Climate change

James T Kirk · Jul 13, 2017

swampwater said:
You mean this NASA

Or this one

Now ferns yet!

Brietbart eh? Right up there with the national enquirer as far as credibility goes. You think they maybe, just maybe have a specific agenda with their godfather working in the Whitehouse? All this talk of fake news by the followers of freakin brietbart... absolutely hilarious. And embarrassing.

We just had the wettest winter ever followed by what's looking to be the driest summer. Two winters ago we had almost no snow on the BC coast. All those climate change loonies said something about much greater swings but since brietbart says it's bullsh$t I guess I might as well go burn some tires and make my weed farm grow bigger

swampwater · Jul 13, 2017

James T Kirk said:
Brietbart eh? Right up there with the national enquirer as far as credibility goes. You think they maybe, just maybe have a specific agenda with their godfather working in the Whitehouse? All this talk of fake news by the followers of freakin brietbart... absolutely hilarious. And embarrassing.

We just had the wettest winter ever followed by what's looking to be the driest summer. Two winters ago we had almost no snow on the BC coast. All those climate change loonies said something about much greater swings but since brietbart says it's bullsh$t I guess I might as well go burn some tires and make my weed farm grow bigger

Ignore the facts attack the presenter!
I think Brietbart was only one and I have lots more if you need them

Here is another source. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...k&utm_campaign=n-german-scientist-alterations

And two of my sources are NASA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#55ec31f82892
How about another NASA source.

James T Kirk · Jul 14, 2017

swampwater said:
Ignore the facts attack the presenter!
I think Brietbart was only one and I have lots more if you need them

Here is another source. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...k&utm_campaign=n-german-scientist-alterations

And two of my sources are NASA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#55ec31f82892
How about another NASA source.

No, your source is someone putting their own spin on NASA data. Why don't you just look at the satellite images yourself? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

swampwater · Jul 17, 2017

James T Kirk said:
No, your source is someone putting their own spin on NASA data. Why don't you just look at the satellite images yourself? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

I will take MIT's word for it!
That’s why when MIT just came out with a SHOCKING new report regarding global warming, the media has been DEAD SILENT. They know that this report would be the final nail in the coffin of global warming, but they don’t want that—they want to keep pushing the global warming myth to gain more control.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

James T Kirk · Jul 18, 2017

swampwater said:
I will take MIT's word for it!
That’s why when MIT just came out with a SHOCKING new report regarding global warming, the media has been DEAD SILENT. They know that this report would be the final nail in the coffin of global warming, but they don’t want that—they want to keep pushing the global warming myth to gain more control.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

Final nail in the coffin? Looks like another cut and paste from brietbart to me.

swampwater · Jul 18, 2017

James T Kirk said:
No, your source is someone putting their own spin on NASA data. Why don't you just look at the satellite images yourself? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

Do you even read the articles posted? This is from NASA.
I doubt you read anything anyone posts just look at the url and assume. Brietbart was only one article I posted. Typical Liberal hack!.
Remember when Al Gore issued his 10-year doomsday global warming warning that we would face a "true planetary emergency"?
Yeah, that was in January of 2006. The only thing that has changed since then is that Al Gore has bagged tens of millions of dollars from "green" corporate schemes.

James T Kirk · Jul 18, 2017

swampwater said:
Do you even read the articles posted? This is from NASA.
I doubt you read anything anyone posts just look at the url and assume. Brietbart was only one article I posted. Typical Liberal hack!.
Remember when Al Gore issued his 10-year doomsday global warming warning that we would face a "true planetary emergency"?
Yeah, that was in January of 2006. The only thing that has changed since then is that Al Gore has bagged tens of millions of dollars from "green" corporate schemes.

Actually I did. See below, from the NASA article you reference above, and have a look at the graphs in that section.

Who gains more from misinformation, al gore or the oil and coal industries??

Sure seems like we have a state of emergency in BC right now, right at the beginning of fire season after the wettest winter I can remember... and no rain in the forecast for weeks.

On Feb. 13, the combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice numbers were at their lowest point since satellites began to continuously measure sea ice in 1979. Total polar sea ice covered 6.26 million square miles (16.21 million square kilometers), which is 790,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) less than the average global minimum extent for 1981-2010 – the equivalent of having lost a chunk of sea ice larger than Mexico.

graph depicting trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover
These line graphs plot monthly deviations and overall trends in polar sea ice from 1979 to 2017 as measured by satellites. The top line shows the Arctic; the middle shows Antarctica; and the third shows the global, combined total. The graphs depict how much the sea ice concentration moved above or below the long-term average. (They do not plot total sea ice concentration.) Arctic and global sea ice totals have moved consistently downward over 38 years. Antarctic trends are more muddled, but they do not offset the great losses in the Arctic.
Credits: Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory
More information from NASA's Earth Observatory

bholmlate · Jul 18, 2017

Thanks for the scientific numbers James However, I prefer to get my information from the Political movers and shakers of our time who have their pulse on what is currently going on. Science and scientific research is so 2001. Now that i follow Brietbart new and listen to FOX news everything seems so much better then it was before.

swampwater · Jul 19, 2017

swampwater · Jul 19, 2017

http://s980.photobucket.com/user/Th...s-al-gore-750_zpsbozlaqmo.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

swampwater · Jul 25, 2017

A new study from NASA confirms sea levels are falling — not rising.

iceagenow.info reports:

NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.

