NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quick Question
Next: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 14:10 On Jan 18, 1:54 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...(a)airmail.net> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:54:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > > > <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jan 18, 12:42 pm, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Jan 18, 12:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On 1/18/10 1:38 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >> > > On Jan 17, 11:28 pm, Surfer<n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:13 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > >> > >> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Jan 17, 2:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> On 1/17/10 11:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > >> > >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: > > >> > >>>>> So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS > >> > >>>>> proves warming. > > >> > >>>> Gee, Marvin, must have been all that extra salt! > > >> > >>> Sam, > >> > >>> NASA says that it was the winds blowing the ice south where it then > >> > >>> melted. But both you and Surfer know this because I have stated it > >> > >>> before and supplied the NASA link. > > >> > >> From the link you gave:http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html > > >> > >> ".....Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past > >> > >> two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions > >> > >> set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the > >> > >> Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he > >> > >> said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in > >> > >> the warmer waters...." > > >> > >> That is a reasonable explanation for the RECORD loss discussed at the > >> > >> link for the two years concerned. > > >> > >> But the STEADY long decline could only be due to temperature, as I > >> > >> havn't seen a steady long term increase in winds and currents > >> > >> reported. > > >> > > Steady long decline? As in monotonic? The data says otherwise. > > >> > >http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm > > >> > > 2007 was the worst, 2008 better, 2009 back to normal. > > >> > > --Mike Jr. > > >> > Thirty-year averages, Mike... not year by year. > > >> > Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate! > > >> I believe that I do know the difference between weather and climate. > >> The satellite data goes back to 2002. The question was about winds > >> blowing the ice out to warmer waters in 2007. That has stopped in > >> 2009. > > >> > The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather > >> > is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, > >> > and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods > >> > of time (at least 30 years). > > >> > In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that > >> > springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier > >> > springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate. > > >> How much ice was at the north pole in the winter of 1958-9? > > >> Hint: the nuclear submarine in all that open water. > >In case you can't find the link: > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-n... > > As for "all that open water": > > "The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but > with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large > polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over > with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open > or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the > submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas > crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the > water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was > 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide." > > <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-n...> > > -- > Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank] I don't disagree with your characterization. I wonder if winds and currents were blowing ice south when the Titanic rammed into a piece? I wonder what the arctic sea ice anomaly might have been? --Mike Jr.
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 14:13 On Jan 18, 2:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/18/10 12:46 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > What is the 60 year pattern? > > Easy! > Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 > http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg > http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm > > Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > > http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend... > > And accompanying Sea Level Rise > > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... Sam, The point of this thread is that the surface temperature archive has been corrupted. Your graph is based on bogus data. --Mike Jr.
From: Bill Snyder on 18 Jan 2010 15:21 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:10:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jan 18, 1:54 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...(a)airmail.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:54:10 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >> >> >> >> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Jan 18, 12:42 pm, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> On Jan 18, 12:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 1/18/10 1:38 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jan 17, 11:28 pm, Surfer<n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:13 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >> >> >> > >> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > >>> On Jan 17, 2:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >>>> On 1/17/10 11:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> >> > >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: >> >> >> > >>>>> So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS >> >> > >>>>> proves warming. >> >> >> > >>>> Gee, Marvin, must have been all that extra salt! >> >> >> > >>> Sam, >> >> > >>> NASA says that it was the winds blowing the ice south where it then >> >> > >>> melted. But both you and Surfer know this because I have stated it >> >> > >>> before and supplied the NASA link. >> >> >> > >> From the link you gave:http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html >> >> >> > >> ".....Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past >> >> > >> two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions >> >> > >> set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the >> >> > >> Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he >> >> > >> said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in >> >> > >> the warmer waters...." >> >> >> > >> That is a reasonable explanation for the RECORD loss discussed at the >> >> > >> link for the two years concerned. >> >> >> > >> But the STEADY long decline could only be due to temperature, as I >> >> > >> havn't seen a steady long term increase in winds and currents >> >> > >> reported. >> >> >> > > Steady long decline? As in monotonic? The data says otherwise. >> >> >> > >http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm >> >> >> > > 2007 was the worst, 2008 better, 2009 back to normal. >> >> >> > > --Mike Jr. >> >> >> > Thirty-year averages, Mike... not year by year. >> >> >> > Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate! >> >> >> I believe that I do know the difference between weather and climate. >> >> The satellite data goes back to 2002. The question was about winds >> >> blowing the ice out to warmer waters in 2007. That has stopped in >> >> 2009. >> >> >> > The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather >> >> > is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, >> >> > and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods >> >> > of time (at least 30 years). >> >> >> > In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that >> >> > springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier >> >> > springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate. >> >> >> How much ice was at the north pole in the winter of 1958-9? >> >> >> Hint: the nuclear submarine in all that open water. >> >In case you can't find the link: >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-n... >> >> As for "all that open water": >> >> "The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but >> with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large >> polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over >> with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open >> or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the >> submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas >> crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the >> water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was >> 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide." >> >> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-n...> >> > >I don't disagree with your characterization. That's good, since it's from the same page you cited. ;-) >I wonder if winds and currents were blowing ice south when the Titanic >rammed into a piece? I wonder what the arctic sea ice anomaly might >have been? Beats me, but I bet there's some outfit somewhere that compiles lists of berg sightings, if you could only find it. -- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jan 2010 15:24 On 1/18/10 1:13 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 18, 2:09 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/18/10 12:46 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> >>> What is the 60 year pattern? >> >> Easy! >> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 >> http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg >> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm >> >> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase >> >> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend... >> >> And accompanying Sea Level Rise >> >> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... > > Sam, > The point of this thread is that the surface temperature archive has > been corrupted. Your graph is based on bogus data. > > --Mike Jr. Mike, you have no credible scientific evidence that the graph is based on corrupt or bogus data. When one challenges, one should be able to document exactly why they are challenging. The global climate change is taking place. There is so much data from so many sources contributing to an overall global picture, that I find it really interesting that nay-sayers are so passionate... like creationists and anti-relativists! Probably about two years ago for me, and upon hearing the name calling for and against global warming... I started really taking a look at what was credible and what was not. I started looking at the pioneering papers on greenhouse gasses, atmospheric modeling, solar and solar system measurements, chemistry at the ocean-atmosphere interface, polyatomic gases with vibrational energies in the infrared region, and so on. As far as I can tell, the climatologist are right! What I want, is for each and every poster in these newsgroup to individually dig into the chemistry and physics of global climate change! It appears to me, that like bodies of deniers of relativity, quantum mechanics, Darwinian evolution and even Newtonian classical mechanics, we have a new collection of folks who think global climate change and the contributions to it by humans is somehow a big conspiracy! I'll challenge anybody who denies the physics involved. I really doubt that more than a century of surface temperature data is corrupted intentionally or otherwise. If there have been a century of systematic error, corrections will be applied. Mike, look at, not just the changes in CO2, surface temperature, sea level rise, etc., but look at the recent rates of change. Actually I thank you for your postings, as the help further scientific understanding--and probably not to your liking. Regards, -Sam
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 16:36
On Jan 18, 3:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > Mike, you have no credible scientific evidence that the > graph is based on corrupt or bogus data. When one challenges, > one should be able to document exactly why they are challenging. But I do have creditable scientific evidence that the graph is based on corrupt and bogus data. Please read the original link. > > The global climate change is taking place. There is so much > data from so many sources contributing to an overall global > picture, that I find it really interesting that nay-sayers are > so passionate... like creationists and anti-relativists! Name calling will get you nowhere, as you well know. I reject the comparison. > > Probably about two years ago for me, and upon hearing the name > calling for and against global warming... I started really > taking a look at what was credible and what was not. I started > looking at the pioneering papers on greenhouse gasses, > atmospheric modeling, solar and solar system measurements, > chemistry at the ocean-atmosphere interface, polyatomic gases > with vibrational energies in the infrared region, and so on. As > far as I can tell, the climatologist are right! I have also spent about two years analyzing the data and have come to the opposite conclusion. > > What I want, is for each and every poster in these newsgroup to > individually dig into the chemistry and physics of global climate > change! That I have dug into the chemistry and physics of global climate change. > > It appears to me, that like bodies of deniers of relativity, > quantum mechanics, Darwinian evolution and even Newtonian > classical mechanics, we have a new collection of folks who think > global climate change and the contributions to it by humans is > somehow a big conspiracy! It didn't start out a big conspiracy. But all kinds of organizations have attached their agendas to the AGW wagon. When the earth stopped cooperating in the early 21th century, panic set in and that is when the fraud began in earnest. > > I'll challenge anybody who denies the physics involved. I really > doubt that more than a century of surface temperature data is > corrupted intentionally or otherwise. If there have been a century > of systematic error, corrections will be applied. I have been investigating what it would take to correct the fraud. The raw data is only available as PDF of the original turned in sheets. NOAA has not made the data available in any other format. How open and inviting of duplication of their results by other scientist.~ It would take a substantial effort to transcribe these numbers into machine readable form. I am investigating how this might be done using a large pool of volunteers requiring double entry by independent sources of each sheet. Audits would be performed to insure data quality. It is a real mess. READ THE LINKS. Sorry, I am getting tired of repeating myself. You can't refute it if you refuse to read it, so read it already. Then tell me how wrong I am. :-) > > Mike, look at, not just the changes in CO2, surface temperature, > sea level rise, etc., but look at the recent rates of change. > > Actually I thank you for your postings, as the help further > scientific understanding--and probably not to your liking. I am unhappy with the fraud in surface temperatures that has been uncovered but I am rather happy with the other facts that I have uncovered. Mike Jr. |