NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Please explain why Florida is getting ready to spend untold millions of dollars to reinforce its coastline to protect cities from rising sea level, and how this situation is the number one concern for the people and local governments?

it's because al gore and Obama lied about climate change, and it's all a big scam, it even fooled the military (sarcasm intended)
I think everyone that discounts climate change should be forced to live in Florida....
one more tidibit....to all of you that swear by this article....you do know that ice is 3-dimensional, right?....you might want to think about that for a moment.

Sea Ice isn't the problem... it fluctuates with the weather as it should. Sea Ice is only a few meters thick and subject to rapid changes either way.

Land Ice on the other hand is kilometers thick.....it has been measured for decades by plane flights over a repeated path.... the land ice is melting at an unstoppable rate and in fact the rate of melt is increasing as we read this thread.


Sea levels will rise, nothing can be done to prevent it at this point.

If you do believe in man made climate change, what is the root out the problem.... over population. If you don't believe in man made climate change, overpopulation should be concerning for other reasons (resources). No one talks about it because they haven't figured out a way to make a buck on it; even though it's the most impending threat to our species.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Please explain why Florida is getting ready to spend untold millions of dollars to reinforce its coastline to protect cities from rising sea level, and how this situation is the number one concern for the people and local governments?

please
you have concrete measurements showing al gores recent sea side property aqusitions are facing inundation?

Gill says we have to be careful about how much of the recent decades’ acceleration we attribute to global warming and how much to natural variability. The acceleration could be coming from more rapid melting of ice sheets or increasing ocean heat content,

www.climate.gov...




credit is somewhere in my siggy thread
man made global warming causes sea level rises?
[sark]wow, history DOES repeat itself[/sark]

The Ring of Fire is home to hundreds of volcanoes. But most remain hidden far below the water’s surface. In fact, seventy-five percent of all volcanic activity on the Earth happens in the ocean. But the effects of all this activity aren’t felt only in the Pacific Basin. Earth’s ocean and geology are global, interconnected systems that can affect us all.

Undersea volcanoes produce chemicals and heat that affect the ocean environment.

oceantoday.noaa.gov...
what do you know: NOAA

originally posted by: Danbones

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Please explain why Florida is getting ready to spend untold millions of dollars to reinforce its coastline to protect cities from rising sea level, and how this situation is the number one concern for the people and local governments?

please
you have concrete measurements showing al gores recent sea side property aqusitions are facing inundation?

Its the reality of the people that live there:

St. Augustine's centuries-old Spanish fortress and other national landmarks sit feet from the encroaching Atlantic, whose waters already flood the city's narrow, brick-paved streets about 10 times a year — a problem worsening as sea levels rise. The city has long relied on tourism, but visitors to the fortress and Ponce de Leon's mythical Fountain of Youth might someday have to wear waders at high tide.

"If you want to benefit from the fact we've been here for 450 years, you have the responsibility to look forward to the next 450," said Bill Hamilton, a 63-year-old horticulturist whose family has lived in the city since the 1950s. "Is St. Augustine even going to be here? We owe it to the people coming after us to leave the city in good shape."

St. Augustine is one of many chronically flooded communities along Florida's 1,200-mile coastline, and officials in these diverse places share a common concern: They're afraid their buildings and economies will be further inundated by rising seas in just a couple of decades. The effects are a daily reality in much of Florida. Drinking water wells are fouled by seawater. Higher tides and storm surges make for more frequent road flooding from Jacksonville to Key West, and they're overburdening aging flood-control systems.

abcnews

Ignoring the problem hasn't made it go away. There living this event as it unfolds:

Florida Gulf Coast University is hosting the 2015 Southwest Florida Sea Level Rise Summit on Thursday. Sea level rise is an issue Floridians hear a lot about on the west coast, but those behind the summit say they want to highlight what it will mean for the environment and businesses locally.

Ray Judah, coordinator for the Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition, said there’s no debate over whether sea level rise is happening. He used Miami Beach as an example.

“You can actually visually see during high tides events the flooding of the streets on Miami Beach,” he said.

wgcu

a reply to: LDragonFire
anecdotal evidence is apparently not allowed on this thread I have been told
lol

there is such a thing as subsidance and there is also such a thing as storms with there attendant swells and property damage
water rises and falls all the time
carbon taxes will not fix this

here is a NOAA link to current sea level trends:
up in some places - DOWN in others
( granted it shows sea level up a touch in florida...or is it the coast is DOWN?)
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

How is this for trends?

noaa

a reply to: richcranium

Just stop it...you're making too much sense.

a reply to: Danbones

High tide flooding in south Florida is hardly anecdotal evidence. It is real world data that suggest the sea level is indeed rising in that area. It can be observed with many data points.

