Arctic Sea Ice underestimated for weeks due to faulty sensor

[calfoxwc]

When logic is defied, eventually a scientific support for the truth will come out.

Here is another one: (don't buy into man made global warming folks - it's a theory

not fact)

 

faulty sensor. faulty Al Gore. Faulty movie with styrofoam ice bergs.

 

*****************************

 

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

 

By Alex MoralesFeb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

 

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

 

“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

 

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

 

The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

 

The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.

 

“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.”

 

 

[calfoxwc]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/...ll/429611a.html

 

talks about the last EIGHT ICE AGES. A good read.

 

Now, ask yourself, folks... how did the ice ages dissipate seven times with

no man made global warming?

 

The Earth's weather, globally, goes through phases.

 

There isn't any manmade global warming crisis. Get rid of those bad sensors - they

 

are helping anybody !

[Mr. T]

After all the data was corrected they have realized that the Ice that has formed is almost the size of the state of California.

 

Do you think that the Liberals in DC will take this information in account to the carbon tax proposals that they want to charge all of us?

 

Well, I dont think so. They will continue on with their plans. And tell us Al Gore is really mother nature in disguise.

[calfoxwc]

Apparently no liberals, not even the liberals here, want to address the issue of the faulty sensor that

gave them the urge to binge on the Algorish ManMade GlobalWarming Swarming Koolaid.

 

You can hear a pin drop, eh? Apparently, Nature.com can't be dissed, so silence is golden...

 

I think Al Gore IS a faulty sensor.

 

[PB&J]

The nature.com article doesn't say anything to discredit global warming or climate change or whatever it is called now. It isn't proof one way or the other. Obviously the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, but the whole global warming thing is that with industrialization we have piled on to the natural curve, not that everything is caused by man.

 

I don't get why there is so much hostility towards global warming. If you are right, then great. But if you are wrong we are totally xxxxed, and that doesn't seem like a good way to go about things. We should go green and all of that stuff not for the sake of global warming, but because it saves money and would help clean up pollution. If I were a business I would go green solely for the fact that I could advertise that to customers.

[Mr. T]

There are plenty of companies and products who advertise that they are environmental friendly and they have gone green and theree are plenty of suckers also!

 

I remember back during the clinton days while his loonies were running around with this mother nature crap and all of a sunden everyone wanted to buy recycled paper, what a boom! We made more money than ever off that crap! Heck yes we are green to.

 

......Suckers! the cost of recycling fine papers cost more to produce. Of course that trend didn't last very long.

[Legacy Fan]

I don't get why there is so much hostility towards global warming. If you are right, then great. But if you are wrong we are totally xxxxed, and that doesn't seem like a good way to go about things. We should go green and all of that stuff not for the sake of global warming, but because it saves money and would help clean up pollution. If I were a business I would go green solely for the fact that I could advertise that to customers.

Currently most green tech isnt as efficient as what it is supposed to be replacing. Or the cost is too high. So you're actually increasing your operating costs in the near term (guess which budgetary item gets cut 1st? Advertising).

 

This is the point of the carbon tax - to jack the cost of what we currently use up so high, that it makes more economic sense to go green. I happen to disagree with this desperation move philosophy and would prefer (obviously) the tech to "catch up" so it would be silly not to go green. Not tax the dog-shit out of us til our souls, spirits, and wallets are broken and we have no other place to turn to but Uncle Sam and whatever doo-doo rocket they're selling us this week.

[Mr. T]

Currently most green tech isnt as efficient as what it is supposed to be replacing. Or the cost is too high. So you're actually increasing your operating costs in the near term (guess which budgetary item gets cut 1st? Advertising).

 

This is the point of the carbon tax - to jack the cost of what we currently use up so high, that it makes more economic sense to go green. I happen to disagree with this desperation move philosophy and would prefer (obviously) the tech to "catch up" so it would be silly not to go green. Not tax the dog-shit out of us til our souls, spirits, and wallets are broken and we have no other place to turn to but Uncle Sam and whatever doo-doo rocket they're selling us this week.

