NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

Not sure whether that is true or not but since I was not talking about the polar ice caps it matters not. The Sea Ice has drastically reduced as has the greenland ice. One would not expect the polar ice caps to melt first followed by the sea ice and Greenland. One would expect the reverse and that is what is happening.

 

It’s wrong. How can anyone not know it’s wrong... does nobody look things up?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

Actually it shows nothing of the sort. It shows exactly what I outlined in my original statement. You can not compare data from inaccurate sources and compare it with accurate data and obtain a valid observation. Below is an exert from your post.
"Why did the poorly sited stations measure cooler temperatures?The reason why the poorly-sites stations measured cooler temperatures lies in the predominant types of thermometers used at the two types of sites. An electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) is used at 75% of the poor sites." In addition, who determines which of the sources is flawed? Who determines what the actual error is? How do we know that the MMTS systems were not actually more comparable to the systems used a century ago? What we do know is that the author is invested in "Global Warming" and has a great bias in that direction. Second, we know that he has made no claims that the irregularities found by Watts were inaccurate or false.

What is even more naïve is to believe that data taken with the equipment they used a century ago can be accurately or legitimately compared with todays measurements.

 

I know - the sea ice disappearance is shocking ... Watch this video twice to get the full effect.

http://fox2now.com/2018/02/26/nasa-releases-time-lapse-of-the-disappearing-arctic-polar-ice-cap/

 

Other studies show differently.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...ure-may-have-settled-the-debate/#.WwDgNMaG8iQ

If this is accurate, why hasn't the sea levels risen? Where did all that water go. You need to find more believable propaganda.

 

To your first point - the discover article. This article states that the in the west things are melting really fast but the East may be making up for this due to increased snowfall (which is due to global warming).

To your second point.. "What" ? sea levels are rising but what does this have to do with disappearing sea ice ? Increased sea levels are a function of the total melt so you could not attribute a rise to the sea ice even if you wanted to.

What you can do is look at the historical changes (as in watch the video - which you obviously didn't) which shows that the Sea ice is disappearing.

 

I recommend looking at the graphs in my link. You might understand your own source a bit better. The Antarctic has been pretty stable, with the exception of a recent downward spike. The Arctic’s decline much less ambiguous. In total, polar ice is being lost. Remember, there are two poles.

 

I dont deny that he climate changes

It has heated and cooled since the earths creation

we may in in a warming period but that does not make it man-made or reversable

 

You're in danger of becoming the forum laughingstock.

 

I am always skeptical of when you mix political agenda with science. Global warming is a great example of that but, there are many others .. second hand smoke (that it poses some kind of significant danger) would be another. Bad science and particularly misuse of statistics is rampant followed by bad arguments based on bad science and statistical chicanery.

One of the reasons hate bad science and agenda driven politics getting involved is because I am a scientist ( one who has worked in the environmental field - cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater by getting bacterial to eat the hydrocarbons - "bioremediation" ) and have experienced this directly.

CO2 emissions are 4th on my list of environmental issues.

1) Pollution of the oceans
2/3) Population growth and industrialization of that population
4) CO2

As you say - if we wanted we could turn off the CO2 taps tomorrow. The time it would take to reverse the amount we have added in excess of the equilibrium if probably not that long. My guesstimation would be a few decades.

Filtering the Oceans ? Good luck with that. If we screw up the oceans that is a completely different kettle of fish.

That said - CO2- and other greenhouse gasses is a real issue which effect not just the climate but the Oceans as well.

There is no doubt that we can see the effects of warming - such as rapid disappearance of the sea ice and extreme weather events on the rise.
This does not worry me that much because we can adapt to higher temperature or loss of land due to rising oceans.

Screwing up the ocean is a completely different kettle of fish ... and we are doing very little about this issue and it gets very little press.

 

Being laughed at by libs like you is confirmation of my position

 

Not the point. I live part of the year in Canada and I can tell you that Canadians are tired of Trump attacking them and their country as being "unfair" to America. We have a trade surplus with Canada and Trump keeps lying that we don't because he deliberately leaves out our services surplus. As a pattern, we sell them finished goods and services in return for raw materials.

He screwed their aircraft industry by putting an illegal tariff on Bombardier's C-series jetliner on behalf of Boeing, forcing the sale of the jetliner production to Airbus.

Canadians won't soon forget what Trump has done and said. We're going to need them to make sacrifices to get us water and if they think we're on the same page as Trump, they won't be interested in helping us.

 

Do you have a source for your quote?

 

Calling me a liberal is a flat lie. You're a piece of work.

 

This one simple graph illustrates the rank dishonesty of the article referenced by the OP, and of the denier propagandists who push it.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/dum-dum-dum-dum-dum/



Every denier here adores such dishonesty. The two sides are totally different in that respect. The mainstream science is scrupulously honest. Deniers are shockingly dishonest and proud to show it, as displaying a willingness to lie brazenly earns them status points in their political cult.

 

We need them more than they need us. Maybe we should pitch people like you over the side if you won't stop running your mouth.

 

I said “lib”

Which can include liberals, libertarians, libertines, plus other assorted tweeners and malcontents of unsure pedigree

 

His source is not NASA. His source is Heartland shill James Taylor, who has no scientific credentials.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#12ca33242892

Taylor lies a lot. After all, it's what he gets paid to do.

For example, he claims the 1979 start of the sea ice baseline had ice levels well above average, which is an outright fabrication. 1979 was historically well below average. The decline had already started by 1979. That date was just chosen because reliable satellite coverage started around 1979.

He claims the earth has warmed constantly since the LIA, which is another fabrication. The LIA was totally over by around 1850, having reached temps above pre-LIA days. That's kind of the definition of recovery. It was also followed by a couple cooling periods, and the earth as a whole has been slowly cooling for 6000+ years. That is, until we suddenly turned it to fast warming.

And he claims ice levels were above the 1979 level. As Chronicide already linked to, here's what NASA actually says about global sea ice levels, the source being .... NASA.

March 22, 2017
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
---
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.
---

 

So the data is meaningless because Mac-7 criticized NASA in the past? I miss the logic.

 

I've watched the actual video of the interview with Al Jazeera. What a surprise, conservative propaganda sources lied. Film at 11.



It's a liberal thing, you know, looking at primary sources instead of propaganda, hence you wouldn't understand it. Why would you ever want to risk the purity of your cult mind with sources that aren't cult-approved?

Obama made Muslim outreach _one_ new policy for NASA. If someone isn't a moron or liar, they wouldn't conclude that a small PR campaign meant that Muslim outreach was now NASA's primary mission.

So why did you fall for such a stupid lie?

 

He was pointing out your side's hypocrisy, and your logic failure. If NASA is supposedly forging all the data, why are you now citing NASA data as gospel? You need to pick a position and stick with it.

 

Conservative media got it right

Obama wanted to extend community organizing to outer space and the muslim world

 

It's a lie. Shame on you.

 

As I said before if a bank robber denies his crime assume he us lying

But if he confesses assume he is telling the truth

 

You are accusing me of positions that I don't hold. I have never said NASA forges anything. I'm against NASA because I don't think it is a good use of public money. I'm against AGW because I view it as a political issue.