Fast recovery of thick Arctic ice

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: USS Skate nuclear...surfaced into open water at the North Pole in 1955. And the following year the USS Nautilus surfaced there through very thin ice.

litesong wrote:
From another thread, showing Arctic sea ice isn't recovering:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for September 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,000 cubic kilometers. Present September 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 4700 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,300 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for September 1.
AGW denier liar whiners made hoopla about 2013-15 returning us to the ice ages. However, ALL YEARLY SEA ICE VOLUME LOW MONTHS in that period, showed Arctic sea ice NOT returned to 50% levels & most below 40%.
Present September 1, Arctic sea ice Volume is ~ 31% of the 1980-89 average.

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
From another thread, showing Arctic sea ice isn't recovering:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for September 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,000 cubic kilometers. Present September 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 4700 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,300 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for September 1.
AGW denier liar whiners made hoopla about 2013-15 returning us to the ice ages. However, ALL YEARLY SEA ICE VOLUME LOW MONTHS in that period, showed Arctic sea ice NOT returned to 50% levels & most below 40%.
Present September 1, Arctic sea ice Volume is ~ 31% of the 1980-89 average.

It should come as no surprise that litebrain is lying through his teeth yet again:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

As anyone with half a brain (which leaves litebrain out) the lowest levels were five years ago and this year is showing recovery from that low.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:

litesong wrote:
From another thread, showing Arctic sea ice isn't recovering:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for September 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,000 cubic kilometers. Present September 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 4700 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,300 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for September 1.
AGW denier liar whiners made hoopla about 2013-15 returning us to the ice ages. However, ALL YEARLY SEA ICE VOLUME LOW MONTHS in that period, showed Arctic sea ice NOT returned to 50% levels & most below 40%.
Present September 1, Arctic sea ice Volume is ~ 31% of the 1980-89 average.

As anyone with half a brain (which leaves litebrain out) the lowest levels were five years ago and this year is showing recovery from that low.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar badnight" bluffed:...it is not possible to measure sea ice volume....

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

They can measure thickness here and there, and they can measure an extent, but they cannot determine a volume. It's one of those math error things again that you just can't get your head wrapped around.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig badnight" woofed: Are you actually DEFENDING "litesong" and his random numbers?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

They can measure thickness here and there, and they can measure an extent, but they cannot determine a volume. It's one of those math error things again that you just can't get your head wrapped around.

Give us your OPINION of what they're doing so that I can shoot it down for the millionth time. I would explain it to you but I'd much rather show you as the fool you are.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Go read the post again.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

They can measure thickness here and there, and they can measure an extent, but they cannot determine a volume. It's one of those math error things again that you just can't get your head wrapped around.

Give us your OPINION of what they're doing so that I can shoot it down for the millionth time. I would explain it to you but I'd much rather show you as the fool you are.

I just did, dumbass. Go read the post again.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

They can measure thickness here and there, and they can measure an extent, but they cannot determine a volume. It's one of those math error things again that you just can't get your head wrapped around.

Give us your OPINION of what they're doing so that I can shoot it down for the millionth time. I would explain it to you but I'd much rather show you as the fool you are.

I just did, dumbass. Go read the post again.

So then you admit that it is your opinion.

Wake wrote:
Well opinions aren't facts.

Wake wrote:
And in fact they can tell ice thickness quite handily.

Wake wrote:
The CryoSat measures the ice thickness from orbit and land missions are carried out to make sure the calibrations are correct.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you cannot bring yourself to study one thing.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Since it is not possible to measure sea ice volume, you are BOTH lying through your teeth.

There we go again - the voice of wisdom from a Seattle-ite. Science ain't science unless he can understand it. And he can't understand any science so it doesn't exist.

Data isn't science, dude. Manufactured data isn't even data.

Are you actually DEFENDING litebeer and his random numbers?

As I said, any science that you don't know about doesn't exist does it you moron. I'm defending the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you're telling us all that they don't know what they're talking about because you don't understand a thing about it.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

They can measure thickness here and there, and they can measure an extent, but they cannot determine a volume. It's one of those math error things again that you just can't get your head wrapped around.

Give us your OPINION of what they're doing so that I can shoot it down for the millionth time. I would explain it to you but I'd much rather show you as the fool you are.

I just did, dumbass. Go read the post again.

So then you admit that it is your opinion.

Of course it is. It also happens to be true.

Wake wrote:
Well opinions aren't facts.

