Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

a reply to: Learningman

I'm saying why do we have to fund the search and combatant for global warming when it appears that Asia is the main suspect causing it. We're wasting money.

Gotta go, be back in the morning.

a reply to: LSU0408

Only one nation emits more CO2 than the United States, but again, that does not matter. It is because of demand. We benefit from electrical power, even if we don't create the electricity locally. We benefit from food supplies, from transport, and so on. This means everyone who uses these products are the target.

a reply to: LSU0408

I'm saying why do we have to fund the search and combatant for global warming when it appears that Asia is the main suspect causing it.

That would depend on how you look at it. Each of us is producing a lot more CO2 than any Asian is.
www.wri.org...

Asia are not responsible for the so called 'Man made Global warming'.

If it actually does exist, then the largest contribution would have been made by the Superpowers of the World over the last 200 years or so.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Asia are not responsible for the so called 'Man made Global warming'.

Actually, Asia has been contributing to global CO2 emissions for a while (everywhere that fossil fuels are used has been). But it wasn't until fairly recently it was the front runner.
graphics8.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Actually China emits the most CO2, followed by the U.S. but I'd agree that this is only currently.

a reply to: forkedtongue

How about the industrial revolution

a reply to: Phage

So you think that raw data which is known to be inaccurate should be relied upon?

I am suggesting that raw data is being manipulated to result in an outcome that will please those funding the research.

If you look at a recent results of global MSU/AMSU data by the University of Alabama climatologists, they conclude the data shows +0.1 C/decade since 1979 with a drop off since 2002/2003 to near zero. Their findings concur with the RSS data. Now the big problem with the recent temperature hiatus is that CO2 has increased not decreased since ~2002 which questions the whole science behind AGW.

Of cause those within IPCC know it.....

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years. According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit)—a value very close to zero,” Storch told Der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
[url=http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_author_will_admit_error_if_five_more_years_of_no_warming/]link[/u rl]

a reply to: glend

If you look at a recent results of global MSU/AMSU data by the University of Alabama climatologists,

I showed you data from Spencer himself. But, and this is pretty amusing, with all your complaining about "manipulating data", this is from your source:

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true.

So you like Spencer's adjustments and reject others? Why?

This should be considered a “beta” release of Version 6.0, and we await users’ comments to see whether there are any obvious remaining problems in the dataset. In any event, we are confident that the new Version 6.0 dataset as it currently stands is more accurate and useful than the Version 5.6 dataset.

Are you sure he isn't adjusting the data to suit his agenda? Here is one observation on Spencer's adjusted data:

The difference in trends is not statistically significant, unlike the difference in the Arctic and the differences between temperatures is relatively minor.

environmentalforest.blogspot.com...

a reply to: glend
Hi.

Do you know how satellites measure temperature?

It ain't so great.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not at all interested in reading anything from skepticalscience because that site makes me gag. A comprehensice study of Antartica's surface mass balance which concurs with Monaghan et al. (2006) research, shows insignificant changes in ice cover over past 50 years. Over the 800 year period Antarctica has 10% more ice today than the medium. but still within variability of the long term trend.

Antartica's ice isn't melting, nor are oceans rising above the long term trend, nor are polar bear numbers declining. All that fearmongering nonsense must stop.

a reply to: glend

I am not at all interested in reading anything from skepticalscience because that site makes me gag.

But you enjoy Anthony Watts.

Antartica's ice isn't melting, nor are oceans rising above the long term trend, nor are polar bear numbers declining.

Glaciers on land don't actually have to melt for more ice to enter the ocean.

Define long term trend.

I don't know much about polar bears.

a reply to: Phage

So you like Spencer's adjustments and reject others? Why?

Nothing amusing about it at all, the MSU/AMSU data by the University of Alabama collaborates RSS data which also collaborates the UAH dataset, there has been no global warming for at least 15 years.

a reply to: Phage

I don't remember quoting anything from Anthony Watts (I pulled stored graphs which he sourced from NOAA which I found on his site via google search). You do seem to have a a fixation on him, do you find him pretty?

