ADVERTISEMENT

Uh oh! NASA has confirmed that the polar ice caps

WVPATX

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,034
11,353
698
I bet you won't be seeing this information on the major networks this evening.

James Taylor, who has written on energy and environment issues, reveals that the polar ice caps have not receded at all since NASA data measurements began in 1979. Taylor also notes that the MSM has remained resolutely silent on these latest NASA data revelations: function readyHandler_3351332() {} Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede. The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent. Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.) Taylor also notes that the usual suspects in the MSM continue to maintain their silence on this NASA data that counters their beloved global warming ideology: The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. -
 
The sea ice extent is the largest in recorded history in Antarctica.
New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at 'unprecedented rate'

Dr Veit Helm and other glaciologists at the Alfred Wegener Institute’s Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, report in the journal The Cryosphere that, between them, the two ice sheets are now losing ice at the unprecedented rate of 500 cubic kilometres a year.http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-polar-ice-caps-melting-at-unprecedented-rate
 
An exerpt from the NOAA report in April, 2015.

When combining the Northern and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, the globally-averaged sea ice extent during April was 23.02 million square km (8.89 million square miles), 3.8 percent above the 1981-2010 average. This was the fifth largest April global sea ice extent on record. Global sea ice extent during April is decreasing at an average rate of 0.2 percent per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201504
 
Is that the same NASA that acknowledges global warming is happening or a different one?
I didn't say it wasn't happening. I merely pointed out the individual used NASA as his source for making the claim on the ice caps which were one of the cornerstones of the Global Warming argument. I have never weighed in on this situation because I don't follow it that closely.

I do think the earth experiences changes in climate. To what degree we impact it, I do not know. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides though.
 
I didn't say it wasn't happening. I merely pointed out the individual used NASA as his source for making the claim on the ice caps which were one of the cornerstones of the Global Warming argument. I have never weighed in on this situation because I don't follow it that closely.

I do think the earth experiences changes in climate. To what degree we impact it, I do not know. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides though.

The truth doesn't usually lie somewhere in the middle of the two sides when the scientists are strongly on one side, like in this case.
 
I didn't say it wasn't happening. I merely pointed out the individual used NASA as his source for making the claim on the ice caps which were one of the cornerstones of the Global Warming argument. I have never weighed in on this situation because I don't follow it that closely.

I do think the earth experiences changes in climate. To what degree we impact it, I do not know. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides though.

Again, I am in agreement with you. The temps have increased slightly during the latter part of the last century. Global warmists believe that man is mostly to blame and we must stop CO2 emissions to save the planet. I don't think scientists have a clue how much man is to blame. Their models used to predict global warming have all been wrong and have forecast much more warming than has actually occrred. But politicians are asking us to spend trillions of dollars to combat it and to transfer additional trillions to undeveloped countries to stop fossil fuel use. Until we have definitive proof that man is causing irreparable harm to the planet, we should proceed very very cautiously.
 
The truth doesn't usually lie somewhere in the middle of the two sides when the scientists are strongly on one side, like in this case.
I'm sure there is no motivation by the science community to beat this drum for research grants etc. There sure seems like a lot of evidence pointing to skewed results and inaccurate/incomplete data driving theoretical hypothesis which have not come to fruition on the timelines they said it would.

Again, I'm sure it's happening, but is it as bad as they are saying it is or predicting it will be? When you skew data to support a predetermined conclusion it makes me not trust the findings. I don't know, that's just me. Call me crazy.
 
I'm sure there is no motivation by the science community to beat this drum for research grants etc. There sure seems like a lot of evidence pointing to skewed results and inaccurate/incomplete data driving theoretical hypothesis which have not come to fruition on the timelines they said it would.

Again, I'm sure it's happening, but is it as bad as they are saying it is or predicting it will be? When you skew data to support a predetermined conclusion it makes me not trust the findings. I don't know, that's just me. Call me crazy.

Yeah, the scientific community has motivation to beat this drum for research grants, etc, because there are no scientific issues other than this one so the scientists will starve otherwise. Does that make sense?

For that matter, even if this were the only scientific issue, why would scientists have motivation to conclude global warming is happening as opposed to not happening? Either conclusion requires more and more scientific research, unless we get to the point where we know everything, which of course we never will.

And if scientists are so willing to come to the wrong conclusion just for some money why is it that they're right in so many other parts of science but are wrong on this one?

Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry stands to gain or lose tens of billions of dollars (hundreds of billions or trillions in the long term) by having this scientific issue come to one specific conclusion.
 
Yeah, the scientific community has motivation to beat this drum for research grants, etc, because there are no scientific issues other than this one so the scientists will starve otherwise. Does that make sense?

For that matter, even if this were the only scientific issue, why would scientists have motivation to conclude global warming is happening as opposed to not happening? Either conclusion requires more and more scientific research, unless we get to the point where we know everything, which of course we never will.