They certainly can be. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

Wake wrote:
And in fact they can tell ice thickness quite handily.

Here and there, true. Thickness does not give you ice volume.

Wake wrote:
The CryoSat measures the ice thickness from orbit and land missions are carried out to make sure the calibrations are correct.

Worshiping satellites again? CryoSat is only capable of comparative measurements of thickness. There are still a lot of inaccuracies in the technique it uses. It's reference point is it's own orbit, which is not precise enough. It shows promise, but it's not ready for prime time.

We still have to go out and drill a core and look. That information does not give you volume either, just the thickness at an observed point. An estimate of thickness can be made by simply observing the altitude of ice surface (if the ice is floating). It is ONLY an estimate, however. This is what the satellite is actually measuring, and what the 'verification' missions are doing.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you cannot bring yourself to study one thing.

I build instrumentation for a living, dumbass. Quite a bit of that instrumentation is used in aerospace (including satellites). I know where the sources of error are.

Stop worshiping the satellite as if it were some god-like device. They are robots, capable of measuring light and their own immediate environment, nothing more.

The Snow and Ice data center does not measure sea ice volume.

Wake wrote:
Guess what? If you "build instrumentation for a living" it must be something that no one will buy.

Wake wrote:
From a satellite they can tell area and depth.

Wake wrote:
For the unenlightened that is VOLUME.

Wake wrote:
They can scan down to the square cm if they want to but it isn't necessary to measure any closer that square meters.

Wake wrote:
For sea ice they already know that it is self limiting to 2 meters in the polar regions and there isn't sea ice outside of the polar regions.

Wake wrote:
Fresh water ice (glacier deposits) for the woefully uninformed

Wake wrote:
floats with a third of it's thickness outside of the ocean water. That means that you need only measure the water height and the ice height to know the thickness.

Wake wrote:
Area scans again can be done down to the sq cm and again it is unnecessary.

Wake wrote:
Missions to many areas are undertaken each year to drill the ice depth to make sure the calibration of the satellite data is correct.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that you actually BELIEVE that you have a clue of what instrumentation is.

Wake wrote:
And I like the part where precise orbital information isn't known.

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - satellites are monitored on radar from most of the world.

Wake wrote:
Their positions MUST be known to pinpoint accuracy to prevent knocking one down.

Wake wrote:
You have NO IDEA of how fast a satellite travels do you?

Wake wrote:
One tenth of a degree of error can lose the nations of this world billions of dollars and instruments that can make huge differences to the livelihood and safety of this world.

Wake wrote:
YOU are no instrument designer.

Wake wrote:
From your rants you probably aren't even a respectable technician.
Exactly who do you think you're kidding?
I built instruments for the International Space Station, Lockheed Aerospace and other NASA projects.

Wake wrote:
Reading your ignorance isn't proving anything but that you are bullshitting even yourself by now.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Guess what? If you "build instrumentation for a living" it must be something that no one will buy.

They are best sellers. They are all over the world in many industries.

Wake wrote:
From a satellite they can tell area and depth.

You can get an idea of the area. You can a much rougher idea of the depth.

Wake wrote:
For the unenlightened that is VOLUME.

WRONG. Depth varies widely.

Wake wrote:
They can scan down to the square cm if they want to but it isn't necessary to measure any closer that square meters.

No, they can't. The instrumentation on CryoStat-2 isn't good enough.

Wake wrote:
For sea ice they already know that it is self limiting to 2 meters in the polar regions and there isn't sea ice outside of the polar regions.

There IS sea ice outside the polar regions. Ever hear of icebergs? Some of those puppies can travel halfway to the equator before melting!

Wake wrote:
Fresh water ice (glacier deposits) for the woefully uninformed

There isn't any other kind of ice.

Wake wrote:
floats with a third of it's thickness outside of the ocean water. That means that you need only measure the water height and the ice height to know the thickness.

That varies somewhat depending on the salinity and temperature of the ocean water.

Wake wrote:
Area scans again can be done down to the sq cm and again it is unnecessary.

CryoSat-2 does not have that fine a resolution. In any case, it is only looking at the surface of the ice. That is at best an estimate.

Wake wrote:
Missions to many areas are undertaken each year to drill the ice depth to make sure the calibration of the satellite data is correct.

Which gives you an accurate record of ONLY THAT site. It does NOT give you a record of the thickness of an entire ice sheet.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that you actually BELIEVE that you have a clue of what instrumentation is.

