Remember me
▼ Content

Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline



Page 1 of 3123>
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline15-02-2011 04:50
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)


A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading%20list/Norwegian%20mountain%20glaciers%20in%20the%20past,%20present%20and%20future.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000174/art00002

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032

http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdf

http://instaar.metapress.com/content/xn9255q33110739t/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/abs/ngeo186.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121653main_ScambosetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.glaciologia.cl/textos/RignotetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL021106.shtml
RE: Almost all glaciers in decline15-02-2011 18:21
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
"Almost all" is a very nebulous phrase. How about quantifying this claim?
15-02-2011 21:23
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Hayduke wrote: "Almost all" is a very nebulous phrase. How about quantifying this claim?


Turn your television off. Stop obeying FOX "News." Read the above papers.
15-02-2011 23:28
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
Desertphile wrote:
Hayduke wrote: "Almost all" is a very nebulous phrase. How about quantifying this claim?


Turn your television off. Stop obeying FOX "News." Read the above papers.


I do not respond to personal attacks. Stick to the issues and the science.
05-05-2014 06:56
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
The glaciers expanded during the little ice age destroying many alpine villages, so it is not surprising that many are receding to this day, however global sea ice cover is 1.000.000 sq km above average
23-03-2019 19:22
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Funny how most global warming theorists claims' models only go back to 1840-80?!? Maybe they should show more 'realistic' models/graphs etc that go back thousands or millions of years?!? This might show people that the current 'trend' of weather and not just warming has gone up and down immeasurably and without all the fad names attached to the earth's natural and normal weather. Maybe the global warming types would prefer a global cooling like an ice age, when probably billions of us would succumb to the cold?!? On a personal level I have a higher count then most on the DNA that we inherited from our Neanderthal cousins, so maybe I might fair better than most at a sudden drop... though I doubt it. (LOL)
23-03-2019 22:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
paramount99 wrote:
Funny how most global warming theorists claims' models only go back to 1840-80?!?

Not at all. Most references adhere to the date February 21, 1848 as the Genesis if you will, as when it all began. "Let there be Plight!"



Coming soon to a leftist near you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 02:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
Quite a list of articles... I'll state up front here, I didn't click on any of the links. Recognized quite a few left-leaning publications in the list, and already familiar with what they are willing to print. I'm careful about links I'm not familiar with, strange things sometimes happen.

Glaciers are leftovers from the great ice age, and have been melting a little for over 10,000 years. It's very slow process, since new snow and ice gets dumped on them every year. I'm sure there is a science, that studies glaciers exclusively, and would confirm that they are all melting, and someday will be gone, unless we go into another ice age. There use to be a lot more glaciers around the world, many melted long time before the industrial use of petroleum.

Peer review doesn't mean the paper is the gospel (except for church papers), it just means the paper is properly written, and no obvious flaws were found. Mostly, it's proof reading, so other scientist don't waste their precious time, and grant money isn't taken away from legitimate research. Even peer reviewed papers fail to hold up, but that's not the point of the process.

Mostly, I don't see the point in worrying about the natural melting process of glaciers. The only point in those articles, would be to use it to illustrate that global warming is real, and a threat to ice, ignoring the fact, that those chunks of ice have been melting a little every year, for a very long time.
24-03-2019 09:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
Desertphile wrote:
A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:
...deleted numerous Holy Links...


Science isn't a paper. It is a set of theories. It does not use consensus (or peer review). There is no elite voting body in science.

No one is monitoring all the glaciers in the world. You are believing people that simply make up numbers and rash statements.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 14:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote:There is no elite voting body in science.

... but there *is* an elite voting body for The Science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2019 03:40
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What many people do not realize is that it is the melting of the glaciers that is causing the warming not the other way around.

Try to find the difference in temperature of ice in the glaciers and ocean waters. multiple that by the amount of ice that has been lost, then compare that to the amount of energy that it takes to warm the planet up in the same time frame.

You will be surprised what you find.
25-04-2019 17:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no elite voting body in science.

... but there *is* an elite voting body for The Science.

...as defined by the Church of Global Warming, that is true.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 17:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
What many people do not realize is that it is the melting of the glaciers that is causing the warming not the other way around.
What's melting the glacier then?
dehammer wrote:
Try to find the difference in temperature of ice in the glaciers and ocean waters. multiple that by the amount of ice that has been lost, then compare that to the amount of energy that it takes to warm the planet up in the same time frame.

