know the source used by the Post writer. Isn't Michael Mann the very well known author of the "Hockey Stick" graph that has generated much controversy relative to it's credibility?
Second, Mann talks about Atlantic Ocean temps being 21 degrees (F) warmer than normal. This sounds like very alarming info. Has anybody heard this from any other source? It would seem that a dramatic increase of 21 degrees would be front page news in itself. I was unable to find any supporting data referring to such a dramatic change. I did find NOAA New England water temp data which appears to show a colder than normal Atlantic: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/natl.html
There is always relatively warm water off the coast of New England thanks to the Gulf Stream which loads up these storms with moisture. New England has a rich history of Nor'Easters going back hundreds of years. This year the air in these storms is colder than usual which seems to contribute to the amount of temp differential which causes more snow.
Tom
[This message has been edited by Terrible Tom (edited 02-15-2015).]
Originally posted by Terrible Tom: I would like to enter this conversation to comment on the Washington Post article recently posted. First, I think it is important that we know the source used by the Post writer. Isn't Michael Mann the very well known author of the "Hockey Stick" graph that has generated much controversy relative to it's credibility?
Second, Mann talks about Atlantic Ocean temps being 21 degrees (F) warmer than normal. This sounds like very alarming info. Has anybody heard this from any other source? It would seem that a dramatic increase of 21 degrees would be front page news in itself. I was unable to find any supporting data referring to such a dramatic change. I did find NOAA New England water temp data which appears to show a colder than normal Atlantic: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/natl.html
There is always relatively warm water off the coast of New England thanks to the Gulf Stream which loads up these storms with moisture. New England has a rich history of Nor'Easters going back hundreds of years. This year the air in these storms is colder than usual which seems to contribute to the amount of temp differential which causes more snow.
Welcome to the Greatest Show On Earth (how many forum pages? how many posts?)
I went back to the Washington Post column of February 10. The WaPo reporter, Chris Mooney, quotes "Hockey Stick" Mann :
quote
Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations.
So that temperature anomaly of +21F is qualified with "some locations". So that + 21F is the very top of the range, and only at some of the locations offshore where they have weather buoys (I guess). Mostly, it is not all the way up to a +21F anomaly.
This is labeled as the very latest data update (from Sunday, February 15) and if you zero in on the Atlantic seaboard, from Florida all the way north to Maine and Canada, the offshore surface temps are depicted in Red, which signifies +4C or +7F; so that is how much warmer the ocean surface temps are right now, compared to their 1979-2000 baseline. This is a page from a website that is marked with "Climate Change Institute", "University of Maine" and "National Science Foundation".
It looks to me like the Washington Post report stands up to at least this level of fact-checking (on my part).
I had the Weather Channel on earlier, and they were talking about warm surface temps, offshore, along the Atlantic seaboard, and also in the Northern Temperate Zone where it crosses the Pacific Ocean.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-16-2015).]
I check in on this topic every once in a while. I don't see any progress on either side seeing any valid points on the other side and that's sad. I give a lot of weight to science but I know that science is an open ended project and that we may learn more or learn that we were wrong. Time will tell but that might be too late or we might find that it was a non issue all along I'm constantly trying to weigh the facts and not just look for the facts that support my view only. I view pure science as the best bet and rely on the fact that science is always checking itself. I rely on fossil fuel as much as anyone but since the industry seems to be entirely profit driven with no concern to any negative consequences I watch it with a wary eye. Clean renewable energy is of course a solution but at a cost and I don't have a handle on the cost benefit ratio yet.
Really? The first article is just a rip of the second, which I'll address in a moment. The third article is you touting something with no understanding of the actual meaning.
To the second, the author is a lying idiot whos had his work be redacted so they didn't get sued for libel. This is the same author who has published zero scientific papers and repeatedly reached conclusions complete opposite of the scientific community, e.g. second hand smoke isn't dangerous. Hes also been a guest speaker for heartland..... go figure.
You guys are really starting to look pathetic. You dont cite scientific papers but rather, cite opinions by people who have clear ethical and financial issues when it comes to the subject.
There was a study done recently that Im going to go look back up. It shows how when people have a political bias against science, they cognitively shut down. Its scary how were supposedly an educated populace yet there are people out there engaging in an all out war on science because of what they want to be true rather than what is.
The thing is, the GW advocates ARE using it as "proof" and saying this is just "an example of more to come".
There are global warming shills that might say that, but anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of science and climate knows that short term weather events don't mean anything. If you go to the actual papers, you'll see that climate scientists predict with global warming:
1. Weather patterns become more energetic (higher variability and more extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, cold snaps, and heat waves); 2. Overall trend towards warmer temperatures globally, not necessarily locally; 3. Trending lower arctic and antarctic ice VOLUME, not surface area; 4. Rising sea levels.
You'll also notice that we are seeing all four of the above.
Saying that "ITS SO COLD TODAY" means nothing when it comes to climate change. I feel like this is a pretty basic concept to understand?