As I said, that’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.

Sea levels fell in 2016, and with all of this winter’s record-breaking snowfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decline again this year.

I clicked and zoomed on the above chart as NASA suggested, and obtained a closeup screen shot of sea levels from Jan 2016 to March 2017. This clearly shows the decline.

Al Gore has falsely predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet, with some of the world’s largest cities underwater.

World Tribune reports:

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water, Booker noted.

“We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.”

All of the talk about the sea rising “is nothing but a colossal scare story,” Booker said, citing Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, who “for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe.”

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” Morner says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that “the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co. could not possibly come about

James T Kirk · Jul 25, 2017

swampwater said:
A new study from NASA confirms sea levels are falling — not rising.

iceagenow.info reports:

NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.

As I said, that’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.

Sea levels fell in 2016, and with all of this winter’s record-breaking snowfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decline again this year.

I clicked and zoomed on the above chart as NASA suggested, and obtained a closeup screen shot of sea levels from Jan 2016 to March 2017. This clearly shows the decline.

Al Gore has falsely predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet, with some of the world’s largest cities underwater.

World Tribune reports:

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water, Booker noted.

“We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.”

All of the talk about the sea rising “is nothing but a colossal scare story,” Booker said, citing Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, who “for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe.”

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” Morner says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that “the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co. could not possibly come about

Or you could just look at the actual NASA graphs rather than take someone else's interpretation as accurate... https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Gotta go throw some more tires on the fire, the weed farm is sure loving the extra CO2...

Mafesto · Jul 26, 2017

swampwater said:
A new study from NASA confirms sea levels are falling — not rising.

iceagenow.info reports:

NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.

As I said, that’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.

Sea levels fell in 2016, and with all of this winter’s record-breaking snowfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decline again this year.

I clicked and zoomed on the above chart as NASA suggested, and obtained a closeup screen shot of sea levels from Jan 2016 to March 2017. This clearly shows the decline.

Al Gore has falsely predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet, with some of the world’s largest cities underwater.

World Tribune reports:

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water, Booker noted.

“We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.”

All of the talk about the sea rising “is nothing but a colossal scare story,” Booker said, citing Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, who “for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe.”

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” Morner says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that “the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co. could not possibly come about

This reinforces what those of us with common sense already understand.

Idcatman3 · Jul 26, 2017

Mafesto said:
This reinforces what those of us with common sense already understand.

That you don't understand how to read studies and must rely on political sources to tell you what they mean?
Yup, I'd agree with that.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Bacon · Jul 26, 2017

Idcatman3 said:
That you don't understand how to read studies and must rely on political sources to tell you what they mean?
Yup, I'd agree with that.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Since you are just sitting at your computer anyway, throw up some documentation that shows sea levels are rising dramatically. I'll check back in when I'm done making hay.

Idcatman3 · Jul 26, 2017

Bacon said:
Since you are just sitting at your computer anyway, throw up some documentation that shows sea levels are rising dramatically. I'll check back in when I'm done making hay.

Don't need to do it again. Read all the links posted so far.
Rising at a global average of a few millimeters per year. Up to you whether you consider that dramatic.
There are fluctuations, it's not a smooth curve. It goes up 7mm one year, down 2 the next, etc.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

swampwater · Jul 26, 2017

Just can't understand facts I guess!

Bacon · Jul 26, 2017

swampwater said:
Just can't understand facts I guess!

Yes, but that doesn't fit the AGENDA.

Idcatman3 · Jul 27, 2017

Bacon said:
Yes, but that doesn't fit the AGENDA.

I just don't cherry pick my data from political sources.

There was a period of statistically insignificant temperature rise from 1996 to ~2010. There was still temperature rise, but it could be attributed to random fluctuations. However, the other metrics are not invalidated by this. CO2 traps heat, that heat was going somewhere. Since 2010, temperature rise has resumed. 2016 is the third year in a row to set a global temperature average high record.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4546

Wikipedia itself isn't a great source, but they link to lots of good ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

As for the ice issue, you're grasping at short term fluctuations and ignoring the larger trend line.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2569/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles/

Look at the trend lines, not just the individual data points. Sure you can find a high from recent years that is higher than a low from a decade ago, but that's not really relevant. That's why these statistics are averaged out over long periods of time, to remove the noise in the data.

black z · Jul 28, 2017

James T Kirk said:
You do realize that the last time atmospheric CO2 was between 1000-2000ppm there was minimal ice at the poles (if any?) and there were ferns bigger than your house right?? Lots of giant predators that are long extinct too. Wonder what the temperatures were like? Sea level? Prolly not great conditions for humans...hmmmm... oh yea, the fossil record and ice cores are fake news, I forgot.

I'll still take the NASA data over some dude who wants to bring back giant ferns... but again, I thought man couldn't change the climate?

Thanks for admitting that humans didn't cause that era.

Climate change

Well-known member

Well-known member

MODERATOR: Premium Member

Well-known member

MODERATOR: Premium Member

Well-known member

MODERATOR: Premium Member

Well-known member

Similar threads