 

Now isn't the plan for carbon taxes to create more funding for the UN?

[osusev]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40922072126.htm

 

Damn those pesky geniuses at Nasa and the Euro space agencies...... lets not listen to those guys.... lets listen to fox and sean hannity...

 

Antartica is not breaking up at astronomical rates at all...... those satellite images must have been doctored by left wing libs....

[Guest mz.]

Apparently no liberals, not even the liberals here, want to address the issue of the faulty sensor that

gave them the urge to binge on the Algorish ManMade GlobalWarming Swarming Koolaid.

 

It's probably the NRA avatar that keeps us from continuing debate with you. Who knows what you're packin'.

 

[Mr. T]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40922072126.htm

 

Damn those pesky geniuses at Nasa and the Euro space agencies...... lets not listen to those guys.... lets listen to fox and sean hannity...

 

Antartica is not breaking up at astronomical rates at all...... those satellite images must have been doctored by left wing libs....

 

Ice cubes do melt???

 

The side that is melting and breaking off is normal, what your not seeing is the backside that is reforming new ice.

 

[choco]

Now isn't the plan for carbon taxes to create more funding for the UN?

initially....

 

then it'll become a method for controlling industrial output, and then furthermore a basis of global economic control.

 

least that what they want......

[calfoxwc]

The pictures of ice, etc, has nothing to do with man made global warming.

 

T is right - overall, plus the build up of ice on the other side, negates the idea

that man made global warming is happening.

 

It's just a shift of global climate, folks. It isn't hostility, just an overall view of

historical global weather pattern shifts.

 

Things change on the earth. 10.000 years ago, scientists will tell you that the earth's

axis shifted, causing a serious melting of the enormous ice caps. The dinasaurs did exist,

and stopped existing, and it didn't have anything to do with people driving SUV's, or factories,

or..

 

well, I suppose it COULD have been billions of TRex's farting, but I wasn't there, don't know.

 

And, mz the pussy, the NRA thing was just a quick idea to rebel against the ongoing dispute with Obammy

and Holder vs the 2nd Ammendment.

 

I'd rather have a pic of our next #1 draft pick, but figuring that out - ain't happened so far.

 

Maybe a pic of the Gov of Lousianna, our next president...

[osusev]

thats funny ice cubes... the size of 2 rhode islands breaking up in less than 30 days is pretty common. Antartica is SHRINKING not growing from additional ice.

 

Its pretty simple math to calculate total yearly losses versus ice gains and the NET LOSS yearly is staggering.

 

ice cubes. I like how people like cal talk about prior scientist and science as if they can ignore the same PROCESS now because of other findings. They ignore anything that does not fit their preconcieved NON scientific method approach to finding a conclusion.

 

ice cubes , the size of just that one shelf collapse is like losing a third of Hawaii... greenland and the world total count of glaciers disappearing for a MASSIVE net loss must not be happening either.

 

Tell you what those same scientist and scientific methodology created all modern technologies, you guys should stick to your guns and live in prehistoric life styles. If you want to ignore one and discount it than walk the walk and discount all things created from this same methodology.

[calfoxwc]

Sorry, Sev, but the info you use needs to be scientifically re-calced - you are

still quoting info from scientists who found out their SENSOR was FAULTY.

 

You should know me by now, Sev - if I thought we humans were causing global warming, I would say so.

 

But I don't. The only exception would be the totol destruction of millions and millions of acres of rainforest.

 

But to ignore solar flares and slight shifts of the polar axis, the last major one which was 19,000 years ago...

 

is to be locked into a politically motivated parroting of keywords and phrases. Liberal jaw-flappy.

[osusev]

The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said

 

did you just conviently ignore that?

 

Ok there IS more ice in antartica.... it was always there. That does not affect the MELT rate which is what is causing concern. The NET LOSS per year is staggering.

 

Cal I dont for one second believe nor do most of the envirementalist think that HUMANS ARE THE SOLE SOURCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. We believe we are the TIPPING POINT cause. The earth and extra solar variables are always taken into factor... what you people dont seem to get is that we are not proposing we are the sole source or even the most powerful source. We are measuring our output of human caused methane and co2 versus the data of what the earth normally fluxuates.... That is the problem. We are pushing a very complex biome into redlining.

