Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[igrowone]

I don't think anybody is arguing that temperatures are warmer. I think the crux of the dilemma is that given the complex nature of how volcanic activity, solar ups/downs, etc can you really say the whole 1.3 degrees is from man made co2? How was co2 5 times higher during the jurassic period than now with no industrial pollution? I think its legit we should not pollute more than necessary, but when people use evidence that warming is happening as evidence man is causing warming, well thats false causation

i think our opinions are pretty firmly fixed, it's well trodden ground
i'm just looking at it as a spectacle of grand proportions
the changes are dramatic, and getting more so
if the northern icecap is actually going to melt out, might as well take it in
this beats fireworks all to hell

 

[coldcanna]

i think our opinions are pretty firmly fixed, it's well trodden ground
i'm just looking at it as a spectacle of grand proportions
the changes are dramatic, and getting more so
if the northern icecap is actually going to melt out, might as well take it in
this beats fireworks all to hell

The data you presented is credible I'm not discounting you. I'm open to the idea, and promote moving towards green alternatives. I just draw the line at signing onto things like the climate accord that put millions of people out work based upon an unprovable theory. I hope renewables take the lead, but i wouldn't ruin millions of families' lives prematurely

 

[igrowone]

The data you presented is credible I'm not discounting you. I'm open to the idea, and promote moving towards green alternatives. I just draw the line at signing onto things like the climate accord that put millions of people out work based upon an unprovable theory. I hope renewables take the lead, but i wouldn't ruin millions of families' lives prematurely

this is the fundamental issue, and frankly it's not looking very solvable at the moment
that is a reasonable position, which makes strong action unlikely
and i'm not discouraged at all, just hoping it's a soft landing with regard to climate
people are feeling the changes, the more change they feel the more likely they will be to change opinions

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[TychoMonolyth]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...ering-science-doesnt-get-any-worse-than-this/

and here:

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

LMAO!!! Breitbart? Are you fucking kidding me? lol

And realclimatescience.com is hardly scientific. I can create a ScientificWeedGrower.com website, but it doesn't mean it's scientific anything.

 

[Wendull C.]

LMAO!!! Breitbart? Are you fucking kidding me? lol

And realclimatescience.com is hardly scientific. I can create a ScientificWeedGrower.com website, but it doesn't mean it's scientific anything.

Funny, thats how i feel about noaa.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Funny, thats how i feel about noaa.

And what's wrong with NOAA? I'll listen.

That's what's great about the west. You can belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no one will care. As long as you don't push your beliefs on people, you're golden.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Do I actually have to do this?
Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to assert that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated. Not a scientists. This guy claims NASA manipulates temperature data, and that the very high surface temperatures on Venus are largely attributable to its "extremely high atmospheric pressure" as opposed to the CO2 it contains. Keep in mind that he's not a Climatologist or an Astrophisicist, or an astro anything.

Source where it shows NOAA faked it please.

 

[Wendull C.]

I will give you one tyco. I watched on the dryden nasa base at edwards while they specifically set up " climate modeling" stations in heat islands. Where i know from surveying were 10 to 15 degrees hotter than the actual runway we were surveying.

When i asked our chaperone why, he laughed his ass off and said we all knew why.

That is a personel experience with noaa scientists. Not something i read or heard second hand.

When i say heat island, i mean 25 ft concrete walls on the north , west , and east. With all the ground around concrete or paved. Funny they use the south facing exposure to monitor temps.

When i want to warm up hunting, i glass from south facing slopes for one reason, they are much warmer.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

I work in highly sensitive areas all the time, and people do the strangest things. Chances are pretty good my boss doesn't know what they're doing either. But that doesn't make me associate it with conspiracy talk.

I'm not here to convince you. You're already convinced.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[igrowone]

I will give you one tyco. I watched on the dryden nasa base at edwards while they specifically set up " climate modeling" stations in heat islands. Where i know from surveying were 10 to 15 degrees hotter than the actual runway we were surveying.

When i asked our chaperone why, he laughed his ass off and said we all knew why.

That is a personel experience with noaa scientists. Not something i read or heard second hand.

When i say heat island, i mean 25 ft concrete walls on the north , west , and east. With all the ground around concrete or paved. Funny they use the south facing exposure to monitor temps.

When i want to warm up hunting, i glass from south facing slopes for one reason, they are much warmer.

you've posted this previously, nothing wrong with that, but lets apply some critical thinking
these were noaa scientists setting up a monitoring station
possible there could be a noaa scientist there, but that's kind of grunt work
no offense to grunts, done it myself in years gone by
and then the chaperone laughs in what sounds like a diabolical laugh(from my reading of your account)
chaperone types are seldom part of the deep secret club
i doubt they would know anything more than their job basics
and if he was, giving this deep secret away so easily sounds weird
i don't know what you saw, or who you talked to and not dismissing it
but everyone does interpretations which may or may not be accurate

 

[Wendull C.]

