Arctic Ice Off on Good Start this Season.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your appeal to authority argument is weak, bro

Oops, it's not an appeal to authority. You went and used another term you apparently don't understand again.

It's just good, old fashioned mocking of uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted the experts, despite having no relevant education or research experience whatsoever.

Glad we're clear on that, now.

 

[ding]

Oops, it's not an appeal to authority. You went and used another term you apparently don't understand again.

It's just good, old fashioned mocking of uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted the experts, despite having no relevant education or research experience whatsoever.

Glad we're clear on that, now.

No. It is an appeal to authority. You have already admitted to me more than once that you aren't qualified to discuss the earth's climate. Why you are even here is beyond me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. It is an appeal to authority.

False, sorry. Your are wastingyour time whining like a baby.
.

I have given you the opportunity it to embarrass yourself by trying out your material on an actual climate scientist. You, of course, refused. Predictably.

So now you get mocked. Nothing more to it, really.

 

[ding]

False, sorry. Your are wastingyour time whining like a baby.
.

I have given you the opportunity it to embarrass yourself by trying out your material on an actual climate scientist. You, of course, refused. Predictably.

So now you get mocked. Nothing more to it, really.

I don't ever recall a time you didn't mock someone who disagreed with you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't ever recall a time you didn't mock someone who disagreed with you.

That's nice.

So have you guys sent your brilliant insights to a climate scientist, yet?

Why not?!?!? Shouldn't they know about this?!?!

 

[ding]

That's nice.

So have you guys sent your brilliant insights to a climate scientist, yet?

Why not?!?!? Shouldn't they know about this?!?!

There you go again. Making that silly argument. You use that every time you can't make a response but can't help yourself from letting us know you can't. You started doing that a couple of three months ago.

 

[elektra]

LOL,

It is made profoundly clear by YOU that you have NEVER seen the Raw data you crave thus you speak from ignorance.

Have you ever seen the RAW CO2 data from Mauna Loa as I have courtesy of the Director who gave me temporary access to it in 2009, Yet YOU and many others don't question it.....

===

Did you read this at all and the internal links with it?

I tried to help you understand how complex the RAW the satellite data is, but you get angry when I keep posting evidence/facts to you while you have NEVER posted a single scrap of in the entire thread up to this time.

Stop being a wanker child!

===

Wikipedia,

Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements refers to temperature measurement using the Microwave Sounding Unit instrument and is one of several methods of measuring Earth atmospheric temperature from satellites. Microwave measurements have been obtained from the troposphere since 1979, when they were included within NOAA weather satellites, starting with TIROS-N. By comparison, the usable balloon (radiosonde) record begins in 1958 but has less geographic coverage and is less uniform.

Microwave brightness measurements do not directly measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

LINK

===

You originally said it was guesswork which is FALSE! It simply lacks the full resolution capability to see all of the ice of which ReinyDays made clear since it sees in TWO dimensions and that the instruments doing the measuring doesn't have the ability see all the smaller ice floating on the surface.

The Sea Ice data it does have is still valuable well above the level of "guesswork" which is why I keep pointing it out that even getting 90% of the sea ice data is far better than getting zero and provides a databased baseline to build on.

I am the only one posting actual official information, yet you idiotically say I don't provide any knowledge, that is truly stupid since I have posted over 10 links now to your ZERO in the thread.

I am done with you and your childish and stupid replies.

well, pat your elite self on the back with both hands, and pass on the humble pie

You act like we are in an exchange of information, a debate, when we are not.
This latest post of yours really shows you are a moron.
You begin by insulting me? Then you barrage me with google results as if they mean anything. You really do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Links are all it takes to show who wins? When you have no idea what you are talking about and I have not addressed any of your nonsense.

Then you post from wikipedia? Why can you not make the point, present the facts, off the top of your head? It is because you have zero knowledge about what your speak.

You also defend a person that states, nasa does not study the atmosphere? You defend that person as if they are correcting me? Teaching me something? Something I did not discuss, something I did not comment on? As if I joined them in an exchange on snowfall when I never did such a thing?

Again, are you completely stupid? Can you not follow what is going on in these pages? Who says what?

Speaking of stupid, the other dumbass had no idea how snow was measured, they had to do a google search and link to a website to figure it out? Both you who are stupid, and the other idiot, think you are teaching, think you know something, when you only have an answer after your google search?

