• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Lost is Found

Tam

Well-known member
Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported
Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought.

Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting.

The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving.

What is this going to do to Gore's global warming crisis??? :?
 

Steve

Well-known member
sad isn't it.. when the data proves the theory wrong.. they discount the data...

the fact is ... even if it melted as they claimed... it is now back.... and growing... new ice age? or bad data?

"But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007."


so it didn't all melt... it was "just missing"? How do you miss a chunk of ice the size of the state of California?

but most importantly would you believe a "global warming hype" scientist who lost a chunk of ice the size of California?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Tam said:
Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported
Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought.

Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting.

The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving.

What is this going to do to Gore's global warming crisis??? :?

I suppose next you will be claiming that the Northwest Passage hasn't really opened up and that the ships that went through last summer were really in the Panama Canal.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
sad isn't it.. when the data proves the theory wrong.. they discount the data...

the fact is ... even if it melted as they claimed... it is now back.... and growing... new ice age? or bad data?

"But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007."


so it didn't all melt... it was "just missing"? How do you miss a chunk of ice the size of the state of California?

but most importantly would you believe a "global warming hype" scientist who lost a chunk of ice the size of California?

A good scientist develops a theory then tries to disprove it. But today's Scientist are just like politicians or Corrupt business or investors. Today's scientist so many times develop a slanted theory then try to hide all data that disproves their theory.

Science is BIG BUSINESS now days!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
There speaks a man with an advanced degree in the philosophy of science :wink: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Spoken like the Hypocrite you have shown to be! You talk about substance and bickering, holding your head high and mighty. But when I post substance about how science is suppose to be you bring the personal attacks.

You want to tell us again how you bring substance to this website and how you are not one of us lowly people that make personal attacks? :roll:

And once again you attack the messenger not the message! I sure wish you would show us some of that substance you claim to bring!

What is it you guys been debating Narcissist? I am starting to think it must take one to know one in your case! :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Tam said:
Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported
Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought.

Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting.

The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving.

What is this going to do to Gore's global warming crisis??? :?

I suppose next you will be claiming that the Northwest Passage hasn't really opened up and that the ships that went through last summer were really in the Panama Canal.

I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?
 

per

Well-known member
Tam said:
badaxemoo said:
Tam said:
What is this going to do to Gore's global warming crisis??? :?

I suppose next you will be claiming that the Northwest Passage hasn't really opened up and that the ships that went through last summer were really in the Panama Canal.

I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?

Best hope the North West Passage opens up being as you let the Chinese scoop you on the Panama Canal.
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Tam said:
Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported
Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought.

Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting.

The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving.

What is this going to do to Gore's global warming crisis??? :?

Gore lives one life style and sells another.

He and his followers will attempt to seriously discredit the people making this report - after all the man who invented the internet must be smarter than folks who spend their lives studying frozen water. :roll:

Do not want to hurt the income and selling fear is big money today.

BC
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Gore lives one life style and sells another.

And it is just unbelievable the mindset of liberals that eat this stuff up!

Gore should be the most hated man on the planet, if he believes this stuff to the point he claims and then lives the life style he does he should be shot!
 

Tam

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Gore lives one life style and sells another.

And it is just unbelievable the mindset of liberals that eat this stuff up!

Gore should be the most hated man on the planet, if he believes this stuff to the point he claims and then lives the life style he does he should be shot!

Got to love a guy that buys carbon credits so he can live in his mansion and fly around in jets to tell people about global warming. :wink:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Tam said:
I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?

You're correct.

But YOU are the one framing this piece of evidence as a problem with the global warming theories presented by Gore, when it clearly states that this error in calculation doesn't mean that arctic sea ice is not in retreat.

You're just flinging this out there - with no citation - to rile up the scientifically illiterate global warming deniers and Gore haters.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Tam said:
I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?

You're correct.

But YOU are the one framing this piece of evidence as a problem with the global warming theories presented by Gore, when it clearly states that this error in calculation doesn't mean that arctic sea ice is not in retreat.

You're just flinging this out there - with no citation - to rile up the scientifically illiterate global warming deniers and Gore haters.

Gee Badaxe since you got "RILED" does that make you a "Gore hater?"

Or just "scientifically illiterate?" :)
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Pelosi said earlier this year that she wouldn't even try to bring up a climate-change bill in 2009 because she lacked the votes. She reversed course last month, telling the San Francisco Chronicle that the House would try to set a vote by December to coincide with a global warming summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

One reason for the change, Pelosi said, was that the government needed the money it could get from the auctioning off of the emissions permits under a cap-and-trade program.

"I believe we have to because we see that as a source of revenue," the Chronicle reported her saying.

That depends on how the cap-and-trade program is designed. The more expensive the permits, the more revenue they will bring in, but that will also mean higher costs for business and higher energy prices for consumers
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20090223


Global warming BS ---- it's about money and power, NOT science!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tam said:
aplusmnt said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Gore lives one life style and sells another.

