Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (125 total)
11:45 AM on 07/07/2011
To LaDairis,

I'm still waiting for you to post some raw satellite data. Post the raw data and show us how it's fudged. You have made an accusation, now back it up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
12:34 PM on 07/07/2011
Meanwhile, I'm still wiping tears of laughter from my eyes! That LD is really something special.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
01:04 PM on 07/07/2011
Oh, and I have a question for LaDairis, too, which I asked yesterday but which LD still hasn't answered.

"Do you agree that temperature measurements should always be taken the same time of day, to compare like with like?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ReedYoung/warming-ocean-could-melt-_n_889517_95887422.html

Since I doubt it will answer with anything but more hysterical falsehoods in CAPS, I'll also answer this question, now.

Yes, temperatures need to be taken the same time of day to be usable 'raw' but the satellite data that Roy Spencer and John Christy have used to give LD its very amusing misconceptions, were not taken the same time of day. So the data had to be corrected to be useful. They were not fudged. The raw data were wrong, and obviously wrong. Everybody knows that measuring temperature in the evening will give cooler temperatures. This is not rocket science!

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=180
01:05 PM on 07/07/2011
Well it's funny, but it's also really sad that anyone could be so lacking in understanding of basic elementary school level science.

What's also ironic is that LaDairis doesn't even realise that the only reason we can reply is that we understand the science well enough to know what should have been said and we therefore can "address" the intent as opposed to the incoherent gibberish actually posted
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
11:24 AM on 07/07/2011
LaDarius's incoherent rants serve at least one purpose: They should demonstrate to anyone with two or more functioning neurons the level to which the so-called "skeptic" camp has descended.

Every time I think the "skeptics" have scraped the bottom of the barrel, I am chagrined to find that I was wrong.

A more convincing reason to ignore the ideological anti-science zealots would be hard to find--but no doubt they will shock me yet again tomorrow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
11:18 AM on 07/07/2011
Speaking of scientific fraud and data fudging, you might want to take a look at Willie Soon

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:01 AM on 07/07/2011
It's also difficult to take anyone seriously who continues to insists that the measured warming of the last 30+ years is merely an artifact of the urban heat island effect when Anthony Watts has himself coauthored a peer-reviewed paper that found that not to be true.

Clearly such persons are not thinking or behaving rationally.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:33 AM on 07/07/2011
Oh, my, it has no idea who Anthony Watts even is.

Now that's funny.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:04 AM on 07/07/2011
LaDairis: "The DATA shows NO WARMING from the TWO and ONLY TWO INSTRUMENT­S WE USE TO RECORD ATMOSPHERI­C TEMPERATUR­ES."

Lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
09:58 AM on 07/07/2011
It's difficult to take anyone repeatedly typing 'fraud" in all caps seriously.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
09:53 AM on 07/07/2011
...continued

3. Arctic ice is mainly floating sea ice, which can't get more than a couple meters above sea level. This means much of it it is melted from below as well as from above each year. Grounded Antarctic ice, on the other hand, averages over 1000 meters in height and rises to over 4000 meters up into the atmosphere, where, apparent to everyone but denier-bots, it is far colder than at sea level.

4. The huge volume and mass of Antarctic ice itself acts to cool the surrounding atmosphere and ocean in a way far less massive Arctic sea ice can not.

5. There is a large, persistent hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, while there is only recently a small, intermittent hole above the Arctic. Less ozone, being a greenhouse gas, means the atmosphere above Antarctica is colder than that above the Arctic.
10:29 AM on 07/07/2011
LMAO!!

The "ozone hole" is cooling Antarctica.

LOL!!!

Was the ozone hole there 100 years ago?

NO...

Nice try...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:43 AM on 07/07/2011
Simple minds are amused by simple things, even facts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
12:10 PM on 07/07/2011
The idea that the ozone hole can't affect temperature over Antarctica, because Antarctica was already cold, is pretty amusing to me. Only if it was 0K, it would be impossible to get even colder. What a little jester!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
09:53 AM on 07/07/2011
There are a few differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic that our latest energizer-bunny denier-bot almost certainly has not considered in contemplating why the two support vastly different amounts of ice:

1. The northern hemisphere contains far more exposed land mass than the southern hemisphere, which contains far more ocean than the northern. When exposed to an increase in radiated energy land mass absorbs heat rapidly, while deep ocean takes much longer to warm. That means the northern hemisphere is warmer than the southern, period.