You will be surprised what you find.

Chickens and eggs.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 02:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
What's melting the glacier then?
The sun warms the rocks or the ocean and they warm the ice. It happens ever spring and summer. The things is the winter does NOT deposit as much ice as melts so the glaciers retreat.
Chickens and eggs.
In this case, the science falls on the egg's side. They are putting the horse behind the cart and wonder why its going backwards.
02-05-2019 04:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What's melting the glacier then?
The sun warms the rocks or the ocean and they warm the ice. It happens ever spring and summer. The things is the winter does NOT deposit as much ice as melts so the glaciers retreat.

That is presuming that warming is causing the glaciers to retreat. Where is that additional energy coming from?
dehammer wrote:
Chickens and eggs.
In this case, the science falls on the egg's side. They are putting the horse behind the cart and wonder why its going backwards.

Science does not have any theories about chickens or eggs, or how you harness a horse to a cart.

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? (hint: this is not a science question)


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 05:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote: That is presuming that warming is causing the glaciers to retreat. Where is that additional energy coming from?
No, that is the glaciers retreating is causing the warming. The energy is coming from the sun.

During the little ice age, the sun's energy was reflected away from the earth. This caused the glaciers to advance. When the sun's energy was no longer being reflected, it began to melt the glaciers.

Science does not have any theories about chickens or eggs, or how you harness a horse to a cart.
troll have you ever heard of analogy.

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? (hint: this is not a science question)
Truthfully, neither. They started with something that was not the chicken and its egg's dna mutated (naturally) just slightly, so it was not the original bird nor a chicken. It mutated slightly then it laid an egg, which was slightly different than the first bird or second, nor was it an chicken. This kept up until at some point, something was born and mutated into a chicken.
02-05-2019 18:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote: That is presuming that warming is causing the glaciers to retreat. Where is that additional energy coming from?
No, that is the glaciers retreating is causing the warming. The energy is coming from the sun.

If the Sun is putting out the same energy, where is the additional energy coming from?
You still want to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
dehammer wrote:
During the little ice age, the sun's energy was reflected away from the earth. This caused the glaciers to advance. When the sun's energy was no longer being reflected, it began to melt the glaciers.

Why would the Sun's energy no longer be reflected. What melted the glaciers so the Sun's energy was no longer reflected?
dehammer wrote:
Science does not have any theories about chickens or eggs, or how you harness a horse to a cart.
troll have you ever heard of analogy.

Sure. What you making an analogy of?
dehammer wrote:
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? (hint: this is not a science question)
Truthfully, neither. They started with something that was not the chicken and its egg's dna mutated (naturally) just slightly, so it was not the original bird nor a chicken. It mutated slightly then it laid an egg, which was slightly different than the first bird or second, nor was it an chicken.

So...chickens don't exist, eh?
dehammer wrote:
This kept up until at some point, something was born and mutated into a chicken.

WTF??? How can something mutate AFTER being born???


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 19:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Scientist say our genes are always changing. That is why people get cancer and other diseases like that.

Chickens have not always existed.

If the Sun is putting out the same energy, where is the additional energy coming from?
Its not a matter of how much energy the sun is putting out, but how much is being absorbed by the earth. During the little ice age, more was being reflected, thus the earth was losing energy. This resulted in the glaciers expanding. When the little ice ended less energy was being reflected so the earth warmed. As a result the ice melted.

The glaciers were not what was reflecting ALL of the energy. Low level clouds have a higher albedo than higher ones and during the little ice age, all the proxies point to there being a larger percentage of low level clouds than we now experience. In addition, high level clouds are more reflective of infrared, so at night, our clouds are reflecting more infrared back to the earth than was happening during the little ice age, so we are warmer at night than they were. Even during the day more infrared is being reflected by clouds back to the earth.

Once again, you seem to think you PRETEND you know what the laws of thermodynamics means when it is obvious that they are nothing more than words to you.
02-05-2019 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
Scientist say our genes are always changing. That is why people get cancer and other diseases like that.

Not what a cancer is, dude. There is no genetic disease that occurs because of mutation after birth. There is no species created after the fact of birth. You are desperately trying to paint yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into.
dehammer wrote:
Chickens have not always existed.

