the glacier thread. please post your glacier info here.

[Chris]

Why are the glaciers melting?

ARE they, is the correct question..

Or, did you miss where due to "sensor drift" a massive chunk of glacial ice which was said to have melted, actually didn't?

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Why are the glaciers melting?

ARE they, is the correct question..

Or, did you miss where due to "sensor drift" a massive chunk of glacial ice which was said to have melted, actually didn't?

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

I can make them grow real big, with photoshop or the Gimp, if mediocre photographic fakery is what you like!

But Dew tell, why do YOU think they are?

P.S. Most folks don't open PDFs.

 

[elvis]

Why are the glaciers melting?

ARE they, is the correct question..

Or, did you miss where due to "sensor drift" a massive chunk of glacial ice which was said to have melted, actually didn't?

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

Algore put heaters underneath them.

 

[Chris]

ARE they, is the correct question..

Or, did you miss where due to "sensor drift" a massive chunk of glacial ice which was said to have melted, actually didn't?

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

I can make them grow real big, with photoshop or the Gimp, if mediocre photographic fakery is what you like!

But Dew tell, why do YOU think they are?

P.S. Most folks don't open PDFs.

So go to the usgs.gov website, Brainiac.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So go to the usgs.gov website, Brainiac.

What exactly for?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The other day the NSIDC released an image of a graph which was of the recent levels of Arctic Sea Ice Extent. The graph indicated there was a huge anomaly; a rapid and significant decrease in sea ice extent. Most expected an explanation or notation about the sudden drop to be posted by NSIDC. None came.

A few websites / blogs (ICECAP and Watt’s Up With That among them) posted the image and questioned the validity of the data. Certainly there was an error. There had to be. Eventually, at Watt’s Up With That, Dr. Meier of the NSIDC posted an explanation. He stated there seemed to be a data error and they were reviewing recent data. He also chastized Anthony; asking why it was felt the matter was ‘news’ … worth blogging about. A few points about the issue:

1) The NSIDC published the graph inclusive of the error without notation or explanation. None was added later. Thus it appeared they were simply accepting ‘their’ data without questioning the huge anomaly. That is worth attention and discussion.

2) As the ‘events’ unfolded, the NSIDC seemingly reviewed the data ONLY after bloggers drew attention to the obvious problem. The NSIDC ‘may’ have been reviewing the matter all along but they also;

a) failed to make notation on their website of a potential error.
b) left the invalid data graph posted as if it was valid.

One problem with their action is the posting of the image in the first place. I can just see Al Gore, James Hansen, or one of the other wacko freaks taking it and turning the fictitious loss of ice into a major media event. Can you see Gore claiming all of the Arctic Ice would be gone in 45 days? That type of scenario is historically compounded by the massive media coverage of the bogus information and NO media coverage of reality or later correction.

An example:

“Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth lowest January extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during January was 5.43 million square miles.”

This was released in a number of news outlets -
Denver Weather Examiner: January was seventh warmest for globe
And was also part of the larger NOAA January report -
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - [title]

Will NSIDC issue a correction to the media? Not on your life. Even if they did the odds of the media giving it any attention are slim to none.

The bloggers did nothing wrong, they identified an issue. The NSIDC did error. They posted bad data without notation, they failed to add notation (seemingly ignorant of the error), and they attacked bloggers for doing the right thing in drawing attention to the error.

Was it an error? Yes.
There was catastrophic failure of a sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite. The failure caused the false data and incorrectly showed a massive loss of sea ice.

Is that the end of it? No.
It now appears that the sensor’s performance had been degrading for an extended period; assumed to be inclusive of the last two months or so. Hence, all of the data during that period is incorrect. The early evaluation by the NSIDC is that the satellite was under-reporting the extent of sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers.

THIS is the source of all of the "melting glacier" mania you have posted, a result of faulty data.

 

[Chris]

The other day the NSIDC released an image of a graph which was of the recent levels of Arctic Sea Ice Extent. The graph indicated there was a huge anomaly; a rapid and significant decrease in sea ice extent. Most expected an explanation or notation about the sudden drop to be posted by NSIDC. None came.

A few websites / blogs (ICECAP and Watt’s Up With That among them) posted the image and questioned the validity of the data. Certainly there was an error. There had to be. Eventually, at Watt’s Up With That, Dr. Meier of the NSIDC posted an explanation. He stated there seemed to be a data error and they were reviewing recent data. He also chastized Anthony; asking why it was felt the matter was ‘news’ … worth blogging about. A few points about the issue:

1) The NSIDC published the graph inclusive of the error without notation or explanation. None was added later. Thus it appeared they were simply accepting ‘their’ data without questioning the huge anomaly. That is worth attention and discussion.

2) As the ‘events’ unfolded, the NSIDC seemingly reviewed the data ONLY after bloggers drew attention to the obvious problem. The NSIDC ‘may’ have been reviewing the matter all along but they also;

a) failed to make notation on their website of a potential error.
b) left the invalid data graph posted as if it was valid.

One problem with their action is the posting of the image in the first place. I can just see Al Gore, James Hansen, or one of the other wacko freaks taking it and turning the fictitious loss of ice into a major media event. Can you see Gore claiming all of the Arctic Ice would be gone in 45 days? That type of scenario is historically compounded by the massive media coverage of the bogus information and NO media coverage of reality or later correction.