2. The Arctic is largely an ocean basin surrounded by continental land masses, while the Antarctic is a continental land mass completely surrounded by open ocean, which allows circumpolar ocean and air currents to largely isolate Antarctica from warm water and air intrusions from further north. It also provides a platform on which a grounded continental ice sheet can form and build up.

continued...
10:32 AM on 07/07/2011
There you go...

So LAND is required for ice age caliber glaciation, otherwise the polar circle just produces small amounts of sea ice...

What would happen to Earth if we cut out the Arctic and replaced it with a copy of the Antarctic?

A: Earth ice would rise 80%+, oceans would drop, the planet would be colder - the "cold" parameter of Earth Climate Change

What would happen if we removed Antarctica and replaced it with a copy of the Arctic?

A: oceans would rise, Earth ice would drop 80%+, the planet would be warmer and more moist - the "warm" parameter of Earth climate change = Jurassic
08:54 AM on 07/07/2011
People, if you want documentation that Greenland was a forest 700k years ago, just type in

Greenland forest

into Google...

Sorry, I'm being censored from linking that...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
11:03 AM on 07/07/2011
Climate science denier canard #35. Begin your education here:

http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

"The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon."
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:13 AM on 07/07/2011
Again, apparently you do not seem to be able understand the very simple concept that forest in part of Greenland does not mean forest in all of Greenland.

Given that you are not intentionally trying to disinform here I am genuinely sorry for you about that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
07:55 AM on 07/07/2011
LaDairis: Ground-based data is worthless! Highly correlated statellite and balloon data show no warming!

chrisd3: Hmm, what about this satellite data? Looks like warming to me. http://bit.ly/pi1ZBu

LaDairis: That's FUDGE not DATA!

chrisd3: B-b-b-b-but it's from noted skeptics Spencer and Christy. Why are they fudging their own data so as to make it look like they're wrong?

LaDairis: {{{crickets}}}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/chrisd3/warming-ocean-could-melt-_n_889517_95901875.html
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
08:44 AM on 07/07/2011
Here LaDairis provides a completely nonresponsive response. Perhaps he thinks that if he uses lots of capital leters no one will notice that he doesn't even attempt to answer the question.

Can you answer the question, LaDairis?

Why are skeptics Spencer and Christy fudging their own data to make it look like they are wrong?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
09:36 AM on 07/07/2011
Interested readers will note what has happened here:

LD: Satellite data is accurate and shows no warming!

chrisd3: Here's the satellite data, it shows warming (and, by the way, it's from well-known skeptics).

LD: The satellite data is inaccurate! The FRAUD is paying them off!

So, he first says that satellite data is accurate, but then when he realizes that it does't support his ridiculous claims, he ignores what he originally said and screams that it is fraudulent.

Folks, this is not a rational person we're dealing with here.
06:36 AM on 07/07/2011
continued from below...

Now, for NA, the plate is moving SW. NA was in full ice age 10 mil years ago. What caused that? First one must understand that ice ages maul land, dig, remove land, as they did the Great Lakes. The top of Northern Canada had much more land than today. As it moved SW, it moved out of the 600 mile from the pole radius, and ceased to "manufacture new glacier." As of 700k years ago, mile high glaciers still covered Indiana.

640k years ago, Yellowstone last erupted...

So yea, the plates move slowly. Ice age glaciers are downright blazing fast compared to plates. All it takes is land moving close enough to an Earth pole to prevent the winter accumulation from melting. Once that starts, Greenland is what it looks like 1 mil years later, and Antarctica is what it looks like 50 mil years later...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:29 AM on 07/07/2011
Plate techtonics don't drive glaciation. The position of landmasses certainly does have an effect, but it is generally understood that Milankovitch cycles regulate the larger advances and retreats of ice.