I do.

Wake wrote:
And I like the part where precise orbital information isn't known.

It isn't.

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - satellites are monitored on radar from most of the world.

WRONG. The only one doing that is the United States and the USSR. These systems are not accurate enough to accurately determine the altitude or even minor speed variations of a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Their positions MUST be known to pinpoint accuracy to prevent knocking one down.

Did you know that stuff that collides in space (it happens) does not fall from orbit?

Wake wrote:
You have NO IDEA of how fast a satellite travels do you?

The speed of a satellite depends on it's orbit and where the variation of gravity of Earth happens to be affecting it at the time (it varies as the satellite orbits).

Wake wrote:
One tenth of a degree of error can lose the nations of this world billions of dollars and instruments that can make huge differences to the livelihood and safety of this world.

Did you know that stuff does collide from time to time?

Wake wrote:
YOU are no instrument designer.

Yes I am. As I have told you numerous times before, claiming credentials have no meaning on a forum. There is always someone to doubt it.

Wake wrote:
From your rants you probably aren't even a respectable technician.
Exactly who do you think you're kidding?
I built instruments for the International Space Station, Lockheed Aerospace and other NASA projects.

I don't believe you.

Tu quoque.

Wake wrote:
Reading your ignorance isn't proving anything but that you are bullshitting even yourself by now.

Since you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than what it is really capable of, and that you can measure sea ice volume, then I'll just leave you defending litebeer and his random numbers.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:.... you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than...

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:.... you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than...

Scientists are capable of a lot more than you.
The ego of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" lets it think, if it can't figure Arctic sea ice VOLUME, then no one can.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Guess what? If you "build instrumentation for a living" it must be something that no one will buy.

They are best sellers. They are all over the world in many industries.

Wake wrote:
From a satellite they can tell area and depth.

You can get an idea of the area. You can a much rougher idea of the depth.

Wake wrote:
For the unenlightened that is VOLUME.

WRONG. Depth varies widely.

Wake wrote:
They can scan down to the square cm if they want to but it isn't necessary to measure any closer that square meters.

No, they can't. The instrumentation on CryoStat-2 isn't good enough.

Wake wrote:
For sea ice they already know that it is self limiting to 2 meters in the polar regions and there isn't sea ice outside of the polar regions.

There IS sea ice outside the polar regions. Ever hear of icebergs? Some of those puppies can travel halfway to the equator before melting!

Wake wrote:
Fresh water ice (glacier deposits) for the woefully uninformed

There isn't any other kind of ice.

Wake wrote:
floats with a third of it's thickness outside of the ocean water. That means that you need only measure the water height and the ice height to know the thickness.

That varies somewhat depending on the salinity and temperature of the ocean water.

Wake wrote:
Area scans again can be done down to the sq cm and again it is unnecessary.

CryoSat-2 does not have that fine a resolution. In any case, it is only looking at the surface of the ice. That is at best an estimate.

Wake wrote:
Missions to many areas are undertaken each year to drill the ice depth to make sure the calibration of the satellite data is correct.

Which gives you an accurate record of ONLY THAT site. It does NOT give you a record of the thickness of an entire ice sheet.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that you actually BELIEVE that you have a clue of what instrumentation is.

I do.

Wake wrote:
And I like the part where precise orbital information isn't known.

It isn't.

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - satellites are monitored on radar from most of the world.

WRONG. The only one doing that is the United States and the USSR. These systems are not accurate enough to accurately determine the altitude or even minor speed variations of a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Their positions MUST be known to pinpoint accuracy to prevent knocking one down.

Did you know that stuff that collides in space (it happens) does not fall from orbit?

Wake wrote:
You have NO IDEA of how fast a satellite travels do you?

The speed of a satellite depends on it's orbit and where the variation of gravity of Earth happens to be affecting it at the time (it varies as the satellite orbits).

Wake wrote:
One tenth of a degree of error can lose the nations of this world billions of dollars and instruments that can make huge differences to the livelihood and safety of this world.

Did you know that stuff does collide from time to time?

Wake wrote:
YOU are no instrument designer.

Yes I am. As I have told you numerous times before, claiming credentials have no meaning on a forum. There is always someone to doubt it.

Wake wrote:
From your rants you probably aren't even a respectable technician.
Exactly who do you think you're kidding?
I built instruments for the International Space Station, Lockheed Aerospace and other NASA projects.

I don't believe you.

Tu quoque.