In the early fall when the Gulf Stream is pumping the most water, South Florida will often get Coastal Flood advisories as a result of a New or Full moon and resulting higher tides.

50 years ago South Florida did not have this problem 50 years or even 20 years ago. This should tell us something, however given that Governor Rick Scott, just plugs his ears and pretends nothing is changing while secretly working out deals with big Oil to drill and frack in the Everglades and open up Florida's coast to oil exploration.

But go ahead and keep pretending that the industry that gets costs the world trillions in subsidies, that bankrolls most of our elected officials, is not responsible for a good portion of the disinformation that is present in these climate threads.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Please explain why Florida is getting ready to spend untold millions of dollars to reinforce its coastline to protect cities from rising sea level, and how this situation is the number one concern for the people and local governments?

Well, I, for one, cannot explain it, other than to say that they're fighting nature instead of adapting, and the truth is that nature will always win. Basically, they're wasting millions of dollars when it's easier to just send out a pamphlet explaining what's happening and suggesting that, if it is a concern, it might be time to move.

Adaptation--I'm afraid we're losing that skill as a human population, and THAT is going to be the death of many. It's like the people who have been through 10 hurricanes and still live in the same spot after having to rebuild time and time again. I don't get that way of thinking.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

New Jersey also spends millions annually pumping sand on it's beaches, they have been doing this for decades. Virginia Beach also does the same.

Do you suggest we stop doing this?

The hurricane comment is foolish. Why do people live in the Mid-West when it is vulnerable to major tornadoes? Why do people live in the Northeast when they are vulnerable to blizzards? Why to people live in California when it is vulnerable to major earthquakes?

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

So, once again, we were lied to, and data was completely misrepresented. Gee, why am I not surprised?

Yet, I'd bet money people come into the thread claiming we are "denying science" by refusing to accept all the bunk shoveled our way.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Did you read the article?

The article provides to information, to links to the data, just claims of such.

This thread proves nothing except that many will blindly believe a headline that suits their beliefs.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Gothmog

Some people get so caught up in proclaiming humans as evil and destroying Mother Earth Gaia they do not look at al the facts.

Well this in itself is a fact. Humans are as a whole evil, we elect or allow evil to rule over us and we destroy nature in every possible way anyone who does not know this by now is dead or so stupid they can't understand anything!

Please elucidate on how mankind is destroying nature in every possible way . The ball is in your court now. Please reply with the information in a clear and precise way.

LOL
The list would take a year, how about just a few recent items with the Ca oil spill in Santa Barbara.
A Texas hunter who paid $350,000 for the right to hunt a rare black rhino in Namibia has killed the animal.

Our use of chemicals from makeup, deodorant to weed spray is killing our water systems...yes it would take a long long while to answer your question.

a reply to: Danbones

@domo
what are you talking about?
make sense please

That one geographic area is not representative of the whole. What happens near you is not indicative of global trends.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
From the "Forbes" article:

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

Did you even read the entire article? Any of it?

Ignorance passed off as an intelligent comment on the "Forbes" story - pathetic.

What I find amusing is that you are trying to disprove a story reporting on bad data about polar ice caps by posting graphs that most likely derived its information from the aforementioned bad data. Which logical fallacy to I choose, here?

Of course, that's assuming this story is correct. I'm not prepared to make that assumption, but I'm also not prepared to ideologically discard it, either.

So, let's talk about how I look at things. It might help others.

There was a claim in the OP - the very title says: "NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat" and so I sought to see if this claim were true.

A) I looked at the source in the OP. The source is paraphrasing another source.
B) So, I looked at that source - the Forbes article. This source points to another source in its "Updated NASA satellite data" link.
C) Once again, I looked at that source. However, it's just an image - a tiny part of the website.
D) Yet again, I looked at the source of that.

There, I discovered a few things. First, the data is not from NASA. Therefore, one key component of the article (and thus source of this thread, as well as the thread title itself) is factually wrong:

Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA, NSIDC, U. Bremen
send comments about this site

So, to give the OP the benefit of the doubt, the thread title ought to become "No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat" and strike the "NASA Data Reveals" part, because that's wrong. Unfortunately for the OP and this thread, that leads to the second thing you can find at that website:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomoly
That sure looks like a retreat to me. Yes, the site uses that graph that shows little overall has changed in sea ice extent - but that's not the claim. The claim is that polar ice is not retreating. This is incorrect, just as James Taylor is incorrect:

The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been trending upwards. Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere has been trending downwards. One could say that ice is retreating at one pole and advancing at another, but you cannot say that there is no retreat. Therefore, the entire title and premise of this thread is false. It should be hoax binned.