How do you know? Were you there then the first chicken came to be?

I see you are a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Evolution as well.
dehammer wrote:
If the Sun is putting out the same energy, where is the additional energy coming from?
Its not a matter of how much energy the sun is putting out, but how much is being absorbed by the earth. During the little ice age, more was being reflected, thus the earth was losing energy. This resulted in the glaciers expanding. When the little ice ended less energy was being reflected so the earth warmed. As a result the ice melted.

It IS a matter of how much energy the Sun is putting out. Assuming the Sun is putting out the same energy, where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from to start the ice melting in the first place?

You are trying to start from the finish line.
dehammer wrote:
The glaciers were not what was reflecting ALL of the energy. Low level clouds have a higher albedo than higher ones and during the little ice age, all the proxies point to there being a larger percentage of low level clouds than we now experience. In addition, high level clouds are more reflective of infrared, so at night, our clouds are reflecting more infrared back to the earth than was happening during the little ice age, so we are warmer at night than they were. Even during the day more infrared is being reflected by clouds back to the earth.

WRONG. You CANNOT heat a warmer surface by using colder clouds! You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot make heat flow backwards!

Entropy MUST ALWAYS increase or stay the same in any system. You are trying to decrease it. That is not possible.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you seem to think you PRETEND you know what the laws of thermodynamics means when it is obvious that they are nothing more than words to you.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 20:38
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
How is it possible for you to know so many scientific words and not have a clue what they mean. You are such an interesting paradox.
Edited on 02-05-2019 20:38
02-05-2019 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
How is it possible for you to know so many scientific words and not have a clue what they mean. You are such an interesting paradox.

Void argument fallacy.Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2019 22:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Talk about circular logic.
02-05-2019 22:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
Talk about circular logic.

No such thing, dude. Redefinition fallacy (logic->argument).

You are probably trying to refer to a circular argument. That in and of itself is NOT a fallacy. Only trying to use one as a proof of itself is the circular argument fallacy. It's what a fundamentalist does. It's what YOU do.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-05-2019 22:42
02-05-2019 22:52
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
lol, this guy is a real joke.
03-05-2019 00:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
lol, this guy is a real joke.

Obviously you have no counter-argument. You chose to insult instead.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2019 00:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, that was not an insult, you are a seriously good comedian.
03-05-2019 21:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote:I see you are a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Evolution as well.

Incorrect. I am an Orthodox Evolutionist and dehammer is pretty much a heretic.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-05-2019 23:33
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I see you are a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Evolution as well.

Incorrect. I am an Orthodox Evolutionist and dehammer is pretty much a heretic.


Actually, Im pagan.
04-05-2019 00:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I see you are a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Evolution as well.

Incorrect. I am an Orthodox Evolutionist and dehammer is pretty much a heretic.


Actually, Im pagan.


*whoosh*! Right over the head!



The Parrot Killer
04-05-2019 00:38
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(823)
Proxies... A proxy is a substitute, for when you can't get what you need, you find something you can make work for your application. There is no substitute for facts, or the truth. The proxies that the Climatologist use, are always biased toward global warming and evil man-made CO2. Purely science fiction, which is fine for discussing among friends and colleagues, but it's nothing to get excited about, out in the real world. Some people tend to confuse the two.
04-05-2019 00:38
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I cant believe you admitted that something like that sailed over your head.
06-05-2019 17:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
HarveyH55 wrote: Proxies... A proxy is a substitute, for when you can't get what you need, you find something you can make work for your application. There is no substitute for facts, or the truth. The proxies that the Climatologist use, are always biased toward global warming and evil man-made CO2. Purely science fiction, which is fine for discussing among friends and colleagues, but it's nothing to get excited about, out in the real world. Some people tend to confuse the two.

You are wise.

The scientific method requires direct measurement. If you see the word "proxies" then you have religion, not science.

Religions have dogmatic beliefs in unfalsifiable things that cannot be proven true, so they rely on "signs," "omens," "tea leaves," "oracles," "casting lots," and any other "proxy" to provide positive reinforcement for their beliefs.

Since the Global Warming religion is dogmatic in its belief that the religion is not a religion, but is in fact "settled science," worshipers thusly believe their proxies are settled science as well.