Maybe, maybe not. Our chaperone was from nasa, not noaa.

I have posted the same before, but found it relevant to being asked why I dont trust noaa.

 

[Ununionized]

Actually, Tony Heller's database analysis credentials are among the best on the planet: INTEL put up a PLAQUE to him referring to him as "The Debug God".

Heller is the one who figured out that NASA's claims that "the laws of physics for calculating gas temperatures are wrong" are complete bullsh**.

He published that in two threads, one named "Hyperventilating on Venus" and "Venus Envy."

Another man who has pointed out that the "Magical Gaissiness dun turn't the cold nitrogen atmosphere into a big ol giantiny magical heedur!" is the physicist Harry Huffman (End of the Mystery: No Green House On Venus)

where he points out the OBVIOUS error the Magical Gaissiness Brigade propagates, in not calculating the temperature of our global atmosphere correctly.

We KNOW the correct temperature for it, the French first calculated it in 864, and it was finally adopted as a WORLD WIDE CALIBRATION/REGULATORY/PHYSICAL standard in 1959 -

after being accepted by many scientific orgs in 1920.

This Standard is called The International Standard Atmosphere
and remains UNCHANGED since it's adoption.

The Americans doubled down on it's accuracy in 1976 with the American Standard Atmosphere which takes the previously mentioned one and extends it several hundred thousand feet upward.

It is VERY well known and very easily PROVED that N.A.S.A. and N.O.A.A. are BOTH altering temperatures in the past to make them cooler, and altering the present to make it warmer,

and that they're going back and doing this, again and again.

*When the Magical Gassiness Brigade calculated the temperature of the atmosphere wrong and came up 33 degrees short, you should have been asking why.

What they do is refuse to include the proper gas law at the appropriate place in the calculations which WOULD match the REAL atmospheric temperature, and they DON'T INCLUDE the 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING INTRINSIC to COMPRESSIBLE-PHASE MATTER.

THAT'S where that FAKE 33 degree short fall comes from.

The REAL calculation of our Atmosphere's temperature, pressure etc, are very well known due to the presence of the International Standard Atmosphere - and there IS no "magical gaissiness quotient" involved in calculation of that Standard.

Nor is there any ''Magical Gassiness Factor" in solving of any OTHER gas temperature calculation: Not for ovens, stoves, internal combustion, jet engines, explosives, firewood, not for ANYthing.

LMAO!!! Breitbart? Are you fucking kidding me? lol

And realclimatescience.com is hardly scientific. I can create a ScientificWeedGrower.com website, but it doesn't mean it's scientific anything.

 

[Cannavore]

You're already convinced.

ding ding ding

 

[TychoMonolyth]

So you actually think NASA/NOAA made a math mistake as it applies to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Also, do you believe the moon landings were faked? Just asking.

 

[igrowone]

spring low

spring low

greetings fellow climate nerds, it's that time of year again
the march maximum up at the north pole
and it wasn't quite a record, got a spurt of ice making in the latter half of march
still quite low though, and as has been noted the 4 lowest ice maximums are all in the last 4 years
the overview from nsidc and the charts

Arctic sea ice maximum at second lowest in the satellite record

March 23, 2018
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 17. This is the second lowest Arctic maximum in the 39-year satellite record. The four lowest maximum extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the past four years. NSIDC will post a detailed analysis of the 2017 to 2018 winter sea ice conditions in our regular monthly post in early April.

 

[Ununionized]

You're so far out of the field you're not playing the same ball game. There is a law of thermodynamics written for solving temperatures and other values related to gases.

Stefan-Boltzmann processing alone doesn't account for temperatures of gases and atmospheres because if that gas law isn't processed properly the compression warming isn't accounted.

The question here is what in the world you thought the First Law has to do with solving gas and atmospheric temperatures.

As far as your ''belief'' system, I can show everybody what I KNOW you DON'T know:

Tell us all the name of the law of thermodynamics actually used to solve for the temperature of a volume of gas.

Tell us how many parts the law has and those parts' names.

Tell us what the law provides that other laws don't, that make the law necessary in solving gas temperatures.

Tell me the equation of the law; and what each of the letters in the equation stand for.

Don't act like everyone else is a dolt till you can name the law of physics governing what you're talking about: atmospheric temperature.

And - you can't. I'm not asking, I'm telling everybody else here you can't, and that your not doing it, is gonna prove what I said: you're so clueless here you don't even know what law of physics you're supposed to be talking about.

So you actually think NASA/NOAA made a math mistake as it applies to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Also, do you believe the moon landings were faked? Just asking.