Why Did The Ice Sheets Melt 10,000 Years Ago?

[konradv]

LOL!!! Can't even get the units right!!! 1,000 is 'kilo' and 1,000,000 is 'mega'.

So now you are an expert on the nomenclature for expressing the unit of measure in cow fartology?

Figures.

Can you show me some peer reviewed science to back up your claim of misused prefixes in that particular pseudoscience?

You just get dumber everyday, don't you? If you don't know what I'm talking about, it explains a lot about your fantasy-filled conception of the physical laws of the universe.

 

[konradv]

I don't know, but it was surely the fault of humans...and of course cow farts.

LOL!!! Can't even get the units right!!! 1,000 is 'kilo' and 1,000,000 is 'mega'. Any wonder we don't give much credence to the opinion of the deniers? Anyone with the least bit of knowledge or attention to detail should be able to pick that up right away. The fact that the poster didn't just goes to show that their objection is political and they'll post anything that "proves" their point, even if it doesn't make any sense at all. They're really speaking to the choir, which will swallow just about anything that feeds their prejudices. Anyone who points it out or has a different view usually doesn't get a cogent answer, only accussations of being an acolyte of the Goracle

Thanks for once again showing that GW cultists lack a sense of humor as well. I've never heard of a kyoto as a unit of measurment either moron. That's the point of satire. Of course one must have a certain level of intellect to comprehend satire. That's why a lot of lefties don't like Stephen Colbert, they actually think his O'Reilly esk personna is real, they can't conceive of the idea that it is a character.

There's good satire and bad satire. In good satire someone gets skewered. In bad satire the satirist gets skewered. The thing about satire is that it has to have at least one foot set in reality, which that post DID NOT.

 

[wirebender]

More data comes in every day. But since you don't ascribe to the same physical laws as the rest of us, my "assumption" is that you'll never get it.

Seems that most of the data that is coming in goes against your faith.

And do feel free to point out any physical law that I ascribe to that is unphysical. You keep making that claim but seem entirely unable to actually describe any error on my part.

Your frame of reference is skewed, preventing you from undertstanding the most basic concepts of the theory.

Again, describe how my frame of reference is skewed. Which physical law or laws am I misapplying? What mathematical error have I made? Where do I deviate from the laws of physics. Describe any error on my part in detail and be prepared to show your work. I certainly had no problem showing mine.

 

[wirebender]

The only circumstance that's important here is that some people think putting 'gate' on the end of everything, proves something.

In typical fashion, the point of the comment went right over your head. Do you just like public humiliation or something?

 

[gslack]

In typical CON$ervative fashion, when caught in their bullshit, CON$ just keep repeating their bullshit.

It didn't take 13 years to "FIGURE OUT" the error, the link I posted and you cited for you "figure out" lie merely says the error was debunked 13 years after it was first published, not that it took 13 years to figure it out!

So then you are contending Christy and spencer did it intentionally?

So then CHristy helped to out himself in that paper you linked to?



Sure ed sure.... You are unbelievable man, you lie and then lie about your lie...HAHAHAHAHAA!

You are milking that dumb act beyond its capacity to mask your lying!!!

The paper Christy coauthored, where he confessed that once his and Spencer's errors were corrected the UAH data showed the same AGW warming all the other data sets showed, was written in 2006, well after his errors were "outed" by others without his help.
Try again

Clue dumbass, it took 13 years to figure out the error in the method used by everyone. Hence it took 13 years moron. No one guessed the satellite degradation issue until then. Jesus man, you just can't admit that some of the lead scientists in the field disagree with you algorians can you? LOL you people are pathetic...

Here's why....

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

Thats the reason you idiots have to pretend that any scientists disagreeing is on someones payroll, an incompetent, or just plain evil. But you go on right ahead and pretend its not the case, even if they do tell you themselves....

 

[edthecynic]

So then you are contending Christy and spencer did it intentionally?

So then CHristy helped to out himself in that paper you linked to?



Sure ed sure.... You are unbelievable man, you lie and then lie about your lie...HAHAHAHAHAA!

You are milking that dumb act beyond its capacity to mask your lying!!!

The paper Christy coauthored, where he confessed that once his and Spencer's errors were corrected the UAH data showed the same AGW warming all the other data sets showed, was written in 2006, well after his errors were "outed" by others without his help.
Try again

Clue dumbass, it took 13 years to figure out the error in the method used by everyone. Hence it took 13 years moron. No one guessed the satellite degradation issue until then. Jesus man, you just can't admit that some of the lead scientists in the field disagree with you algorians can you? LOL you people are pathetic...

You DittoTards just keep on telling the same stupid lies no matter how many times they are debunked.

The fact that Spencer and Christy were cooking the data for 13 years does not mean it took 13 years to solve what sign to use for satellite drift or that nobody else was correcting for diurnal satellite drift correctly during those 13 years. RSS was correcting for satellite drift correctly the whole 13 years, it was only UAH who were either too stupid to correctly compute satellite drift or deliberately fudging the data. But you have pointed out the they were AWARDED experts in satellite data, so it had to be deliberate. If RSS could do it correctly the entire 13 years then UAH could have also, if they wanted to that is.

 

[uscitizen]

Why Did The Ice Sheets Melt 10,000 Years Ago

Booosh!

 

[gslack]

You are milking that dumb act beyond its capacity to mask your lying!!!

The paper Christy coauthored, where he confessed that once his and Spencer's errors were corrected the UAH data showed the same AGW warming all the other data sets showed, was written in 2006, well after his errors were "outed" by others without his help.
Try again

Clue dumbass, it took 13 years to figure out the error in the method used by everyone. Hence it took 13 years moron. No one guessed the satellite degradation issue until then. Jesus man, you just can't admit that some of the lead scientists in the field disagree with you algorians can you? LOL you people are pathetic...

You DittoTards just keep on telling the same stupid lies no matter how many times they are debunked.

The fact that Spencer and Christy were cooking the data for 13 years does not mean it took 13 years to solve what sign to use for satellite drift or that nobody else was correcting for diurnal satellite drift correctly during those 13 years. RSS was correcting for satellite drift correctly the whole 13 years, it was only UAH who were too either stupid to correctly compute satellite drift or deliberately fudging the data. But you have pointed out the they were AWARDED experts in satellite data, so it had to be deliberate. If RSS could do it correctly the entire 13 years then UAH could have also, if they wanted to that is.

LOL sure moron sure....

BTW DON"T CUT UP MY POSTS !

you cut out this part...

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

[The Infidel]

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

 

[edthecynic]

Clue dumbass, it took 13 years to figure out the error in the method used by everyone. Hence it took 13 years moron. No one guessed the satellite degradation issue until then. Jesus man, you just can't admit that some of the lead scientists in the field disagree with you algorians can you? LOL you people are pathetic...

You DittoTards just keep on telling the same stupid lies no matter how many times they are debunked.

The fact that Spencer and Christy were cooking the data for 13 years does not mean it took 13 years to solve what sign to use for satellite drift or that nobody else was correcting for diurnal satellite drift correctly during those 13 years. RSS was correcting for satellite drift correctly the whole 13 years, it was only UAH who were too either stupid to correctly compute satellite drift or deliberately fudging the data. But you have pointed out the they were AWARDED experts in satellite data, so it had to be deliberate. If RSS could do it correctly the entire 13 years then UAH could have also, if they wanted to that is.

LOL sure moron sure....

BTW DON"T CUT UP MY POSTS !

I cut out the bullshit you post to divert from the fact that you just lie and make up crap to cover your earlier lies.
Like making up crap like it took 13 years to correct the satellite drift error in the "method everybody used." Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend.

Over the years it became obvious that the UAH data was out of line with everybody else, but UAH refused to check the accuracy of their methods. Eventually, after repeated slanders from the deniers, RSS invested the time and money to check the UAH method. The rest is history.

Either they were phony experts who were too stupid to know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic adjustments known to everyone in the field, or they were award winning experts and used the opposite sign on purpose. You have already admitted that they were award winning experts.

 

[gslack]

You DittoTards just keep on telling the same stupid lies no matter how many times they are debunked.

The fact that Spencer and Christy were cooking the data for 13 years does not mean it took 13 years to solve what sign to use for satellite drift or that nobody else was correcting for diurnal satellite drift correctly during those 13 years. RSS was correcting for satellite drift correctly the whole 13 years, it was only UAH who were too either stupid to correctly compute satellite drift or deliberately fudging the data. But you have pointed out the they were AWARDED experts in satellite data, so it had to be deliberate. If RSS could do it correctly the entire 13 years then UAH could have also, if they wanted to that is.

LOL sure moron sure....

BTW DON"T CUT UP MY POSTS !

I cut out the bullshit you post to divert from the fact that you just lie and make up crap to cover your earlier lies.
Like making up crap like it took 13 years to correct the satellite drift error in the "method everybody used." Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend.

Over the years it became obvious that the UAH data was out of line with everybody else, but UAH refused to check the accuracy of their methods. Eventually, after repeated slanders from the deniers, RSS invested the time and money to check the UAH method. The rest is history.

Either they were phony experts who were too stupid to know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic adjustments known to everyone in the field, or they were award winning experts and used the opposite sign on purpose. You have already admitted that they were award winning experts.

BULLSHIT!

Spencer still works for NASA the coefficient for satellite degradation and other variations are based upon each satellite and its own orbital characteristics.. YOU really think they can use the exact same method exactly the same for each satellite? LOL moron...


Look edtheeunic, your ignorance is amusing.. LOL

Bottom line, whether you believe in physics or not flat-earther, spencer is still in charge of science and data in a major new satellite system at NASA. If he had ben found to be deliberately fudging data for 13 years he would no longer work their doing the same job on their satellite. Even if you don't understand the math behind satellite orbit, you have to at least understand they wouldn't keep him much less make him science team lead on the new one...

And Christy is a IPCC assessment report author. And the IPCC of all people would not have him if he was shown deliberately fudging data for 13 years...

Edtheeunic you have once again been caught being a liar and a fraud. Look pal I am sorry you buy into their BS, but don't lie to cover for them when their media isn't based on reality. You fell for the media propaganda and didn't even care to check on it first. And once again they make a fool of you...

EDIT: BTW stop editing my posts!

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

[edthecynic]

LOL sure moron sure....

BTW DON"T CUT UP MY POSTS !

I cut out the bullshit you post to divert from the fact that you just lie and make up crap to cover your earlier lies.
Like making up crap like it took 13 years to correct the satellite drift error in the "method everybody used." Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend.

Over the years it became obvious that the UAH data was out of line with everybody else, but UAH refused to check the accuracy of their methods. Eventually, after repeated slanders from the deniers, RSS invested the time and money to check the UAH method. The rest is history.

Either they were phony experts who were too stupid to know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic adjustments known to everyone in the field, or they were award winning experts and used the opposite sign on purpose. You have already admitted that they were award winning experts.

BULLSHIT!

Spencer still works for NASA the coefficient for satellite degradation and other variations are based upon each satellite and its own orbital characteristics.. YOU really think they can use the exact same method exactly the same for each satellite? LOL moron...

First of all, no one ever said that the same coefficient for satellite drift was exactly the same foe each satellite. That was a Straw Man you fabricated rather than admit the trurh!

Both RSS and UAH use the exact same NASA satellites. RSS was able to calculate the correct satellite drift for each and every one of the same satellites, UAH didn't.
Try again

 

[gslack]

I cut out the bullshit you post to divert from the fact that you just lie and make up crap to cover your earlier lies.
Like making up crap like it took 13 years to correct the satellite drift error in the "method everybody used." Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend.

Over the years it became obvious that the UAH data was out of line with everybody else, but UAH refused to check the accuracy of their methods. Eventually, after repeated slanders from the deniers, RSS invested the time and money to check the UAH method. The rest is history.

Either they were phony experts who were too stupid to know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic adjustments known to everyone in the field, or they were award winning experts and used the opposite sign on purpose. You have already admitted that they were award winning experts.

BULLSHIT!

Spencer still works for NASA the coefficient for satellite degradation and other variations are based upon each satellite and its own orbital characteristics.. YOU really think they can use the exact same method exactly the same for each satellite? LOL moron...

First of all, no one ever said that the same coefficient for satellite drift was exactly the same foe each satellite. That was a Straw Man you fabricated rather than admit the trurh!

Both RSS and UAH use the exact same NASA satellites. RSS was able to calculate the correct satellite drift for each and every one of the same satellites, UAH didn't.
Try again

LIAR!

You said this...."Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend. "

Yeah you said that moron and whats more is it wasn't the first time you made that implication.

You are nailed ed, grow up... You sit there buying into the BS they tell you without even bothering to check and again it blows up in your face...

I ask again, do you think NASA would make Spencer the science lead in their new temp monitoring satellite system, if he had been found deliberately fudging data to show an inaccurate trend? You keep avoiding the question morn, so man up and answer it... Show us just how much of a blind follower of the goracle you really are.... I will make it bigger for you...

I ask again, do you think NASA would make Spencer the science lead in their new temp monitoring satellite system, if he had been found deliberately fudging data to show an inaccurate trend?

Answer it coward...

 

[edthecynic]

BULLSHIT!

Spencer still works for NASA the coefficient for satellite degradation and other variations are based upon each satellite and its own orbital characteristics.. YOU really think they can use the exact same method exactly the same for each satellite? LOL moron...

First of all, no one ever said that the same coefficient for satellite drift was exactly the same foe each satellite. That was a Straw Man you fabricated rather than admit the trurh!

Both RSS and UAH use the exact same NASA satellites. RSS was able to calculate the correct satellite drift for each and every one of the same satellites, UAH didn't.
Try again

LIAR!

You said this...."Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend. "

Yeah you said that moron and whats more is it wasn't the first time you made that implication.

You are nailed ed, grow up...

Just because the METHOD is the same, that does not mean that they calculate the same coefficient for each different satellite. The fact remains that UAH have their own method for combining the data from the different satellites temperature recording instruments, but satellite drift is satellite drift, and while each satellite drifts at a different rate, the drift is still calculated the same, and somehow the foremost experts on satellite data, as deniers billed Spencer and Christy, got it wrong for 13 years and couldn't or more likely wouldn't, since they are the best, figure it out. The "inferior" experts at RSS had to do it for them.

And they are still in NASA because of politics. The GOP want their corrupt shills in NASA.

 

[IanC]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

 

[gslack]

First of all, no one ever said that the same coefficient for satellite drift was exactly the same foe each satellite. That was a Straw Man you fabricated rather than admit the trurh!

Both RSS and UAH use the exact same NASA satellites. RSS was able to calculate the correct satellite drift for each and every one of the same satellites, UAH didn't.
Try again

LIAR!

You said this...."Everybody used the method RSS used and they got satellite drift right. UAH made up their own method which used the wrong sign which either greatly reduced the warming trend or created a cooling trend. "

Yeah you said that moron and whats more is it wasn't the first time you made that implication.

You are nailed ed, grow up...

Just because the METHOD is the same, that does not mean that they calculate the same coefficient for each different satellite. The fact remains that UAH have their own method for combining the data from the different satellites temperature recording instruments, but satellite drift is satellite drift, and while each satellite drifts at a different rate, the drift is still calculated the same, and somehow the foremost experts on satellite data, as deniers billed Spencer and Christy, got it wrong for 13 years and couldn't or more likely wouldn't, since they are the best, figure it out. The "inferior" experts at RSS had to do it for them.

And they are still in NASA because of politics. The GOP want their corrupt shills in NASA.

Ed, you haven't a clue... The UAH was in charge of Tropospheric data and monitoring. As in UPPER TROPOSPHERE. Thats a higher and more close area to monitor than surface temps that others were monitoring. Hence the tropspheric temps didn't coincide well with land and sea measurements which was the problem. Satellite drift and orbital degradation would show sooner at that area of measurement than the surface data. Corrections for a solid reference like the planets surface that stays pretty much the same place is a different matter than on a non-solid or gaseous area. A gaseous area would change more than a solid constant. AND THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM... They didn't have the coefficient right for that area and it took 13 years and others to figure it out. SInce they were they ones doing that area, no one else knew the problem and didn't know how to correct it. Eventually people figured it out and all was fixed.

Since then there has been no more issues that I am aware of and yet these scientists remained in their professions and even won awards for their work. Now had they been proven fraudulent or complicit in a fraud for this, they in the very least wouldn't be working in their fields in any important capacity, but that is not the case at all. In FACT they continue to work in their fields and even head some research and author IPCC assessment reports still. Even NASA made SPencer head of science for their new system doing the same task.

Now you want to pretend the facts are wrong and your propaganda based belief system is correct you go right ahead and remain blind. But don't come at me with lies because I will call you on it...

Still waiting on you to answer my question...

 

[gslack]

For Ed who likes to edit my posts...

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

[IanC]

does the RSS do a better job than the UAH? who knows. but in the last year RSS made a substantial change in the post- 1998 data.

I havent heard anyone accusing Mears and Wentz of fraudulently adjusting the temps upwards in the past, have you? why should C&S be accused then

 

[editec]

This link might help answer the question

Why Did The Ice Sheets Melt 10,000 Years Ago?

 

[edthecynic]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.