Further, James Taylor implies that there is some correction in previous data - this is not true. It is 'updated' to show new records as they become available. He is conflating things - purposely misleading people with crap like this:

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Yet, you can see in that trend above that it this is not so for the Arctic. He is pointing specifically to the combined Arctic and Antarctic.

Now, do you still want to point to one tiny sentence at the end of this disinformation article as making up for all the lies and bull# contained within it? Do you see why the articles are bad, and why this thread is bad and why they are so very wrong?

Even the singular admission downplays human influence by lumping it with natural influence.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

The article is parroting the original source, which is Forbes: www.forbes.com...

You know, the same Forbes who said that Exxon is the "most valuable company in the World": www.forbes.com...

I am the first to criticize the AGW church. But, I don't want to built hypothesis on biased fact sources. Is there any neutral source to confirm the statements of the article?

On ATS, what would be considered a neutral source!?!? Every source has its own agenda depending on a persons beliefs.

You're the one who is constantly confused. Do you just bounce around climate threads with Greven? His post was quite clear. The money was wasted because the companies went under, the government never recouped their investment.

a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: RickinVa
Sea Ice isn't the problem... it fluctuates with the weather as it should. Sea Ice is only a few meters thick and subject to rapid changes either way.

Land Ice on the other hand is kilometers thick.....it has been measured for decades by plane flights over a repeated path.... the land ice is melting at an unstoppable rate and in fact the rate of melt is increasing as we read this thread.


Sea levels will rise, nothing can be done to prevent it at this point.

this is important....this shows what modern day icebreakers can handle...
www.athropolis.com...

so...in ice that is 8 to 10 feet thick, the ice breaking ships cannot break through....guess what, Ice is 3-dimensional!!...if a sat. photo looks down and it shows "SEA ICE"...does it show that the "surface ice" is frozen at 1 or 2 foot depth or 15 feet depth?...is it a decrease in thickness from previous years?....and where is that at?...does it shift from year to year?...has it decreased in thickness in some spots, but, not in others?...
c'mon, people, there is more to this than a simple "catch line" that can be used in the news media or blogs.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

www.forbes.com...

Ah Ok, so everything is fine I guess? Nothing to see, just keep on buying some more silly stuff now.

Old and busted: Global Warming
New hotness: Warming Temperatures

Proudly presented by Newspeak, may I disturb anyone with some real information now?

HUMANITY HAS ALREADY TRANSGRESSED AT LEAST THREE PLANETARY BOUNDARIES

We have attempted to quantify the temporal trajectory of seven of the proposed planetary boundaries from pre-industrial levels to the present (Fig. 6) (see Appendix 1, Supplementary Methods 2 for data sources and data treatment). The acceleration of the human enterprise since the 1950s, particularly the growth of fertilizer use in modern agriculture, resulted in the transgression of the boundary for the rate of human interference with the global nitrogen cycle. Aggregate data over longer time periods for the biodiversity boundary are not available, but the boundary definition proposed here is greatly exceeded (even out of scale in Fig. 6, illustrated by the shading). We are not suggesting that the current state of biodiversity has passed a boundary. We are saying that the world cannot sustain the current rate of loss of species without resulting in functional collapses. It was not until the 1980s that humanity approached the climate boundary, but the trend of higher atmospheric CO2 concentration shows no signs of slowing down. In contrast, as a result of the signing of the Montreal Protocol, humanity succeeded in reversing the trend with regard to the stratospheric ozone boundary in the 1990s. As seen from Fig. 6, our estimates indicate that humanity is approaching, moreover at a rapid pace, the boundaries for freshwater use and land-system change. The ocean acidification boundary is at risk, although there is a lack of time-series data for the selected boundary variable, as well as information on the response of marine organisms and ecosystems to the projected CO2 perturbation.

www.ecologyandsociety.org...

Meh... we already blew 3 of 9 planetary boundaries you say? Stockholm Environment Institute? Pff... these Europeans, aren't they sweet? Let's deny all this data now and try a new spin for some melting ice with warming temperatures instead (it's the economy, stupid!).

...

a reply to: Greven


Thanks for the source-check on that fragger of 'article' about an 'article', Star for you!