And if scientists are so willing to come to the wrong conclusion just for some money why is it that they're right in so many other parts of science but are wrong on this one?

Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry stands to gain or lose tens of billions of dollars (hundreds of billions or trillions in the long term) by having this scientific issue come to one specific conclusion.

Gimme a break. Scientists were convinced in the 70's that we were approaching another ice age. All their climate models have been wrong and have overstated any warming. Scientists are not Gods. None of them predicted the current 18 lack of warming. I think they all agree on one thing, though. The climate is very, very complex and we are a long way from completely understanding it.
 
Gimme a break. Scientists were convinced in the 70's that we were approaching another ice age. All their climate models have been wrong and have overstated any warming. Scientists are not Gods. None of them predicted the current 18 lack of warming. I think they all agree on one thing, though. The climate is very, very complex and we are a long way from completely understanding it.

Scientists aren't gods but neither are non-scientists writing about science, which are typically the guys you cite.

The degree to which people thought an Ice Age was coming in the 70s is nothing like the degree to which people conclude today that global warming is happening.
 
You mean like the degree at which scientists believed in the big bang theory, but are now changing their minds?
 
You mean like the degree at which scientists believed in the big bang theory, but are now changing their minds?

There was never anything approaching uncertainty with regards to the Big Bang being the start of the entire Universe nor is there now. We don't know what happened way back then, or even if the word "then" makes sense because it implies time. We do strongly suspect that there was an explosion (if such a word can be used) back "then" and we still do.
 
Nice try. The whole point of science is skepticism. Testing and retesting. The science is not settled by a long shot on global warming. If it were, the models would have accurately predicted global temperatures.

The Big Bang has been taught for decades (which means it had wider acceptance than today's global warming theory) and now scientiests are expressing great skepticism that it is correct. The theory that was widely accepted in the scientific community is now being questioned and debated.
 
Yeah, the scientific community has motivation to beat this drum for research grants, etc, because there are no scientific issues other than this one so the scientists will starve otherwise. Does that make sense?
I understand what you are saying, however, what you are saying would apply if scientists didn't work in a specific field. Basically, guys studying climate change aren't in line for cancer research grants. Prior to this pending catastrophe, the main focus for climatologists was on Tornado and Hurricane research improvements.

For that matter, even if this were the only scientific issue, why would scientists have motivation to conclude global warming is happening as opposed to not happening? Either conclusion requires more and more scientific research, unless we get to the point where we know everything, which of course we never will.
Why would they have motivation to skew data sets? I believe we can both agree the environmentalist community are some of the most radical ideologues. Something could come out and say definitively this is all a hoax (I dont believe that it is) and they wouldn't believe it.

Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry stands to gain or lose tens of billions of dollars (hundreds of billions or trillions in the long term) by having this scientific issue come to one specific conclusion.
Agreed and I think this is where the opposition is being funded and counterclaims are spurning from. Can you completely discount their analysis just because it doesn't support your own conclusions? Not you, the opposing view point.

As I said, I'm at best ambivalent on the issue. You admit the science isn't settled. I'm for exploring and researching but not overhauling an entire economy or industry on infant, incomplete, and imperfect data sets.
 
Nice try. The whole point of science is skepticism. Testing and retesting. The science is not settled by a long shot on global warming. If it were, the models would have accurately predicted global temperatures.

The Big Bang has been taught for decades (which means it had wider acceptance than today's global warming theory) and now scientiests are expressing great skepticism that it is correct. The theory that was widely accepted in the scientific community is now being questioned and debated.

Science is about skepticism and testing and re-testing. For sure. That's why it's so successful. There are no "Okay, that's it, everything is correct and can never be questioned anymore" things, like religion is filled with. Science doesn't have any dogma except that "Dogma is unacceptable."

We're quite sure (but not absolutely certain) that human caused global warming is occurring. Having exact models for it is a separate issue.

And we're still pretty sure something like the Big Bang occurred. What has come out recently hasn't thrown the Big Bang away. But even if it did, so what? We live and learn more via science, unlike religion. Good.
 
Scientists studying the climate aren't in line for cancer research grants but they are in line for climate research grants until we figure out everything about the climate, which we're never going to do. Concluding that global climate change hasn't happened to this point wouldn't put them out of business so why would they have an incentive to avoid that conclusion?

I agree some far lefties are way into the environment but that's separate from the scientists. You don't get a PhD in Climate Science by wearing Birkenstocks and listening to Phish and quoting Noam Chomsky. It's a branch of science, not politics.
 
Science is about skepticism and testing and re-testing. For sure. That's why it's so successful. There are no "Okay, that's it, everything is correct and can never be questioned anymore" things, like religion is filled with. Science doesn't have any dogma except that "Dogma is unacceptable."

We're quite sure (but not absolutely certain) that human caused global warming is occurring. Having exact models for it is a separate issue.

And we're still pretty sure something like the Big Bang occurred. What has come out recently hasn't thrown the Big Bang away. But even if it did, so what? We live and learn more via science, unlike religion. Good.