Wake wrote:
Reading your ignorance isn't proving anything but that you are bullshitting even yourself by now.

Since you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than what it is really capable of, and that you can measure sea ice volume, then I'll just leave you defending litebeer and his random numbers.

And you've proven again that you will say simply anything. There are icebergs that travel half way to the equator?

Wake wrote:
ANYONE that "builds instruments" for a living would be capable of the math for calculating the different in volume that all of the icebergs in the world would add.

Wake wrote:
Sea ice is saltwater ice stupid.

Wake wrote:
Tell me the last time operational satellites collided with each other.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing grasp on magnitude. You don't have a passing grasp on speed.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing knowledge of most of the things you speak so authoritatively about. Your total lack of mathematical ability most assuredly proves beyond a doubt that you are NO instrument designer of any sort and that it is also unlikely you could be even a medium grade technician.

Wake wrote:
Tell us more about how there is no real theory of global warming that is supported by mathematics. You are so dizzy that the sun shines right through your brains.

Wake wrote:
This isn't a case of scientists on one side not being scientists and not understanding what is necessary to have a complete theory.

Wake wrote:
It is if that theory is correct or not.

Wake wrote:
Go back to building your instruments that are so well sold all over the world.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Guess what? If you "build instrumentation for a living" it must be something that no one will buy.

They are best sellers. They are all over the world in many industries.

Wake wrote:
From a satellite they can tell area and depth.

You can get an idea of the area. You can a much rougher idea of the depth.

Wake wrote:
For the unenlightened that is VOLUME.

WRONG. Depth varies widely.

Wake wrote:
They can scan down to the square cm if they want to but it isn't necessary to measure any closer that square meters.

No, they can't. The instrumentation on CryoStat-2 isn't good enough.

Wake wrote:
For sea ice they already know that it is self limiting to 2 meters in the polar regions and there isn't sea ice outside of the polar regions.

There IS sea ice outside the polar regions. Ever hear of icebergs? Some of those puppies can travel halfway to the equator before melting!

Wake wrote:
Fresh water ice (glacier deposits) for the woefully uninformed

There isn't any other kind of ice.

Wake wrote:
floats with a third of it's thickness outside of the ocean water. That means that you need only measure the water height and the ice height to know the thickness.

That varies somewhat depending on the salinity and temperature of the ocean water.

Wake wrote:
Area scans again can be done down to the sq cm and again it is unnecessary.

CryoSat-2 does not have that fine a resolution. In any case, it is only looking at the surface of the ice. That is at best an estimate.

Wake wrote:
Missions to many areas are undertaken each year to drill the ice depth to make sure the calibration of the satellite data is correct.

Which gives you an accurate record of ONLY THAT site. It does NOT give you a record of the thickness of an entire ice sheet.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that you actually BELIEVE that you have a clue of what instrumentation is.

I do.

Wake wrote:
And I like the part where precise orbital information isn't known.

It isn't.

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - satellites are monitored on radar from most of the world.

WRONG. The only one doing that is the United States and the USSR. These systems are not accurate enough to accurately determine the altitude or even minor speed variations of a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Their positions MUST be known to pinpoint accuracy to prevent knocking one down.

Did you know that stuff that collides in space (it happens) does not fall from orbit?

Wake wrote:
You have NO IDEA of how fast a satellite travels do you?

The speed of a satellite depends on it's orbit and where the variation of gravity of Earth happens to be affecting it at the time (it varies as the satellite orbits).

Wake wrote:
One tenth of a degree of error can lose the nations of this world billions of dollars and instruments that can make huge differences to the livelihood and safety of this world.

Did you know that stuff does collide from time to time?

Wake wrote:
YOU are no instrument designer.

Yes I am. As I have told you numerous times before, claiming credentials have no meaning on a forum. There is always someone to doubt it.

Wake wrote:
From your rants you probably aren't even a respectable technician.
Exactly who do you think you're kidding?
I built instruments for the International Space Station, Lockheed Aerospace and other NASA projects.

I don't believe you.

Tu quoque.

Wake wrote:
Reading your ignorance isn't proving anything but that you are bullshitting even yourself by now.

Since you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than what it is really capable of, and that you can measure sea ice volume, then I'll just leave you defending litebeer and his random numbers.

And you've proven again that you will say simply anything. There are icebergs that travel half way to the equator?

Yup. Once again, you have proven that you will apply a Bulveristic attitude to anything I say.

Wake wrote:
ANYONE that "builds instruments" for a living would be capable of the math for calculating the different in volume that all of the icebergs in the world would add.

Not if you don't know how many there are or what size they all happen to be at any given moment.

Wake wrote:
Sea ice is saltwater ice stupid.

There is no such thing as saltwater ice. All ice is freshwater. It is one way to take the salt out of seawater.

You can try this out for yourself. Get an ice cube tray (small cubes are easier for this), fill it with water, then salt the water. Stick it in the freezer. Take the ice cube out of the tray, dust the salt off, and eat it.

Wake wrote:
Tell me the last time operational satellites collided with each other.

2013. The collision was between a Chinese satellite and a Russian satellite. Both satellites were destroyed. Their debris is still orbiting the Earth.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing grasp on magnitude. You don't have a passing grasp on speed.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing knowledge of most of the things you speak so authoritatively about. Your total lack of mathematical ability most assuredly proves beyond a doubt that you are NO instrument designer of any sort and that it is also unlikely you could be even a medium grade technician.

Inversion fallacy. Go learn the math subject I've described. I have already described why you can't calculate the temperature of Earth from light measured by a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Tell us more about how there is no real theory of global warming that is supported by mathematics. You are so dizzy that the sun shines right through your brains.

There is no theory of global warming. It is just a phrase the Church of Global Warming uses to describe something they can't even define.

Wake wrote:
This isn't a case of scientists on one side not being scientists and not understanding what is necessary to have a complete theory.

Yes it is. Climate 'scientists' don't use or create science.

Wake wrote:
It is if that theory is correct or not.

There is no 'global warming' theory. Such a theory is not internally consistent. Such a theory is based on a void argument. You have to be able to define 'global warming' without using circular definitions before you can have a theory about it.

Wake wrote:
Go back to building your instruments that are so well sold all over the world.

Today is Saturday. I'm building personal ones instead for my aircraft.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Guess what? If you "build instrumentation for a living" it must be something that no one will buy.

They are best sellers. They are all over the world in many industries.

Wake wrote:
From a satellite they can tell area and depth.

You can get an idea of the area. You can a much rougher idea of the depth.

Wake wrote:
For the unenlightened that is VOLUME.

WRONG. Depth varies widely.

Wake wrote:
They can scan down to the square cm if they want to but it isn't necessary to measure any closer that square meters.

No, they can't. The instrumentation on CryoStat-2 isn't good enough.

Wake wrote:
For sea ice they already know that it is self limiting to 2 meters in the polar regions and there isn't sea ice outside of the polar regions.

There IS sea ice outside the polar regions. Ever hear of icebergs? Some of those puppies can travel halfway to the equator before melting!

Wake wrote:
Fresh water ice (glacier deposits) for the woefully uninformed

There isn't any other kind of ice.

Wake wrote:
floats with a third of it's thickness outside of the ocean water. That means that you need only measure the water height and the ice height to know the thickness.

That varies somewhat depending on the salinity and temperature of the ocean water.

Wake wrote:
Area scans again can be done down to the sq cm and again it is unnecessary.

CryoSat-2 does not have that fine a resolution. In any case, it is only looking at the surface of the ice. That is at best an estimate.

Wake wrote:
Missions to many areas are undertaken each year to drill the ice depth to make sure the calibration of the satellite data is correct.

Which gives you an accurate record of ONLY THAT site. It does NOT give you a record of the thickness of an entire ice sheet.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that you actually BELIEVE that you have a clue of what instrumentation is.

I do.

Wake wrote:
And I like the part where precise orbital information isn't known.

It isn't.

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - satellites are monitored on radar from most of the world.

WRONG. The only one doing that is the United States and the USSR. These systems are not accurate enough to accurately determine the altitude or even minor speed variations of a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Their positions MUST be known to pinpoint accuracy to prevent knocking one down.

Did you know that stuff that collides in space (it happens) does not fall from orbit?

Wake wrote:
You have NO IDEA of how fast a satellite travels do you?

The speed of a satellite depends on it's orbit and where the variation of gravity of Earth happens to be affecting it at the time (it varies as the satellite orbits).

Wake wrote:
One tenth of a degree of error can lose the nations of this world billions of dollars and instruments that can make huge differences to the livelihood and safety of this world.

Did you know that stuff does collide from time to time?

Wake wrote:
YOU are no instrument designer.

Yes I am. As I have told you numerous times before, claiming credentials have no meaning on a forum. There is always someone to doubt it.