And it is just unbelievable the mindset of liberals that eat this stuff up!

Gore should be the most hated man on the planet, if he believes this stuff to the point he claims and then lives the life style he does he should be shot!

Got to love a guy that buys carbon credits so he can live in his mansion and fly around in jets to tell people about global warming. :wink:

but who does Gore buy carbon credits from... his own company? or a company he owns stock in?
 

Steve

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Tam said:
I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?

You're correct.

But YOU are the one framing this piece of evidence as a problem with the global warming theories presented by Gore, when it clearly states that this error in calculation doesn't mean that arctic sea ice is not in retreat.

You're just flinging this out there - with no citation - to rile up the scientifically illiterate global warming deniers and Gore haters.

try this one.. it even has "pictures" for the scientifically illiterate comparing 1980 to 2008
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/
 

Tam

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Tam said:
I'm not claiming anything :wink: Scientists are claiming it. Do you have anything that refutes that fact they errored when they calulated the amount of Ice?

You're correct.

But YOU are the one framing this piece of evidence as a problem with the global warming theories presented by Gore, when it clearly states that this error in calculation doesn't mean that arctic sea ice is not in retreat.

You're just flinging this out there - with no citation - to rile up the scientifically illiterate global warming deniers and Gore haters.

what was the New York Times doing here

NY Times: Global Warming Claims Bogus

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 4:38 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

Critics are calling it clear evidence that the climate of opinion on alleged global warming is shifting in favor of skeptics, especially since it comes from the New York Times, until now a fervent acolyte of climate change guru Al Gore and his doctrine of ongoing and disastrous climate change.

In his Times column for the first day of the new year, "In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm," columnist John Tierney took a close look at the global warming debate and found that the climate change scenario being peddled by Mr. Gore and his legion of followers is anything but the settled scientific fact they claim, with the sole doubters being the equivalent of those who believe the earth is flat. Tierney, critics say, has nailed the climate alarmists and exposed their propaganda!


Tierney begins his myth shattering column by telling his readers: "I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction. You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet."

Tierney cautions that he cannot be more specific. "I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather."

Noting that "there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard)."

Those interpreting the weather nowadays, Tierney explains "are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness -- burning fossil fuels."

Tierney recalls that last year British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, however, he writes that "even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, '2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.'


"When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed."


He cites claims by Global warming theory promoters that 2005's Hurricane Katrina was supposed to be "a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers." To the contrary, he recalls "when the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all)."


Slow warming, he explains "doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California.


The "availability cascade," Tierney writes, "is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and 'The China Syndrome,' minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy."


Once such a cascade is under way, he adds "it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting — or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too."

While Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, he explains, "they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents." He cites two studies by NASA and university scientists last year that he reports "concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention — and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs."

Tierney writes that Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, "recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

"Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore ’s 'Inconvenient Truth'?"

The answer: "the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.


Tierney recalls that in his speech accepting the Peace Prize, Gore "didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate." Nor, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been in his roundup of the 2007 weather. Instead, Tierney notes, "he alluded somewhat mysteriously to 'stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,' and focused on other kinds of disasters, like 'massive droughts' and 'massive flooding.'


“In the last few months," Mr. Gore said, 'it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.' But he was being too modest," Tierney says, adding, "Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier."
 

Tam

Well-known member
badaxemoo what do these people have in common.

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists,"

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science,

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University,

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany,

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy,
 

VanC

Well-known member
Tam said:
badaxemoo what do these people have in common.

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists,"

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science,

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University,

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany,

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy,

I know!! I know!!

They're scientists, but the question is which kind of scientists are they? Well, if they worship at the altar of man-made global warming then they are brilliant minds to be respected and listened to. No one should dare question them or their motives. After all, they're scientists.

If however, they are skeptical of global warming, and have chosen not to follow the other sheep, then they are bad, evil people who are probably raking in millions from bad, evil Big Business. They should be scorned, ridiculed, and ignored. After all, they're not REAL scientists.
:wink:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Tam said:
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany,

Well, oh tricky one, let me guess.

Prominent scientists who deny anthropogenic global warming?

Trouble is, I bet quite a few were misquoted.

I picked one at random. Dr. Sami Solanki. Just because his name is cool.

And here is what he had to say on his website. Google it if you don't believe me:

"A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic."

I'm betting quite a few of the others have been misquoted as well, but I'm not going to pick through them individually.

Nor should I have to, since the vast majority of climatologists believe that humans are a major contributor to climate change.

I am not a climatologist, so it would be quite arrogant of me to refute what 98% of them state as fact.

I wonder what scientific background you, Inhofe, and others in the wingnuttery possess that causes you to side with the tiny minority who seem skeptical of anthropogenic warming?

Have you done your own research?

Is it some kind of cowgirl common-sense that makes you think that humans can't effect the atmosphere this way?

Did you get a little chilly this winter?

Just what is your evidence?

Please explain.
 
Top