Long trend - The linked paper was over 800 year timeline.

I don't know much about polar bears.,,, Polar bears and there extinction was pushed by AGWers for years and then suddenly vanished from news stories which is why I went looking at their population statistics. They are doing fine.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: glend
Hi.

Do you know how satellites measure temperature?

It ain't so great.

Please tell?

a reply to: glend

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Phage

So you like Spencer's adjustments and reject others? Why?

Nothing amusing about it at all, the MSU/AMSU data by the University of Alabama collaborates RSS data which also collaborates the UAH dataset, there has been no global warming for at least 15 years.

Quite amusing actually.You don't even see it, do you? You rail against the adjustment of data from surface based instruments because the adjustments show increasing temperatures where previously they did not. And yet, you accept the adjusted data from satellite based instruments because where previously they showed an increase, you think the adjusted data does not.

Oh. About that "no warming for 15 years", I'll refer to the link I provided earlier:
www.drroyspencer.com...
Seems that Dr. Roy has found that temperatures have indeed risen since 2000 (15 years ago, right), even if you leave out the el nino of 2015. I make it close to 0.2º. Still like his adjustments or do you want to try to cherry pick another time range?

a reply to: glend

Long trend - The linked paper was over 800 year timeline.

What linked paper?

Polar bears and there extinction was pushed by AGWers for years and then suddenly vanished from news stories which is why I went looking at their population statistics. They are doing fine.

Well, I don't pay much attention to what the media find interesting. the science on the other hand, I do.

a reply to: Phage

here

a reply to: glend
You said this:

Antartica's ice isn't melting, nor are oceans rising above the long term trend, nor are polar bear numbers declining.

The long term trend I was a referring to was sea level rise. Your link does not seem to include any data on that. Nor does it seem to mention the effects of glacial ice entering the ocean due to the loss of ice shelves though this quote is pertinent:

Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level.

Interesting, don't you agree? From a paper which is 4 years old, in light of recent discoveries.
dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: glend
Hi.

Do you know how satellites measure temperature?

It ain't so great.

Please tell?

Here's but one problem: they don't scan the poles - neither RSS nor UAH. Deflection problems. They get near-ish... UAH goes to something like 82.5 degrees North (and way less South). Oh, and the Arctic is the fastest warming place on Earth.

Here's another problem: they don't scan the entire globe regularly. Satellites orbit from pole-to-pole. The Earth spins. They make an arcing path across the Earth, then another, and another, and so on. The can only look at a small section of the Earth at once. This means that they pass over the poles several times in a day (yet don't scan the poles due to deflection), but might only scan a spot at the equator two or three times a week.

A third problem: they 'see' the entire atmosphere at once. How do they extract different temperatures for different altitudes? By algorithms that they make up. Well, maybe not totally make up - they try to correlate it with radiosondes and other measurements, but microwave sounders ain't a thermometer. Dr. Spencer once saidthat satellite accuracy was fairly poor:

Some of our earliest papers on global temperature monitoring gave precision estimates for monthly global averages, daily global averages, and corresponding signal-to-noise ratios. We got these by comparing years of statistics from different satellites flying at the same time but in different orbits. I forget the exact numbers, but yearly global anomalies have a precision of about 0.01 deg. C or so, daily is several hundredths of a degree, etc.

The ABSOLUTE accuracy of the measurements is not nearly as good….probably no better than about 0.5 deg. C. But since each deep-layer measurement of the atmosphere includes individual air layers spanning tens of degrees, even small errors in the microwave absorption theory will translate into that much uncertainty.

That particular post also blamed divergence of RSS from UAH on a failing satellite that RSS still used but UAH didn't. That now UAH is very aligned with RSS is interesting.

There are other reasons, but those are a few. Satellites are great at wide coverage, but not so great at accurate sampling.