 

honestly its mind boggling why people even would care if the world scientific consensus was wrong. Its a GOOD thing to find balance and not pump toxins and poison on the only planet we live in. cutting back excessive consumption is not a bad thing nor finding ways to enforce that because humans dont naturally behave to conserve. We more act like locust swarms.

[calfoxwc]

I don't have to ignore it. The ice is melting in some places. In other places, the freakin ice is growing.

 

How the heyl does that lend itself to supporting man made global warming theories?

 

Here:

 

Sev, wafting toward pollution elimination has nothing to do with man made global warming.

 

If that were true, the planet would have been a hell of a lot warmer after the industrial revolution.

 

The theory that the latest global warming trend is because man's doing is the "tipping point" is hilarious.

 

I mean, is that like outhouse tipping? A tornado is coming, and the the outhouse was going to fall over anyways, so a slight eensy weensie little helping hand by a few people kicked the outhouse on it's side?

 

Sev... man made global warming, outside of the bijjilion acres of rain forest destroyed by man, isn't even a

"tipping" point.

 

It's just cya rationalization.

 

Consider the earth, at least half the earth that the Sun shines on at any particular time.

 

Now, consider the possibility that at that time, solar flares occured in profoundly far more numbers

and far greater intensity than ever before.

 

Then, consider the probability that the sun drenched earth was facing a brighter sun.

 

And tell me what you would decide about the greater brightness from the sun.

 

Well, global warming activists would say, the cause of that half global brightness was

people using flashlights, headlights and indoor lights during the day. "Shut off all lights

during the day" they'll cry !

 

Well, the brightness of the sun is certainly just as bright in the middle of the ocean as it is in the middle of the desert,

 

where hardly any freakin body has a light on.

 

Well, "those flashlights and headlights sure aren't helping anything", eh?

 

Believe in man made global brilliance, even though people turning off all their lights

would have NO FREAKIN EFFECT BECAUSE THEIR LIGHTS WEREN'T CAUSING THE PROBLEM

IN THE FIRST PLACE !??

 

Sure, it's ridiculous. THAT IS THE POINT, DAMMIT !

 

BTW, if you get rid of that nasty CO2, all plants will die. Plants take in CO2 and exude Oxygen.

Yeah. So after the plants die, they won't be producing any oxygen. It's called photosynthesis.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I will help you not embarrass yourself, Sev.

 

Yes, it is photosynthesis like I said. And yes, that is how it works:

 

**********************************

Photosynthesis[α] is a metabolic pathway that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria, but not in Archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, but not all organisms that use light as a source of energy carry out photosynthesis, since photoheterotrophs use organic compounds, rather than carbon dioxide, as a source of carbon.[2] In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is crucially important for life on Earth, since as well as it maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.[2][

 

Seriously, I have a question:

 

Given the scientific veracity of the above description of photosynthesis, why don't man made global warming advocates

 

talk about the role plants play? Why do they ignore plants? HELLO? PHOTOSYNTHESIS !

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Oh, come on, Sev - we were just getting to the nitty gritty of the fraud of global warming ! Don't go away...

 

Now, scientists are frustrated that in the last ten years, the global warming has HALTED.

 

And THAT is with GREAT LEVELS OF CO2. So... how can the global warming have halted? Eh?

 

Add to that, that first it was 5 years, then 10 years, and now 30 years before we are doomed to

global warming.

 

Those scientists are confused. I'm not, they were wrong. The scientists I believe in don't have

an alarmist, political agenda and they make sense to me.

 

Plant life uses CO2 and converts it to oxygen via the photosynthesis proecess. Sev, seriously, why don't

you global warming folks want to talk about that? Why can't Al Gorish be promoting the stopping of the destruction

of the virgin rain forests? Instead, he wails about Republicans driving SUV's ? See a trend there?

 

I can guess, but I'll let you answer.

