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: Sam Wormley on 17 Jan 2010 14:07 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!
From: Puppet_Sock on 17 Jan 2010 19:53 On Jan 15, 9:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip the usual regurje] Sam you liar. You are quoting the fraudsters to support the fraudsters. You should pick yourself up and give your head a shake. Then do some actual thought. I know it's going to be difficult, you not having used your brain in 10 years or so. But geeze. You'd think you'd at least try. Socks
From: Mike Jr on 17 Jan 2010 21:34 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. "But it can't be true". If you read my links, you will see that John Coleman's report was based on an audit of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center and therefore also by the Hadley Climatic Research Unit, and not on climategate e- mails. Marvin, Sam is far from ignorant. But you cannot show somebody something if they refuse to look. "It just can't be true". But it is. --Mike Jr.
From: Sam Wormley on 17 Jan 2010 22:39 On 1/17/10 8:34 PM, Mike Jr 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. "But it can't be true". > > If you read my links, you will see that John Coleman's report was > based on an audit of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) > archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center and therefore > also by the Hadley Climatic Research Unit, and not on climategate e- > mails. > > Marvin, > Sam is far from ignorant. But you cannot show somebody something if > they refuse to look. "It just can't be true". But it is. > > --Mike Jr. Are you acting as an intermediary, because Marvin Plonked me?
From: Surfer on 17 Jan 2010 23:28
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:13 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(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. |