You posted this:

We're quite sure (but not absolutely certain) that human caused global warming is occurring.

What percentage is caused by man? Given the errors in the models used to predict warming, are you prepared to spend trillions to defeat global warming? Are you prepared to transfer trillions to undeveloped countries? Are you certain that minor warming global warming is actually harmful?

Until we are a heck of a lot more certain than we are today, I think any economic disruption is foolish.
 
You posted this:

We're quite sure (but not absolutely certain) that human caused global warming is occurring.

What percentage is caused by man? Given the errors in the models used to predict warming, are you prepared to spend trillions to defeat global warming? Are you prepared to transfer trillions to undeveloped countries? Are you certain that minor warming global warming is actually harmful?

Until we are a heck of a lot more certain than we are today, I think any economic disruption is foolish.

Again, knowing something is happening is one thing, knowing exactly how and to what degree is another. We know evolution happens but we don't know all the details. And the same goes for a hundred other things.

The bit about trillions of dollars is just nonsense. Whether something is happening is one thing and what to do about it, if it is happening, is another.

I will say one thing though and that is that if only one set of "solutions" is being proposed and then we finally decide to do something then the thing we do is going to be from that one set of solutions. The left offers solutions and the right denies so if we eventually implement some solutions guess whose solutions will be implemented.

It'll be the same as with health care. The left kept saying "Do X" and the right kept saying "We don't need to do anything at all" and then something finally got done is was the lefts solution because the right wasn't offering any. And now that the left has their solution in place the right is coming up with ideas. Too late.
 
Again, knowing something is happening is one thing, knowing exactly how and to what degree is another. We know evolution happens but we don't know all the details. And the same goes for a hundred other things.

The bit about trillions of dollars is just nonsense. Whether something is happening is one thing and what to do about it, if it is happening, is another.

I will say one thing though and that is that if only one set of "solutions" is being proposed and then we finally decide to do something then the thing we do is going to be from that one set of solutions. The left offers solutions and the right denies so if we eventually implement some solutions guess whose solutions will be implemented.

It'll be the same as with health care. The left kept saying "Do X" and the right kept saying "We don't need to do anything at all" and then something finally got done is was the lefts solution because the right wasn't offering any. And now that the left has their solution in place the right is coming up with ideas. Too late.

If you don't think it is going to cost trillions to combat "global warming" you are very, very naive indeed.
 
Scientists studying the climate aren't in line for cancer research grants but they are in line for climate research grants until we figure out everything about the climate, which we're never going to do. Concluding that global climate change hasn't happened to this point wouldn't put them out of business so why would they have an incentive to avoid that conclusion?
The volume and total dollar of research grants has absolutely increased. There is more of a focus on their field by everyone. You mean to tell me some egghead PhD that has never before been paid attention to all of the sudden becomes the "hot chick" is going to not try and prolong the focus?

You don't get a PhD in Climate Science by wearing Birkenstocks and listening to Phish and quoting Noam Chomsky.
1. They are an earthy bunch. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. 2. I own Birks and love Phish. I've seen them almost as much as I have Widespread Panic.
 
If you don't think it is going to cost trillions to combat "global warming" you are very, very naive indeed.

We don't even know what "It" is. We're just talking about determining whether global warming is happening. It either is or isn't regardless of what we conclude. And we can do many different things about it, the cost of which vary.
 
We don't even know what "It" is. We're just talking about determining whether global warming is happening. It either is or isn't regardless of what we conclude. And we can do many different things about it, the cost of which vary.

I agree with your statement in part. Global warming is truly either happening or not happening. But more importantly is the degree to which man is respsonsible. Until these two issues are resolved, a huge investment to rid ourselves of fossil fuels is absurd.
 
Any chance we can restore the Sahara back to its once lush green state? I have not seen one peep out of anyone about this.
 
You posted this:

We're quite sure (but not absolutely certain) that human caused global warming is occurring.

What percentage is caused by man? Given the errors in the models used to predict warming, are you prepared to spend trillions to defeat global warming? Are you prepared to transfer trillions to undeveloped countries? Are you certain that minor warming global warming is actually harmful?

Until we are a heck of a lot more certain than we are today, I think any economic disruption is foolish.
If coastal cities were impacted by rising sea levels, would that cause economic disruption?
 
If coastal cities were impacted by rising sea levels, would that cause economic disruption?

Sea levels have been rising since we emerged from the little ice age in 1850.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years.[2] For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year.

Sea levels have been rising since we emerged from the little ice age in 1850.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
 
I can link several articles that claim sea level rise is within natural variability.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years.[2] For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year.


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

What are you going to do about it ?
 
I keep my tires properly inflated, working on some other things.

You should be more like climate activist, Leonardo DiCaprio. He recently took his family on six private jet trips over a six week period from LA to NYC courtesy of Sony Pictures. Or climate activist, Harrison Ford, who once flew his plane from LA to Oregon for a hamburger.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT