Why does one polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

[LaDexter]

Every winter, the sea surface freezes solid all around Ellesmere, and all the way down to mainland Canada.

Hence, it's clear water is no barrier. Care to try a different crazy claim?

LOL!!!

When South America and Antarctica were attached 50? mil years ago, South America's southern tip glaciated, and that's why the terrain looks like northern Canada (post ice age terrain - only rocks attached still there).

Since South America broke off, its contribution to the Antarctic ice age ended, and its ice is long gone.

So, you are 0 for 1 on the data we have. Or, more precisely, you are batting 0 as usual...

 

[LaDexter]

Dexter, do you deny these data?

Bottom chart looks correct.

Top chart - I'd need more time to accept or reject that one

 

[Crick]

I can find you a dozen more that look just like it. The crucial item is the absorption spectrum of CO2 vs the LW radiation spectrum of the Earth. It shows clearly that CO2 will absorb a significant portion of the radiation that the Earth emits after warming from the absorption of SW radiation from the sun.

Do you deny these points?

 

[LaDexter]

I can find you a dozen more that look just like it.

So, in other words, the sheer number of things you can parrot is somehow related to whether or not it is true...

BAWK - sorta true
BAWK BAWK BAWK - mostly true
BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK - it has to be true

 

[Crick]

How about, a measurement made in hundreds of peer reviewed studies is more likely to be true than an idea that exists nowhere but in poster LaDexter's head.

Do you accept that those data represent the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide? The diagram has other data as well, but right now, all I'm looking for is whether or not you accept what everyone else accepts as that characteristic of the gas.

Here is another diagram that might be easier to follow:

Do you accept that the green line (roughly) represents the absorption spectrum of CO2?

 

[LaDexter]

in hundreds of peer reviewed studies

There are hundreds of taxpayer funded peer reviewed fudge studies claiming Antarctica is "melting," and every single person involved with each one of those should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, given that the data ALWAYS showed Antarctic ice INCREASING...

Do you accept that those data represent the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide?

We have two and only two measures of Earth atmospheric temperature - satellites and balloons. The raw data from both is highly correlated and continues to show precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite a rise in CO2. Hence, the hypothesis that CO2 has something to do with Earth temperature should have been rejected long ago. Instead, the data was FUDGED in 2005 with two UNCORRELATED "corrections..." which your taxpayer funded left wing liar rear immediately accepted without question...

 

[Crick]

in hundreds of peer reviewed studies

There are hundreds of taxpayer funded peer reviewed fudge studies claiming Antarctica is "melting,"

In this case, however, we were talking about MEASUREMENTS of the absorption spectrum of CO2

and every single person involved with each one of those should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, given that the data ALWAYS showed Antarctic ice INCREASING...

When you have something meaningful to tell us, please step forward. Till then, keep your rude, thoughtless and unsupported accusations to yourself. No one is interested. No one cares what you think.

Do you accept that those data represent the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide?

We have two and only two measures of Earth atmospheric temperature - satellites and balloons.

That is complete nonsense. We have multiple satellites, we have had hundreds of thousands of balloon launches, we have at least daily readings from tens of thousands of thermometers at the surface, we have thousands of ARGO buoys and hundreds of thousands of XBT traces. They ALL show warming. None of it has been "fudged". They all showed warming long before anyone made adjustments to them. All the adjustments have been justified and all have served no cause but to increase the accuracy of the temperature record.

The question here is whether or not you accept the data I've presented as an accurate representation of the absorption spectrum of CO2. Is there some reason you don't want to answer the question?

 

[LaDexter]

In this case, however, we were talking about MEASUREMENTS of the absorption spectrum of CO2

You were attempting to equate "peer reviewed (climate) studies" with fact. The record is 180 degrees in the opposite direction, and shouting that truth down doesn't change the fact that it is true. YOUR SIDE LIES, it FUDGES data, it CHERRY PICKS, and it hurls insults and those of us who notice and ask questions.

We have multiple satellites, we have thousands of balloon launches, we have at least daily readings from tens of thousands of thermometers at the surface, we have thousands of ARGO buoys and hundreds of thousands of XBT traces. They ALL show warming. It has not bee "fudged".

I wonder how much the US taxpayer is billed for each lie you post here...

Main argument against climate models proven incorrect | Weather Underground

"The main issue has been the inability of the climate models to reproduce the relatively low amount of warming observed by satellites and weather balloon instruments in the troposphere (the lower portion of the atmosphere that extends up to elevations of about 40,000 feet.) This discrepancy was a prime argument Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) used in his famed 2003 speech when he referred to the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has probably more Congressional testimony about global warming under his belt than any other scientist, headlines his website with the quote, "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever"


and then the Tippys FUDGED in 2005. What has the data looked like since 2005??

Hiding the Hiatus: Global Warming on Pause

"Both of these datasets, comprising the most reliable global temperature data available, show no detectable global warming over the past 19 years. The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months, from October 1996 to June 2015."

 

[Crick]

The text you pulled comes from a Weather Underground article. If you'd care to read the entire text in that section - and you really ought to, it looks like this:
Main argument against climate models proven incorrect | Weather Underground

Are the climate models that form the foundation of greenhouse warming predictions fundamentally flawed? That has been the argument of some scientists and "greenhouse skeptics" over the past few decades. The main issue has been the inability of the climate models to reproduce the relatively low amount of warming observed by satellites and weather balloon instruments in the troposphere (the lower portion of the atmosphere that extends up to elevations of about 40,000 feet.) This discrepancy was a prime argument Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) used in his famed2003 speech when he referred to the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has probably more Congressional testimony about global warming under his belt than any other scientist, headlines his website with the quote, "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty." Michael Crichton also used the tropospheric warming discrepancy to give climate models a bad rap in his State of Fear novel. (Remarkably, Crichton--a science fiction writer--was summoned by Sen. Inhofe in September of 2005 to testify before Congress on the issue of climate change.) However, the arguments of these global warming skeptics were dealt a major blow with the issuance this week of a press release by NOAA's Climate Change Science Program refuting their main argument.

The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So can we trust the climate models now? That will remain a matter of debate, but now we know that these models have successfully performed at least one major prediction that their detractors thought was wrong. With the climate models validated by the collapse of the greenhouse skeptics' main argument against them, it is apparent that their predictions of possible catastrophic climate change need to be taken seriously.

For further reading: The Economist printed a easy to understand article in August 2005 summarizing the new research exposing the satellite and weather balloon measurement errors, andrealclimate.org has a more technical discussion.

God, Dex, are YOU STUPID.

 

[LaDexter]

f you'd care to read the entire text

LMFAO!!!

I pay attention to DATA, to your fudgebaking heroes FUDGING data, and I ignore their pathetic spin.

 

[LaDexter]

So can we trust the climate models now?

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere. What we should do "now" is admit the truth that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT WARM ANYTHING, cut off funding for the liars saying it is, and prosecuting all of them for fraud and possibly treason.

 

[Crick]

Why, despite more than a dozen requests, have you been unable to present this "highly correlated satellite and balloon data that show no warming?

Why do you believe YOUR mystery data is good while that of the rest of the world, which DOES show warming, is bad?

The article you pulled up as evidence did NOT say the data didn't show warming. It said it didn't show the tropospheric hotspot. Well, I couldn't give two shits about the tropospheric hotspot. The tropospheric hotspot is NOT a bellwether for AGW. Cooling in the lower stratosphere IS. And IT is seen all over the bloody planet.

So, you don't even understand the claim you've been making here for weeks. Don't you ever read this stuff? Oh, it didn't come out of your head, so it can't be trusted, right?

My fucking god are you stupid.

 

[LaDexter]

Why, despite more than a dozen requests, have you been unable to present this "highly correlated satellite and balloon data that show no warming?

I have sourced that at least a dozen times.

Why do you believe YOUR mystery data is good while that of the rest of the world, which DOES show warming, is bad?

There is RAW DATA and then there is "corrected data." In order to justify "correcting" data, one has to first have legit reason to believe the RAW DATA is wrong. When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and those two measures are highly correlated, there is no reason to question the data.

Your fudgebaking heroes could not accept the truth of that data, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere did not warm the atmosphere at all = NOTHING. To justify "correcting" that data, the fudgebaking liars cooked up "orbit wobble" and "faulty thermometers," two uncorrelated corrections... and even after FUDGING the data in 2005, the data since 2005 shows the same pattern = NO WARMING.

 

[Crick]

Why, despite more than a dozen requests, have you been unable to present this "highly correlated satellite and balloon data that show no warming?

I have sourced that at least a dozen times.

The Jeff Masters article on the tropospheric hotspot?

Why do you believe YOUR mystery data is good while that of the rest of the world, which DOES show warming, is bad?

There is RAW DATA and then there is "corrected data."

You deniers and your "raw data". Do you actually believe every thermometer and temperature sensor ever made is perfect? What happens if the altitude sensor on your balloon is off? Do you insist on the raw data there as well? Your satellite doesn't measure temperature directly, does it.Do you know how they do that?

[Oh, LOOK! Two *highly correlated* satellite temperature measurements! Our work here is done]​

They measure the radiance levels of certain bands of EM radiation. Do you think those sensors are all perfect? And, in the face of orbital decay and cosmic ray bombardment, do they remain perfect? Do you recall John Christy's remarks about them? That they were made to support your local TV weatherman, not do long range climate studies. And if that was what you wanted to do with them, you were going to have to constantly tune them. How about our knowledge of converting radiance to temperature? Is that perfect? And, finally, if you accept that a microwave sounder can accurately measure the temperature of a gas, I'm afraid you'll have to accept the greenhouse effect of CO2, methane, water vapor, CFCs and all the rest. It is based on the same basic physical function.

In order to justify "correcting" data, one has to first have legit reason to believe the RAW DATA is wrong. When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and those two measures are highly correlated, there is no reason to question the data.

In order to justify NOT calibrating them and adjusting data, you're first going to have to show your sensors are perfect. Your correlation doesn't mean shit. Let's say I have two weather stations a mile apart. Their data is "highly correlated". But I find that both stations are only taking temperature readings at 1500, or they both take their readings at 0400. They correlate beautifully, but are they accurately capturing the average temperature of their locations? No.

Your fudgebaking heroes could not accept the truth of that data, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere did not warm the atmosphere at all = NOTHING. To justify "correcting" that data, the fudgebaking liars cooked up "orbit wobble" and "faulty thermometers," two uncorrelated corrections... and even after FUDGING the data in 2005, the data since 2005 shows the same pattern = NO WARMING.

No temperature data over the last 150 years has been adjusted for "orbit wobble". Some have been adjusted for miscalibrated thermometers. Many have been adjusted for time-of-day issues. Many have been adjusted for urban heat island effects. Many have been adjusted for altitude effects. Satellite data have been adjusted for orbital decay. For mistakes in the equations used to convert from radiance to temperature. A perfect thermometer is a rare accident. If an instrument's measurements can vary for any reason, it needs to be calibrated.

Your view (and you are not alone) that raw data is the best and that any calibration is a fraudulent attempt to make warming look worse is ignorant and paranoid.

 

[LaDexter]

Do you actually believe every thermometer and temperature sensor ever made is perfect?

In short, your side claims every thermometer on the planet that does not show "warming" is "wrong" and needs to be "corrected."

The thermometers are not wrong. Your theory is.

 

[Crick]

You didn't answer my question. That's getting to be a universal denier characteristic. Sensors are never perfect and none of them - particularly older analog instruments - maintain their calibration. That's why every piece of equipment in my lab has a cal sticker on it that says when it was last calibrated and when it needs to be calibrated once again. Nothing is perfect.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ledexter dominating again..........

BTW.....note how the global warming alarmist posters dodge the original premise with general canned narrative responses we've been seeing in here for years and years with typical distraction terms pulled out of their ass like "orbit wobble".............OK!!!

Not for nothing but..................ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

Why, despite more than a dozen requests, have you been unable to present this "highly correlated satellite and balloon data that show no warming?

Why do you believe YOUR mystery data is good while that of the rest of the world, which DOES show warming, is bad?

The article you pulled up as evidence did NOT say the data didn't show warming. It said it didn't show the tropospheric hotspot. Well, I couldn't give two shits about the tropospheric hotspot. The tropospheric hotspot is NOT a bellwether for AGW. Cooling in the lower stratosphere IS. And IT is seen all over the bloody planet.

So, you don't even understand the claim you've been making here for weeks. Don't you ever read this stuff? Oh, it didn't come out of your head, so it can't be trusted, right?

My fucking god are you stupid.

s0n....hate to break it to ya but nobody knows dick about tropospheric hotspots either way.

Your problem is, you take all of your information from the same exact sources all the time and reject ANYTHING that doesn't concur with your view. That's not science s0n........that's religion. duh

Guys like you have all the markings of a non-scientist. Real scientists look for definitive proof through established methodologies. You and the other "science" guys on here do neither. Ever. You reject anything and everything that doesn't conform to your science and in doing so, lose all credibility.

BTW....any of your posts scream that you are pushing an agenda = the Soros funded alarmist agenda. Its a 1.5 trillion dollar industry s0n.......did you ever stop for a moment to weigh the implications of that? Of course you don't

 

[skookerasbil]

"orbit wobble"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ledexter dominating again..........

BTW.....note how the global warming alarmist posters dodge the original premise with general canned narrative responses we've been seeing in here for years and years with typical distraction terms pulled out of their ass like "orbit wobble".............OK!!!

Not for nothing but..................ghey

Ledexter dominating again..........

His idiocy is overwhelming, but that's not what you meant.