You really are dumb. It would be nice if you knew what you were speaking of, instead of going to google and pretending you have some sort of knowledge.

ICEsat-2, pretty much dead in space? How long will be able to send data of any sort now that it's life span is essentially over. Why do you post links to a satellite that must be replaced and only operated a few short years. Will they squeeze another year out of the satellite. What happens to it's orbit? You know, now that it is out of fuel? This particular satellite was designed for a short life. 4 years, that is all. How come that is not in any of your posts.

 

[elektra]

elektra said:
Or, the data must be interpreted and applied or computer modeled.
Old ice vs new ice?
What about ice with water on it?

Seems I may have brought up much of this in the past. Like what type of sat is used? What type of data is collected.

Certainly a satellite is not using a wooden ruler like reiny daze stated.

Satellites are not even close to being accurate. Why do you think all them there scientists got stuck in the ice down at the Antarctica all those years ago.. They needed real measurments

Do YOU know what the resolution of Satellites measuring Sea Ice?

Do you know which satellite or satellites that you are talking about? It is obvious you do not, that you have never ever bothered to look up and study which satellites are doing what. Other wise you would state now, or then when you made that post, what satellite you were speaking of.

RESOLUTION? You do not realize that resolution has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measurements. Who gives a shit what the resolution is? It has nothing to do with the accuracy which is what I spoke of.

How is the satellite calibrated, how is the laser calibrated. how many points are used in the calibration. You have an instrument that is capable of millions of measurements. How many calibration points are needed? At which position does the satellite need to be calibrated at?

In calibrating a satellite, they need exact measurements, the more, the more accurate, that takes a team of people at the arctic, in every type of weather, every season, winter spring snow summer, there must be a calibration.

Flucuations in the gravitation field of the earth, will effect the measurements, is the satellite calibrated for those fluctuations.

Light snow on top of the ice makes a difference
Old snow makes a difference

new ice and old ice, all different, requiring calibration

And you ask if I know the resolution of the satellite? You do not ask about the calibration and how accurate that calibration is across the entire arctic in all seasons and types of weather.

I guess you never thought, I see you never had the knowledge of measurements to even think of the accuracy and the calibration.

Resolution, sure, which satellite? More data points has nothing to do with accuracy. More data points require more time on earth measuring stuff by hand, not the snow, but the ice.

Water on top of ice, there is such a thing. Broken old ice, frozen with new ice in between the pieces, big difference.

Resolution? Sorry, I was speaking of accuracy. Accuracy is not known from the products delivered by NASA, not without the raw data being released.

And what do you know of me, that you can state I dont know shit about raw data? You know nothing. What I do know, is I have spent my life as an Electric Power Research Institute analyst. I have used scientific instruments to measure stuff. Does that make me an expert, nope, not at all, but it does give me the knowledge to call you an idiot when you went off on your resolution tangent and began linking to wikipedia.

Accuracy, not resolution, sorry you could not figure out on your own how wrong you were, and are. And as a side note, I do carry what we call, a 6" scale, and at that it is calibrated. I work in Nuclear Submarines now, our equipment is calibrated. Your wooden ruler is not allowed and can not be calibrated. The wooden ruler is not used in science. It is not used where accuracy is required.

 

[skookerasbil]

False, sorry. Your are wastingyour time whining like a baby.
.

I have given you the opportunity it to embarrass yourself by trying out your material on an actual climate scientist. You, of course, refused. Predictably.

So now you get mocked. Nothing more to it, really.

Speaking about mocking.................


Regarding the "science"............



Who is paying attention?

Where does the consensus impact the real world beyond symbolic shit?

Where is the "scientific consensus" transcending outside the scientific community?

Where is the 97% impacting energy policy........for the last 20 years?

Where is the research mattering outside of internet community message boards?

Where is it having ANY impact on China or India?

Where is there any evidence US voters care?




Weve been hearing about "mountains of evidence" and "overwhelming "consensus" for two decades.



@www.whogetsroutinelymocked.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you think the people who discovered and taughtyou that...missed that?

HAVE YOU TOLD THEM?!?!?

Won't they be surprised!

How come CO2 didn't cause large swings in temperature for 10,000 years while CO2 hovered around the 260-280 ppm for all that time?

LINK