Polar Temps... warming... all guesswork
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
If those data points are set based on yearly numbers, then that chart appears to show a high point in global warming set in 2011 which was taken out this year, with 1999 lagging far behind, in other words its B.S.
Even the furthest left individuals arent arguing that 1999 wasnt the high point, which may, or may not have been taken out this year. why did you cut off the bottom of the chart? The "X" axis seems highly prevalent to your argument.
Even the furthest left individuals arent arguing that 1999 wasnt the high point, which may, or may not have been taken out this year. why did you cut off the bottom of the chart? The "X" axis seems highly prevalent to your argument.
Last edited:
"Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., “anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/
Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., “anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/
"Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., “anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/
Yes, good thing they adjusted the temps to make them more accurate. Do you have a problem with accuracy?
While we are at it why don't we adjust past stock prices to make your trading look profitable. This would align with your definition of accuracy.
And we should hand out stock options to the accountants who work at the company so they'll have a motivation to goose the numbers. Oh yeah, the government is already doing that with its funding of global warming lunacy.
Why pay them just fire them if they don't comply..... There's never any pressure put on scientists
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...anted-scientists-dismissed-dean-s-e-mail-says
And no one wants to or can explain the net loss of ice formation that's been going on since the supposed pause in temperature.
Has anyone found a publishing climate scientist that expressly denies man made global warming? I have to laugh at all these deluded right wingers saying it's lunacy when there is not a single expert doing so. Goes to show the power of right wing propaganda and the gullibility and lack of logic of the right wing sheep.
This is alarmist BS. If you actually read the reports of the scientists who keep track of these things, what's going on is that ice is building up in the Antarctic, and decreasing in the Arctic. The total ice is staying relatively constant.
The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) keeps track of total ice coverage here:
The red shows the deviation from average for that time of year (anomaly). As you can see, total sea ice was decreasing until around 2013 but since has recovered. There has been no net loss in sea ice since 1979.
By the way, starting the graph at 1979 is rather unfair to the skeptics as it was then that the current warming period began. Between 1940 (when the Arctic was so warm that the Nazis sent commerce surface raiders into the Pacific through the Arctic just north of the Soviet Union) and 1970, temperatures were decreasing.
Now the NSIDC gets its money from the government so they play the government tune. That is, they talk about global warming as if it is a huge danger to society that can only be understood and controlled by giving money to scientists (them). So their website is heartily alarmist:
http://nsidc.org/
Here's their latest press release. Notice that it talks about the melting north pole and ignores the situation with the freezing south pole:
Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record
March 19, 2015, NSIDC
...
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year on February 25 at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year's maximum ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.
NSIDC will release a full analysis of the winter season in early April, once monthly data are available for March.
http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-reaches-lowest-extent-record
What's been going on, for most of 30 years, is that the alarmists give us only the bad news. One of my friends told me that he realized that the alarmists were full of it when he noticed that they never said there was anything good coming from higher temperatures. They're claiming that global warming is bad for everyone. This is not science, it is politics.
Scientists, just like the rest of the society of which they are members, spend most of their efforts making sure that they get paid. For the global warming / climate folks, the way they get paid is to scare the public. Sure the oil companies and Koch industries spend a few million dollars on climate research. But this is dwarfed by the thousands of millions of dollars spent by the government. And everyone knows what the government wants. It wants power and the way it gets power is by scaring the public into giving up freedom.
So now go back and look at the chart showing that the sea ice extent is the same now as it was in 1979. And tell me why no news organization is telling you the good news. Still clueless? Let me explain. The purpose of the news is to get you to watch advertisement. It is not to provide you with truthful information. Their objective is to help car companies sell cars and insurance companies to sell insurance. News that nothing is happening and that we are all safe does not sell soap so the media does not publicize it.
When you reach a certain age, you become wise by seeing the media do this over and over again in different areas. The media is very easily manipulated by those with an agenda. And the politics of journalists tends toward the left wing so they have a marked tendency to believe left-wing BS rather than right-wing BS.
P.S. By the way, the most famous Nazi commerce raider that sailed the northern passage along the USSR coast was the Komet. This was before Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941. The wikipedia article on the Komet has some information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet
The thing to note here is that when the planet's temperature changes, it changes the most at the Arctic. This is why the Greenland ice cores give such nice estimates of ancient temperatures. And so a warm arctic is not something that is new to man. It's just new to this generation; the WW2 generation saw similar stuff.