Wake wrote:
From your rants you probably aren't even a respectable technician.
Exactly who do you think you're kidding?
I built instruments for the International Space Station, Lockheed Aerospace and other NASA projects.

I don't believe you.

Tu quoque.

Wake wrote:
Reading your ignorance isn't proving anything but that you are bullshitting even yourself by now.

Since you believe the CryoSat-2 satellite is capable of a hell of lot more than what it is really capable of, and that you can measure sea ice volume, then I'll just leave you defending litebeer and his random numbers.

And you've proven again that you will say simply anything. There are icebergs that travel half way to the equator?

Yup. Once again, you have proven that you will apply a Bulveristic attitude to anything I say.

Wake wrote:
ANYONE that "builds instruments" for a living would be capable of the math for calculating the different in volume that all of the icebergs in the world would add.

Not if you don't know how many there are or what size they all happen to be at any given moment.

Wake wrote:
Sea ice is saltwater ice stupid.

There is no such thing as saltwater ice. All ice is freshwater. It is one way to take the salt out of seawater.

You can try this out for yourself. Get an ice cube tray (small cubes are easier for this), fill it with water, then salt the water. Stick it in the freezer. Take the ice cube out of the tray, dust the salt off, and eat it.

Wake wrote:
Tell me the last time operational satellites collided with each other.

2013. The collision was between a Chinese satellite and a Russian satellite. Both satellites were destroyed. Their debris is still orbiting the Earth.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing grasp on magnitude. You don't have a passing grasp on speed.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Wake wrote:
You haven't even a passing knowledge of most of the things you speak so authoritatively about. Your total lack of mathematical ability most assuredly proves beyond a doubt that you are NO instrument designer of any sort and that it is also unlikely you could be even a medium grade technician.

Inversion fallacy. Go learn the math subject I've described. I have already described why you can't calculate the temperature of Earth from light measured by a satellite.

Wake wrote:
Tell us more about how there is no real theory of global warming that is supported by mathematics. You are so dizzy that the sun shines right through your brains.

There is no theory of global warming. It is just a phrase the Church of Global Warming uses to describe something they can't even define.

Wake wrote:
This isn't a case of scientists on one side not being scientists and not understanding what is necessary to have a complete theory.

Yes it is. Climate 'scientists' don't use or create science.

Wake wrote:
It is if that theory is correct or not.

There is no 'global warming' theory. Such a theory is not internally consistent. Such a theory is based on a void argument. You have to be able to define 'global warming' without using circular definitions before you can have a theory about it.

Wake wrote:
Go back to building your instruments that are so well sold all over the world.

Today is Saturday. I'm building personal ones instead for my aircraft.

And once again rather than using real science you are attempting to use The Big Book of Words to Sound Smart.

Wake wrote:
You aren't even bright enough to detect that it isn't working with ANYONE let alone me.

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

As I've stated: you have done nothing but turn to:
...deleted Amazon link...

Wake wrote:
Your almost complete absence of science understanding or mathematics shows more and more with every posting of yours. When I talk about transposing terms in an equation you say that it is changing the equation

Wake wrote:
You throw around "randu" as if it means something

Wake wrote:
in statistical analysis

Wake wrote:
when in fact it is a way in which you can generate random numbers starting with a prime number or in some calculations an odd number seed.

Wake wrote:
The data sets comprising NOAA's temperature records are not random and were never meant to be so.

Wake wrote:
They are simply incorrect from instrument errors.

Wake wrote:
Whether they were specifically selected because they were in error is another question.

Wake wrote:
You throw around the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without even beginning to understand it.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you take your book of big words and try and find a new word. Bulverism is getting old. Especially since you've used it incorrectly almost every time.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

As I've stated: you have done nothing but turn to:
...deleted Amazon link...

More Bulverism.

Wake wrote:
Your almost complete absence of science understanding or mathematics shows more and more with every posting of yours. When I talk about transposing terms in an equation you say that it is changing the equation

Transposing an equation is not what you are doing. You are CHANGING the equation, not transposing it.

Wake wrote:
You throw around "randu" as if it means something

randU, actually. And it does mean something. It is a term used in random number mathematics, which you are illiterate in.

Wake wrote:
in statistical analysis

Statistics is dependent on probability math, which in turn is dependent on random number math. Statistics does not use randU. It uses randR and randN.