Greenland has boreal flora and fauna under its ice. From less than one million years ago. Where was Greenland at that time? Hint: not far from where it is today.
08:53 AM on 07/07/2011
But further north than it was, and further north than the top of northern Canada.

The top of northern Canada, 10 mil years ago, was further north than Greenland, and that is when NA was in full ice age, and Greenland was 100% forest. There is a latitude where ice/snow doesn't fully melt during the summer. Altitude/mountains also matter. Once that starts, it doesn't stop until the plate moves out of that 600 mile or so radius from the pole, as northern Canada did recently...
09:21 AM on 07/07/2011
How do you know the North American plate is moving? Where is the raw data? How do you know Yellowstone last erupted 640k years ago? Where is the raw data? How do ice ages remove land? Can you show me a land area plot for Canada for the last 10 million years (include the raw data please)?
10:52 AM on 07/07/2011
Before asking a lot of silly questions, you first ought to try a google or yahoo yourself..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Plate

"the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction"

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html

"But the last major eruption at Yellowstone, some 640,000 years ago, ejected 8,000 times the ash and lava of Mount St. Helens."

Ice ages move land, like the Great Lake formation. Check out what Antarctica's ice age has done to Antarctica, what a visual...

http://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+sea+level+map&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=cWB&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=48cVToWjLYnw0gGIjuln&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=600#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Hrq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=5scVTtK8KsGV0gGFyLlK&ved=0CDUQBSgA&q=antarctic+sea+level+map&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c119f392af82fa7&biw=1280&bih=600
06:35 AM on 07/07/2011
How can tectonics be responsible for NA exiting its ice age and Greenland entering its ice age over the past 1-5 million years when land only moves 15-40 miles every million years?

Excellent question.

The key to an Earth "ice age" is not just "land in the polar circle," but rather where the most northern/(southern for Antarctic Circle) point of the land is. When land arrives tectonically within approximately 600 miles of an Earth pole, that is when the ice and snow from winter fail to fully melt during summer. Hence, ice starts accumulating. Once that starts, the ice age won't stop until the plate moves more than 600 or so miles from the pole. Greenland's ice age began 2-5 mil years ago as the fault in the center of the Atlantic Ocean pushed it NW. The very northern-most point entered the "Earth Glacier Manufacturing" area, and ice ceased to fully melt during summer. Once that started, it was less than a million years before ice covered Greenland fully, including out of the polar circle (the "range" of an Earth "ice age" that has LAND to "run.").
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:43 AM on 07/07/2011
Then how come Greenland had a boreal forest 800,000 ypb?
08:57 AM on 07/07/2011
Because it wasn't covered with ice age glacier like it is today, even out of the Arctic Circle to the south, a piece of land vikings farmed 700 years ago...

Conclusion - Greenland's current ice age is extremely recent, and when NA was in full ice age 5 mil years ago, Greenland was completely unfrozen, proving ice ages do not include oceans...
11:47 PM on 07/06/2011
What was missed was not so much that population growth along with industrialization would lead to potentially catastrophic environmental outcomes, but that the inevitable self interests of corporatization would preclude, at any cost, regulation over greed, much less self-regulation.
09:00 AM on 07/07/2011
Some evidence helps. What Algore's FRAUD does it is misinterprets real enviro problems, like CA fires, and hence prevents solutions like desal. The true greed is with Algore and his associates, who steal the money we allocate to help the actual environment and return nothing but lies and theft... and don't help the actual environment at all...
02:47 PM on 07/07/2011
Try reviewing "evidence" other than regurgitate Fox op eds.