[smalls1129]

Oh, come on, Sev - we were just getting to the nitty gritty of the fraud of global warming ! Don't go away...

 

Now, scientists are frustrated that in the last ten years, the global warming has HALTED.

 

And THAT is with GREAT LEVELS OF CO2. So... how can the global warming have halted? Eh?

 

Add to that, that first it was 5 years, then 10 years, and now 30 years before we are doomed to

global warming.

 

Those scientists are confused. I'm not, they were wrong. The scientists I believe in don't have

an alarmist, political agenda and they make sense to me.

 

Plant life uses CO2 and converts it to oxygen via the photosynthesis proecess. Sev, seriously, why don't

you global warming folks want to talk about that? Why can't Al Gorish be promoting the stopping of the destruction

of the virgin rain forests? Instead, he wails about Republicans driving SUV's ? See a trend there?

 

I can guess, but I'll let you answer.

 

 

You forgot the part of the study where they said that we could expect GLOBAL COOLING for the next 20 years. But then, yea they had the gal to say...you guessed it, that in 20 years when Global Warming returns it will "Return with vengeance!"

[Kosar_For_President]

Why can't Al Gorish be promoting the stopping of the destruction

of the virgin rain forests? Instead, he wails about Republicans driving SUV's?

 

Very well put. He wails on everyone though. Hey even if this Global Warming thing is a farce, at least it can create a new industry for the US to jump on (ie. .coms and housing) to hopefully put some people back to work.

[smalls1129]

It is my understanding that part of the reason we simple citizens have not jumped all over the alternative energy (for homes) technology is because it's simply not cost effective. Most of the companies that sell solar cells(sheets), or wind turbines are relying on government subsidies to make their businesses viable. Now besides the obvious problem with the government not being in a position to afford high subsidies for a sustained period of time; it also hinders the effect the new technology can have on the private sector. IMO, I don't see how we can afford energy getting to the point of Medicare/Medicaid in the reliance of government subsidy/price control.

 

As part of my time doing industrial sales, I had to go to a conference/school put on by Koyo (they're a foreign bearing manufacturer). One of their largest bearing goes into most Wind Turbines. They're quite impressive. The problem is they cost an astronomical amount of money to build. Couple this with the land requirements (can't be within I believe 5 miles of homes) and the relative inefficiencies that wind power provides and I just couldn't see how this would be viable over the long haul. One more thing to consider with wind power. And think of the country that we live in while considering this:

As part of this class we also got to see video of a wind turbine exploding in Australia. The reducer that's supposed to govern the wind resistance was broke and it the petals were spinning out of control. Well anyway the thing blew up, and they fond debris 15 miles away. Back to what I see as the problem: in our country all it would take it one wind turbine blowing up and finding a home, and the law suits that would result would, well I could just see people walking away from it as not worth the hassel

[calfoxwc]

Solar power is very limited in a lot of parts of northern U.S.

 

Wind Turbines? Sounds great, makes people feel happy and encourgaged...

 

the other problem besides the bearings (what would be the wear out replacement schedule

and how much would it COST)...

 

is also the noise. I've read that the noise from those things, especially after the bearings

get worn, is loud.

 

And, birds will get killed.

 

Anyways, alternative energy is important to look into to, but I wouldn't invest $$$$ in it that you can't

afford to lose.

 

Look at ethanol. It's limitations spell doom for investors, I think.

[smalls1129]

Solar power is very limited in a lot of parts of northern U.S.

 

Wind Turbines? Sounds great, makes people feel happy and encourgaged...

 

the other problem besides the bearings (what would be the wear out replacement schedule

and how much would it COST)...

 

is also the noise. I've read that the noise from those things, especially after the bearings

get worn, is loud.

 

And, birds will get killed.

 

Anyways, alternative energy is important to look into to, but I wouldn't invest $$$$ in it that you can't

afford to lose.

 

Look at ethanol. It's limitations spell doom for investors, I think.

 

 

Wish I could remember the exact cost. Since I can't I don't want to speculate but I'm pretty sure it was at least 6 figures. And I agree completely on ethanol, it was doomed to start and caused a food shortage.