Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT.
Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really ******* trust your people??? That used to be mine? I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics.
They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.
I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed.
Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?
Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...
OH BS, newer advances in imaging tech is a cop-out. That image is a close up and the rest are not. The last image is at least 2x zoomed and its plain as day. Why did they do that? Just look at the pics and see for yourself there is nothing in this ice coverage trend that is either a record or unprecedented. There are some areas with less and some with more just as there is on all of those images. To pretend its not is being obtuse..
Further I call HIM a tool because the way he treats people who disagree with his posting. He calls me a hell of a lot worse, so I give what I and others get from him...
The site had a lot of information on it, not all or even most of it can be so easily dismissed. Whether or not I agree with him or your side on this is besides the point. The point is until the IPCC and others start to take other considerations and factors into their assessments and reports/climate models their data and their finding or claims, including all of those groups who support and encourage them with misleading claims based on circumstantial and incomplete data, their data and their findings will continue to be suspect in the very least.
Now, if you agree there a lot more to solar activity and radiation and their effects on our climate, then you can at least see my concern over their incessant blaming of everything the climate does on more CO2. Its asinine and completely ignorant to pretend by limiting CO2 we can stop the climate from changing. It's just plain silly now, and many of the same scientists who claim the earth is warming from CO2, claimed that the earth was going to go into an Ice Age due to the same CO2... They were wrong then, and so far they have been wrong more than they have been right. Yet they are still called experts by the pro-agw lobby and YOU. Anyone who doesn't agree is either on the take or a nut. Olsocks even called a MIT professor a oil company shill just because he wouldn't sign on with the AGW crowd. Seriously? MIT? The preeminent Tech college in this country employ oil company shills.. Yeah right..
When I see what I think might be a duck, I check to see if it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck then if all is true, I call it a duck. Therefore if Chris posts, talks, and gives all the right cues (like mindlessly posting charts and data he doesn't even check for BS), or olsocks posts links to a Greenpeace site and try to pretend its fair and non-bias, or when he deliberately leaves off bits of information in a quote to give a wrong impression of what a scientist says, I can safely call them tools because they act like tools..
I agree that the newer imagine is much closer, but you would
think that the scientist or anyone that is serious about measuring the extent of the ice would understand this and have worked through the issue painfully to make sure it is accurate. What I think of science is that it is
very much based on a ton of a math and accuracy and that means a lot to most scientist. A least I would hope so, but it would really be sad that even with a
peer review system and other authors looking at this data that they wouldn't spot such issues.
There is also volume, which is at its lowest point ever in 2011 since 1979, which is a even better way to gage the ice. Ice extent as you say moves around and some years the ice is one place and the next it is another. Or it piles up. Volume is even more important.
I agree that a tool is someone that can't think through things and has to be a sheep for a group or political party. Me and you see face to face with the cycles and understand that the IPCC was way to simple about what they put out there for people and now the real skeptics are poking holes within what they put forward. They should of more or less said that co2 is a positive forcing within a complex system of cycles. They would of been right if they would of, but instead they tried to pull off the bs that solar cycles mean nothing. The 2000s bit them in the ass as one such cyclone occurred.
Now what I'm asking is why or how the past 5-6 years within such a grand minimum cycle are we holding steady and some are even arguing that we're increasing in global temperature. Me and you agree with the negative forcing as such cycle as this one 'puts on a period' as pointed out with that paper you posted, but something is amiss.
Truth is we supposed to be cooling right now...I'd say we should be as cold now after 5-6 years of a Dalton type grand minimum as the 1960s. We know it is NOT the sun or anything to do with TSI that=the warming. What I'm saying is the ipcc excluded the solar cycles and the natural cycles and got bit on the ass, but that doesn't mean that we can describe the warming or even the fact that we're not cooling. If not co2 what?
About them calling for a new ice age in 1970s to occur in the 2000's. Hell look at the grand minimum, we're in right now and you can understand why they did. They likely didn't think that the positive forcing was going to reverse the natural solar cycle was even possible at that time. Think about it for a second--- in 1880 the idea of plate tectonics wasn't know or what the brent floods were. Science advances every day and new theories are made to make more leaps of understanding. Hell a few years ago, I thought with this grand minimum that we were going to have at least .3-.4c of cooling within the next ten or so years. Remember the paper you posted a link to me and it had charts of these period and how they could be predicted. Maybe they were pointing toward them. There mistake was thinking that the natural cycles didn't matter anymore.
The truth is I believe in the natural cycles and they should be forcing a negative impact on global temperature right now. A real drop should be occurring. Hansen may of been right about the basic idea, but excluded one very important thing as you say.--->The natural cycles. Think about it for a moment with a open mind. I'm listening to your case too.
You can park as many ******* oil rigs as you wish within the northern pole of this planet. I could care less.