The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113):

Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2,421 grams
Diesel carbon content per gallon: 2,778 grams

High levels of sulfur in diesel are harmful for the environment because they prevent the use of catalytic diesel particulate filters to control diesel particulate emissions, as well as more advanced technologies, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx) adsorbers (still under development), to reduce emissions. Moreover, sulfur in the fuel is oxidized during combustion, producing sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, that in presence of water rapidly convert to sulfuric acid, one of the chemical processes that results in acid rain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel#Emissions

Diesel combustion exhaust is a major source of atmospheric soot and fine particles, which is a fraction of air pollution implicated in human heart and lung damage. Diesel exhaust also contains nanoparticles.Because of their small size, inhaled particles may easily penetrate deep into the lungs. The rough surfaces of these particles makes it easy for them to bind with other toxins in the environment, thus increasing the hazards of particle inhalation. Exposures have been linked with acute short-term symptoms such as headache, dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, coughing, difficult or labored breathing, tightness of chest, and irritation of the eyes and nose and throat. Long-term exposures can lead to chronic, more serious health problems such as cardiovascular disease, cardiopulmonary disease, and lung cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
01:26 AM on 07/08/2011
I showed you mine, now show me yours.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:43 PM on 07/06/2011
This new denier robot, LD, has arrived from the denier factory just this week. It has been busily sliming the HP walls with anti science campaign material. Right out of this weeks new Heartland playbook, one might think. It is observably one of the more manic of the robots we have seen. This one is bouncing off the HP walls, and also is bouncing off the walls of scientific reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
11:48 PM on 07/06/2011
Lmao!

Yup, it looks like little Joey Bast wound that one up a few turns too many!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:16 AM on 07/07/2011
Definitely not the sharpest crayon in the box.

Gotta give it credit for exuberance, though.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:58 AM on 07/07/2011
Which of course fits SoCalJunkScience's profile like a glove...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
11:32 PM on 07/06/2011
Okay, maybe LaDairis isn't lying. Maybe it's just incompetent, or illiterate, or so deficient of attention span that it couldn't read past the 4th sentence of the article it linked from msn.com, which concludes

Argument evaporates 
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.
But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.
After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.
Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.
"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."

So which are you, LaDairis? A l-ar, incompetent, illiterate, or so deficient of attention span that you couldn't make it past the 4th sentence?
06:25 AM on 07/07/2011
The data from the highly correlated satellites and balloons showed precisely no warming in the atmosphere. Confronted with that reality, your side FUDGED, which it always does...

I pay attention to DATA. You reject DATA until the "warmers" FUDGE it to show "warming..."

"Given the choice" of admitting the FRAUD is FRAUD or FUDGING, the "warmers" always choose FUDGING...

Meanwhile, only the surface of growing urban areas shows any warming at all in the RAW DATA...
08:41 AM on 07/07/2011
Raw data is pretty much useless. To be useful data needs to be analysed. You don't understand data, you don't understand models, you don't understand science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature
10:50 AM on 07/07/2011
That's not what the article says. The article says your boy Spencer is wrong, because he is, and he has admitted it.
10:17 PM on 07/06/2011
The DATA outs the FRAUD of Global (non) Warming entirely, and hence it does not matter how many you can parrot who support the FRAUD, the DATA matters, your parroted opinion doesn't...

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/ns/technology_and_science-science/

NO WARMING in the OCEANS

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

NO NET PLANETARY ICE MELT

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677

NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

NO WARMING on the SURFACE of Antarctica - no cities there

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

NO RISE IN OCEAN LEVELS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

All The FRAUD of Global (non) Warming ever had was the DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT ON THE SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE SERIES, a gigantic supply of FUDGE, and a surplus of easily outed liars gouging the taxpayer off 100% pure FRAUD that was never anything except FRAUD.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
10:20 PM on 07/06/2011
Hah!

You are a riot!

Tell us an Al Gore story!
10:29 PM on 07/06/2011
Can you answer the FIRST question of EARTH CLIMATE CHANGE?

Right now, on the same planet, at the same time, in the same atmosphere, with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, one Earth polar circle has nine times the ice of the other, is more than 30 degrees colder than the other, and calves 9 times the ice of the other into the oceans, some 40 times the H2O of the Mississippi River. How can that be? What is responsible for that DIFFERENCE between the two Earth polar circles right now?

What does CO2 have to do with one Earth pole having 9 times the ice of the other today???

LOL!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:31 PM on 07/06/2011
ZZZ.

NASA's temperature charts demonstrate that you're wrong.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Show me the cooling.
10:52 PM on 07/06/2011
NASA's fudge is from James Hansen.

The DATA matters. Hansen's FUDGE doesn't stand up in COURT...