Wake wrote:
when in fact it is a way in which you can generate random numbers starting with a prime number or in some calculations an odd number seed.

Not what randU is.

Wake wrote:
The data sets comprising NOAA's temperature records are not random and were never meant to be so.

NOAA operated individual station logs are not random numbers. They are perfectly valid raw data. Cooked data and the central NOAA site showing manufactured numbers ARE random numbers, of the type randU.

Wake wrote:
They are simply incorrect from instrument errors.

They have nothing to do with instruments at all. They are product of politics and bad math, similar to the 97% number you keep seeing lately.

Wake wrote:
Whether they were specifically selected because they were in error is another question.

They were not selected. They are fabrications.

Wake wrote:
You throw around the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without even beginning to understand it.

I do understand it. You keep trying to change the equation by eliminating the term for emissivity and adding a term for incident light.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you take your book of big words and try and find a new word. Bulverism is getting old. Especially since you've used it incorrectly almost every time.

Bulverism is what you are doing. If you don't like the term, stop doing it.

Inversion fallacy, combined with a fallacy fallacy.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

As I've stated: you have done nothing but turn to:
...deleted Amazon link...

More Bulverism.

Wake wrote:
Your almost complete absence of science understanding or mathematics shows more and more with every posting of yours. When I talk about transposing terms in an equation you say that it is changing the equation

Transposing an equation is not what you are doing. You are CHANGING the equation, not transposing it.

Wake wrote:
You throw around "randu" as if it means something

randU, actually. And it does mean something. It is a term used in random number mathematics, which you are illiterate in.

Wake wrote:
in statistical analysis

Statistics is dependent on probability math, which in turn is dependent on random number math. Statistics does not use randU. It uses randR and randN.

Wake wrote:
when in fact it is a way in which you can generate random numbers starting with a prime number or in some calculations an odd number seed.

Not what randU is.

Wake wrote:
The data sets comprising NOAA's temperature records are not random and were never meant to be so.

NOAA operated individual station logs are not random numbers. They are perfectly valid raw data. Cooked data and the central NOAA site showing manufactured numbers ARE random numbers, of the type randU.

Wake wrote:
They are simply incorrect from instrument errors.

They have nothing to do with instruments at all. They are product of politics and bad math, similar to the 97% number you keep seeing lately.

Wake wrote:
Whether they were specifically selected because they were in error is another question.

They were not selected. They are fabrications.

Wake wrote:
You throw around the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without even beginning to understand it.

I do understand it. You keep trying to change the equation by eliminating the term for emissivity and adding a term for incident light.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you take your book of big words and try and find a new word. Bulverism is getting old. Especially since you've used it incorrectly almost every time.

Bulverism is what you are doing. If you don't like the term, stop doing it.

Inversion fallacy, combined with a fallacy fallacy.

You delete links because you hate to have your methods exposed. Well, now everyone can buy a book and read your methodology exposed.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

As I've stated: you have done nothing but turn to:
...deleted Amazon link...

More Bulverism.

Wake wrote:
Your almost complete absence of science understanding or mathematics shows more and more with every posting of yours. When I talk about transposing terms in an equation you say that it is changing the equation

Transposing an equation is not what you are doing. You are CHANGING the equation, not transposing it.

Wake wrote:
You throw around "randu" as if it means something

randU, actually. And it does mean something. It is a term used in random number mathematics, which you are illiterate in.

Wake wrote:
in statistical analysis

Statistics is dependent on probability math, which in turn is dependent on random number math. Statistics does not use randU. It uses randR and randN.

Wake wrote:
when in fact it is a way in which you can generate random numbers starting with a prime number or in some calculations an odd number seed.

Not what randU is.

Wake wrote:
The data sets comprising NOAA's temperature records are not random and were never meant to be so.

NOAA operated individual station logs are not random numbers. They are perfectly valid raw data. Cooked data and the central NOAA site showing manufactured numbers ARE random numbers, of the type randU.

Wake wrote:
They are simply incorrect from instrument errors.

They have nothing to do with instruments at all. They are product of politics and bad math, similar to the 97% number you keep seeing lately.

Wake wrote:
Whether they were specifically selected because they were in error is another question.

They were not selected. They are fabrications.

Wake wrote:
You throw around the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without even beginning to understand it.

I do understand it. You keep trying to change the equation by eliminating the term for emissivity and adding a term for incident light.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you take your book of big words and try and find a new word. Bulverism is getting old. Especially since you've used it incorrectly almost every time.