An example:

“Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth lowest January extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during January was 5.43 million square miles.”

This was released in a number of news outlets -
Denver Weather Examiner: January was seventh warmest for globe
And was also part of the larger NOAA January report -
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - [title]

Will NSIDC issue a correction to the media? Not on your life. Even if they did the odds of the media giving it any attention are slim to none.

The bloggers did nothing wrong, they identified an issue. The NSIDC did error. They posted bad data without notation, they failed to add notation (seemingly ignorant of the error), and they attacked bloggers for doing the right thing in drawing attention to the error.

Was it an error? Yes.
There was catastrophic failure of a sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite. The failure caused the false data and incorrectly showed a massive loss of sea ice.

Is that the end of it? No.
It now appears that the sensor’s performance had been degrading for an extended period; assumed to be inclusive of the last two months or so. Hence, all of the data during that period is incorrect. The early evaluation by the NSIDC is that the satellite was under-reporting the extent of sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers.

THIS is the source of all of the "melting glacier" mania you have posted, a result of faulty data.

Wrong.

Those were studies and photographs from 60 different countries.

Amazing delusion, however.

Do you read anything but right wing blogs?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Wrong.

Those were studies and photographs from 60 different countries.

Amazing delusion, however.

Do you read anything but right wing blogs?

Did you go to NSIDC and check it out for yourself? They admit the data is wrong, the sensors faulty.

Any bells ringing? Or is this all heresy to you Goebbels Warming religious zealots?

 

[Chris]

From those crazy folks at National Geographic....

An oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030.

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."

The 2020 estimate is based on aerial surveys and photography Fagre and his team have been conducting at Glacier since the early 1980s. A more standardized measure of what's happening to a glacier comes from arduous documentation of its mass, which requires—among other techniques—multiple core samples.

No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?

 

[Chris]

Wrong.

Those were studies and photographs from 60 different countries.

Amazing delusion, however.

Do you read anything but right wing blogs?

Did you go to NSIDC and check it out for yourself? They admit the data is wrong, the sensors faulty.

Any bells ringing? Or is this all heresy to you Goebbels Warming religious zealots?

Satellite photos don't lie.

Only people lie.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Wrong.

Those were studies and photographs from 60 different countries.

Amazing delusion, however.

Do you read anything but right wing blogs?

Did you go to NSIDC and check it out for yourself? They admit the data is wrong, the sensors faulty.

Any bells ringing? Or is this all heresy to you Goebbels Warming religious zealots?

Satellite photos don't lie.

Only people lie.

Satellite photos can be anything you want them to be. Ever heard of photoshop?

Interestingly, it WAS satellite photos which detected the NSIDC lie. So, apparently sensors lie as well!

Ever try to convince a die-hard Christian that there's no God? Same exercise we're having here, your blind faith is equal to or greater than any other religious zealot on the planet.

As the Earth continues to cool, and the oceans as well, keep clinging to your faith brother. Don't let any heresy sway you!

 

[Chris]

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.
Bloomberg.com: News

 

[Chris]

Did you go to NSIDC and check it out for yourself? They admit the data is wrong, the sensors faulty.

Any bells ringing? Or is this all heresy to you Goebbels Warming religious zealots?

Satellite photos don't lie.

Only people lie.

Satellite photos can be anything you want them to be. Ever heard of photoshop?

Interestingly, it WAS satellite photos which detected the NSIDC lie. So, apparently sensors lie as well!

Ever try to convince a die-hard Christian that there's no God? Same exercise we're having here, your blind faith is equal to or greater than any other religious zealot on the planet.

As the Earth continues to cool, and the oceans as well, keep clinging to your faith brother. Don't let any heresy sway you!

How old are you?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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

Of course it doesn't. Can't let a half million square miles of ice that you said wasn't there, but clearly is, ruin a good religion!

 

[necritan]

Has anyone done a "Why does Chris' primitive monkey brain allow him to type on keyboards?" study?

 

[Chris]

Has anyone done a "Why does Chris' primitive monkey brain allow him to type on keyboards?" study?

The usual response.

Can't dispute the data, to you insult or talk about Al Gore.

 

[Chris]

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

Of course it doesn't. Can't let a half million square miles of ice that you said wasn't there, but clearly is, ruin a good religion!

How old are you?

 

[elvis]

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

Of course it doesn't. Can't let a half million square miles of ice that you said wasn't there, but clearly is, ruin a good religion!

Some people have faith in God. Chris has faith in Gore.

 

[Chris]

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

Of course it doesn't. Can't let a half million square miles of ice that you said wasn't there, but clearly is, ruin a good religion!

Some people have faith in God. Chris has faith in Gore.

Typical response.

You can't dispute the data, so you insult or talk about Al Gore.

Here is the real science...

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[elvis]

Of course it doesn't. Can't let a half million square miles of ice that you said wasn't there, but clearly is, ruin a good religion!

Some people have faith in God. Chris has faith in Gore.

Typical response.

You can't dispute the data, so you insult or talk about Al Gore.

Here is the real science...

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

We've disputed it over and over again. You're too fucking dense to get it.