The United Nations' top climate change official says the U.N.'s goal is to “intentionally transform the economic development model” in place “since the Industrial Revolution.”
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said February 3rd during a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:
There are global warming shills that might say that, but anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of science and climate knows that short term weather events don't mean anything. If you go to the actual papers, you'll see that climate scientists predict with global warming:
1. Weather patterns become more energetic (higher variability and more extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, cold snaps, and heat waves); 2. Overall trend towards warmer temperatures globally, not necessarily locally; 3. Trending lower arctic and antarctic ice VOLUME, not surface area; 4. Rising sea levels.
You'll also notice that we are seeing all four of the above.
Willie Soon 'climate change denier scientist' admits that he accepted $1.25 million from fossil energy companies. No mention of how much he has accepted from GW advocates. He stated that he is not influenced by the money that he accepts.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-22-2015).]
The first symptom of corruption is the inconvenience of having to explain the contradictions in the data that represents the facts and the data that represents the agenda. Both sides are guilty.
The best thing they can do (for them , not us) to save their cause is to temporally Agree that current regulations have worked and that the next step Should just be a holding pattern. No more, No less, just leave it at the current status.
Even though most of it is BS drummed up by various groups who are completely right, it would be better if we did it their way. (FOR THEM)
Researchers report direct measurement of the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the real world
Observations align with software-driven computer models and lab demos using CO2 samples and natural light or sunlight surrogates (duh.. like an indoor lighting fixture, methinks)
Infrared energy intercepted at surface level monitoring stations has spectral "fingerprint" that IDs the "culprit" as CO2 molecules in the earth's atmosphere
Researchers report direct measurement of the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the real world
Observations align with software-driven computer models and lab demos using CO2 samples and natural light or sunlight surrogates (duh.. like an indoor lighting fixture, methinks)
Infrared energy intercepted at surface level monitoring stations has spectral "fingerprint" that IDs the "culprit" as CO2 molecules in the earth's atmosphere
uh, you do realize (?) that the 48 states (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) represent just about two percent of the planet's total surface area
I will try to get back here within a few minutes with a global temperature report.
At this moment, it is 59 degrees (F), outside of my front door (San Jose). At 6:00 PM (Pacific Coast Time).
We've been having spring-like temperatures and no significant rain across Northern California--not sure how many recent days it's been like this, but it seems like forever.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-25-2015).]
According to Wikipedia, the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. (plus the District of Columbia.) represent just 1.58 percent of the planet's surface area.
Here's a global temperature map for today (February 25, 2015). The colors reveal where the temperature is warmer, and where it is colder, relative to what it generally was like, at the same location, on February 25, during the period from 1979 to 2000.
I was talking to a real nice guy yesterday and GW came up. He was so passionate about it being a hoax that I never said a word. Nothing I could have said would made one bit of difference so I left my feelings unsaid. Super nice guy. It's the same thing here. I don't think that those here who believe the scientists are just into it for the money and that the corporations have our best interests at heart are bad people or that anything I say would alter the way they think in the slightest. I only post so that there is another side shown, not that I think my opinions will sway anyone in the slightest.
When "experts" spend years building the case by claiming to track data using strict unbiased guide lines, it's no surprise when the public becomes untrusting when they are not the first to speak up when trends in that data change. Instead of acknowledging the new "unexpected" data and making necessary adjustment, they go on the offensive against those who do....
My favorite response to data "It is what it is, Now what do we do with it."
I can understand adjusting a model to refine it's accuracy. but adjustments made just to find the numbers that meet your expectations is not an adjustment.
In accounting it's called fraud.
Are there good people with good intentions on both sides? Obviously. But they are not in charge and they are trying to contribute to make a difference but they do not set the agenda..
Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong.
In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere. The study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased.
The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.
“For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study.
“Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show[s] increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.”
Chinese scientists only looked at sea ice projections until 2005. Had they kept going, they would find more than a trend of “slightly increasing” sea ice levels. Last year was the first year on record that Antarctic sea ice coverage rose above 7.72 million square miles.
By Sept. 22, 2014, sea ice extent reached its highest level on record — 7.76 million square miles. Antarctica is now in its melt season, but even so, sea ice levels were very high for late December and early January.
The same can’t be said for Arctic sea ice coverage. The Chinese study notes that for the Arctic “both climatology and linear trend are better reproduced.” Climate models predicted Arctic sea ice extent and volume would decrease as the world warmed, which it has.
In January 1979, sea ice extent averaged about 6 million square miles for the month. By 2006, sea ice extent averaged above 5.2 million square miles for January — one of the lowest sea ice levels for January on record.
Since 2006, however, the Arctic has stabilized and has even increased slightly. Sea ice extent for January 2015 was 19,000 square miles above the record low extent in January 2011. The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that “Arctic sea ice extent for January was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for January extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.”
? What does Brian Williams remember ? NBC News has been carrying the water for Nobama since he showed up.
.
