[LANMaster]

Take your complaints to NOAA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the chair of this study is fired for not towing the hype line.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Take your complaints to NOAA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the chair of this study is fired for not towing the hype line.

I searched back to read your first claim.
You posted from Fox which used Asher as a reference.
Asher is the one I exposed as faking the implications of the graphs you posted.
And it was a 100 year claim, not 50.

post 3878
http://forums.techguy.org/5670818-post3878.html
link to the Fox article :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html
link to the source of the 100 year claim:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm
And the source for that claim came back to your other flake source:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...ast-12-months/

NOAA did not make any claim that temps were rolled back 100 years and I proved it was false when I provided the complete graphs here: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3...sh/monthly.png


Your claim NOAA is responsible for both claims is false.

[LANMaster]

So you agree with the latest data that I linked from NOAA?

Or are you just arguing for obfuscatory effect?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

So you agree with the latest data that I linked from NOAA?

Or are you just arguing for obfuscatory effect?

Are you still claiming the temps are rolled back 100 years?
I brought this to your attention before I realized you were reposting articles already discredited.
So?


What's to disagree with about NOAA?
There's no rule that global warming has to increase each and every year.
It's the general trends that count/ are of concern and you've been told that many times in these discussions.

If you bothered to read some of the scientific links I and others post, you might start to understand why there are variances and how they can be misinterpreted........both ways.

Keep reading political blog sites and all you'll get is the position of the candidate they support.

[LANMaster]

I don't buy everything I read. I don't necessarily buy everything that I have posted. But much of it is interesting and worthy of consideration in the big picture of NON-CONCENSUS.

Point I am making is that there is no concensus, and the data DOES get misinterpreted .... both ways as you have also said.


Climate change is a reality, but it is a natural phenomena. It's been happenting .... well .... forever.

Next time you crack open a beer, smack yourself for releasaing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Better yet, let's make all beer and carbonated drinks illegal.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

...........................

Next time you crack open a beer, smack yourself for releasaing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Better yet, let's make all beer and carbonated drinks illegal.

I thought your solution of living underground and putting filters on top of volcanoes was almost as reasonable .......

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I don't buy everything I read. I don't necessarily buy everything that I have posted. But much of it is interesting and worthy of consideration in the big picture of NON-CONCENSUS.

Point I am making is that there is no concensus, and the data DOES get misinterpreted .... both ways as you have also said.


Climate change is a reality, but it is a natural phenomena. It's been happenting .... well .... forever.
............................

...............

However, every time it's pointed out to you that there is a factor of man's influence added to the situation, you go ballistic with denials and political comments.
I really don't think you are concerned beyond the extremism of politics that has polarized the controversy.

Consensus? That's all you want?
Hell, keep reading those political blogs of your's if that's what you need.

Look where a consensus got us in Iraq.
That's the problem in a nation where sound bytes are given more weight than facts.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I thought your solution of living underground and putting filters on top of volcanoes was almost as reasonable .......

I was illustrating the absurdity of the people running around demanding that something, anything be done.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

However, every time it's pointed out to you that there is a factor of man's influence added to the situation, you go ballistic with denials and political comments.
I really don't think you are concerned beyond the extremism of politics that has polarized the controversy.

I won't even deny that man is a factor, albeit an insignificant factor. Regardless climate change will cycle through warming and cooling regardless of man's miniscule factor on the accelleration of either trend.

Consensus? That's all you want?
Hell, keep reading those political blogs of your's if that's what you need.

Look where a consensus got us in Iraq.
That's the problem in a nation where sound bytes are given more weight than facts.

juggling topics again?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

...................


juggling topics again?

If you can, I can too

[valis]

arctic ice builds, but vulnerable

Critical Arctic sea ice this winter made a tenuous partial recovery from last summer's record melt, federal scientists said Tuesday. But that's an illusion, like a Hollywood movie set, scientist Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center said. The ice is very thin and vulnerable to heavy melting again this summer.

Overall, Arctic sea ice has shrunk precipitously in the past decade and scientists blame global warming caused by humans.

Last summer, Arctic ice shrank to an area that was 27 percent smaller than the previous record. This winter, it recovered to a maximum of 5.8 million square miles, up 4 percent and the most since 2003, NASA ice scientist Josefino Comiso said. It is still a bit below the long-term average level for this time of year.

...........................................

Compared to the 1980s, the Arctic has lost more than half of its perennial sea ice and three-quarters of its "tough as nails" sea ice that is six years or older, Meier said. The amount of lost old sea ice is twice the area of the state of Texas, he said.

On top of that, a change in Arctic atmospheric pressure this winter is pushing a large amount of the valuable older ice out of the Arctic to melt, Meier said.

That means next summer when temperatures warm, expect lots of melting, the scientists said.

[LANMaster]

Nice to see that any good news is tempered with doom, and gloom, and the obligatory blaming of humanity.

[valis]

call it doom, gloom, what you will; the point remains the facts are there as plain as the nose on your face, my friend.....

It IS melting, and it IS receding a rate faster than any in recorded history; this also goes for the greenland ice sheet. Difficult to get around that fact.

FWIW, I hope they (down south) have a winter like we just had; that will do wonders for it.

will it do enough? Doubt it. But it will defnitely help if we can keep the ice that has grown there.

Again, look at the numbers from 20 years ago compared to now; there is simply no denying the fact that the ice sheets are decreasing. If we can get that much ice that is there now to STAY there for a year, that will help immensely.

speaking of which, you hear the latest moonbattery out of beijing? They are going to attempt to seed the clouds to make it rain hard BEFORE the games, and not during.

Last I checked, not a lot of good has come out of trying to shove ol' Ma Nature out of her given path.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by valis

call it doom, gloom, what you will; the point remains the facts are there as plain as the nose on your face, my friend.....

It IS melting, and it IS receding a rate faster than any in recorded history; this also goes for the greenland ice sheet. Difficult to get around that fact.

Your article states that it is building. Plain as the nose on your face.

FWIW, I hope they (down south) have a winter like we just had; that will do wonders for it.

will it do enough? Doubt it.

But it will defnitely help if we can keep the ice that has grown there.

Again, look at the numbers from 20 years ago compared to now; there is simply no denying the fact that the ice sheets are decreasing. If we can get that much ice that is there now to STAY there for a year, that will help immensely.

If "we" can get it to stay?

speaking of which, you hear the latest moonbattery out of beijing? They are going to attempt to seed the clouds to make it rain hard BEFORE the games, and not during.

Last I checked, not a lot of good has come out of trying to shove ol' Ma Nature out of her given path.

Then why do you suggest that "we" do just that?

[valis]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Your article states that it is building. Plain as the nose on your face.

Indeed it does. But the article also goes on to state that this is a but a drop in the bucket of replenishment compared to where the ice pack was 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

If "we" can get it to stay?

that would be the colloquial 'we', not the collective.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Then why do you suggest that "we" do just that?

dunno that I said that, Lan.....unless you are referring to your misinterpretation of the 'we' thing, I'm pretty sure I've not advocated seeding clouds, or, for that matter, monkeying with mother nature.