Bulverism is what you are doing. If you don't like the term, stop doing it.

Inversion fallacy, combined with a fallacy fallacy.

You delete links because you hate to have your methods exposed. Well, now everyone can buy a book and read your methodology exposed.

No, I delete links because they are generally useless. They only indicate you can't think for yourself, and must depend on others to do your thinking for you. I call this the Holy Link.

I also delete links and quotes that are lengthy and redundant to save space. The argument is made, people do not need to see the entire thing again and again.

Or, in this case, I delete links because they are used as a means to insult and even to reinforce your fallacy of Bulverism. I see no reason to repeat those in post after post either.

I do not delete links to valid data sets that are verifiable.

I am not hiding my methods. I have described them in great detail here. I have stated my sources. When quoting data, I have stated the sources and methodology of collection.

Why you think I'm trying to hide something is beyond me.

litesong wrote:
The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote: The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.

Not surprising at all that litebrain thinks that Seattle is the high arctic.

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote: The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.

Not surprising at all that litebrain thinks that Seattle is the high arctic.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" continues to ignore me, as it posted it would do.

litesong wrote:
The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:
The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.

A couple months ago Greenlite predicted storms from hell, because it is hot in the south.....or something like that. Hang on, I'm sure the floods are coming.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. Must be your Bulverism.

And the same Book of Big Words to Sound Intelligent. But you don't.

Defense of earlier fallacies, and argument of the Stone.

As I've stated: you have done nothing but turn to:
...deleted Amazon link...

More Bulverism.

Wake wrote:
Your almost complete absence of science understanding or mathematics shows more and more with every posting of yours. When I talk about transposing terms in an equation you say that it is changing the equation

Transposing an equation is not what you are doing. You are CHANGING the equation, not transposing it.

Wake wrote:
You throw around "randu" as if it means something

randU, actually. And it does mean something. It is a term used in random number mathematics, which you are illiterate in.

Wake wrote:
in statistical analysis

Statistics is dependent on probability math, which in turn is dependent on random number math. Statistics does not use randU. It uses randR and randN.

Wake wrote:
when in fact it is a way in which you can generate random numbers starting with a prime number or in some calculations an odd number seed.

Not what randU is.

Wake wrote:
The data sets comprising NOAA's temperature records are not random and were never meant to be so.

NOAA operated individual station logs are not random numbers. They are perfectly valid raw data. Cooked data and the central NOAA site showing manufactured numbers ARE random numbers, of the type randU.

Wake wrote:
They are simply incorrect from instrument errors.

They have nothing to do with instruments at all. They are product of politics and bad math, similar to the 97% number you keep seeing lately.

Wake wrote:
Whether they were specifically selected because they were in error is another question.

They were not selected. They are fabrications.

Wake wrote:
You throw around the Stefan-Boltzmann Law without even beginning to understand it.

I do understand it. You keep trying to change the equation by eliminating the term for emissivity and adding a term for incident light.

Wake wrote:
I suggest you take your book of big words and try and find a new word. Bulverism is getting old. Especially since you've used it incorrectly almost every time.

Bulverism is what you are doing. If you don't like the term, stop doing it.

Inversion fallacy, combined with a fallacy fallacy.

You delete links because you hate to have your methods exposed. Well, now everyone can buy a book and read your methodology exposed.

No, I delete links because they are generally useless. They only indicate you can't think for yourself, and must depend on others to do your thinking for you. I call this the Holy Link.

I also delete links and quotes that are lengthy and redundant to save space. The argument is made, people do not need to see the entire thing again and again.

Or, in this case, I delete links because they are used as a means to insult and even to reinforce your fallacy of Bulverism. I see no reason to repeat those in post after post either.

I do not delete links to valid data sets that are verifiable.

I am not hiding my methods. I have described them in great detail here. I have stated my sources. When quoting data, I have stated the sources and methodology of collection.

Why you think I'm trying to hide something is beyond me.

Sorry - you can't get away with "thinking for yourself"

Wake wrote:
without any science to back it up.

Wake wrote:
Because you've heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't mean you have a clue how it operates.

Wake wrote:
For the most part in science Planck's Law is used and not Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wake wrote:
This can be used to calculate both absorption and emission.

litesong wrote:
The announcer said, our western Washington around Seattle got rain yesterday, the most we've had in 5 months.... a whopping 0.1 inches! At least that beat the rain we had a week or so ago.... that was 0.02 inches.