Imagine some warmizombie who is conducting a "study" to be published for "peer review" (so he can earn the rank of Climate Scientist) measuring the amount of limestone in a stalagmite as an indicator of the amount of water flowing in a particular area as an indicator for the amount of precipitation during an estimated time in the past as an indicator for the average global temperature at that estimated time ... are you imagining that?

*THAT* is settled science my friend!



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-05-2019 18:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies... A proxy is a substitute, for when you can't get what you need, you find something you can make work for your application. There is no substitute for facts, or the truth. The proxies that the Climatologist use, are always biased toward global warming and evil man-made CO2. Purely science fiction, which is fine for discussing among friends and colleagues, but it's nothing to get excited about, out in the real world. Some people tend to confuse the two.
In REAL science, following the standard scientific procedures, laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors, you NEVER change the method of measurement. IF you start with proxies, specifically, one type, you remain with that.

The supposed climatologist "scientist" started with a single set of proxies, a set of tree rings from a 100 square mile area, and then switched to actual temperature readings. Experts in tree rings will tell you that it will NOT tell you the temperature, but only the climate of the time. Since a lot of things can affect the climate, not just temperature, other things can alter the rings size.

Switching from a proxy to instruments does two things. 1) It goes from recording climate to temperature. 2) The instruments are a lot more accurate. If you look at the "range" of the reading, you see what has happened since the 1950's is within that range.
06-05-2019 18:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies... A proxy is a substitute, for when you can't get what you need, you find something you can make work for your application. There is no substitute for facts, or the truth. The proxies that the Climatologist use, are always biased toward global warming and evil man-made CO2. Purely science fiction, which is fine for discussing among friends and colleagues, but it's nothing to get excited about, out in the real world. Some people tend to confuse the two.
In REAL science, following the standard scientific procedures, laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors, you NEVER change the method of measurement. IF you start with proxies, specifically, one type, you remain with that.

You can change the method of measurement at any time. Measurement is not science. Measurements are observations. They are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No theory contains an observation.
dehammer wrote:
The supposed climatologist "scientist" started with a single set of proxies, a set of tree rings from a 100 square mile area, and then switched to actual temperature readings.

Tree rings do not indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
Experts in tree rings will tell you that it will NOT tell you the temperature, but only the climate of the time.

Tree rings do not indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
Since a lot of things can affect the climate, not just temperature, other things can alter the rings size.

Tree rings do not indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
Switching from a proxy to instruments does two things. 1) It goes from recording climate to temperature.

Instrumentation does nothing. Tree rings do not indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
2) The instruments are a lot more accurate.

Instrumentation of an observation is still an observation. It has the same problems with phenomenology. Tree rings do not indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
If you look at the "range" of the reading, you see what has happened since the 1950's is within that range.

Tree rings do not indicate temperature.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 19:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
dehammer wrote: In REAL science, following the standard scientific procedures, laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors, you NEVER change the method of measurement. IF you start with proxies, specifically, one type, you remain with that.

In science, you never use proxies. Those are for religion. The "method" of measurement must always be directly of that to be measured.

dehammer wrote: The supposed climatologist "scientist" started with a single set of proxies, ...

... because it is a religion and not science.

dehammer wrote: ...a set of tree rings from a 100 square mile area, and then switched to actual temperature readings. Experts in tree rings will tell you that it will NOT tell you the temperature, but only the climate of the time.

Regardless of what "experts" might say, scientists will tell you that it isn't science. You can only measure temperature by measuring the temperature. Measuring tree rings can only tell you about the health of the tree during the course of its life, estimates about how much water it had at certain times (without telling you how the water got to the roots) and perhaps about the types of minerals/nutrients in the soil.

dehammer wrote: Since a lot of things can affect the climate, not just temperature, other things can alter the rings size.

In science, there are no things that affect that which does not exist. There is no global climate, at least not in science anyway.

dehammer wrote: Switching from a proxy to instruments does two things. 1) It goes from recording climate to temperature. 2) The instruments are a lot more accurate. If you look at the "range" of the reading, you see what has happened since the 1950's is within that range.

Temperature measurements are certainly very accurate, for one particular point in space. Would you mind telling me what a particular measurement has to do with an average global temperature?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-05-2019 21:07
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IBdaMann wrote:In science, you never use proxies. Those are for religion. The "method" of measurement must always be directly of that to be measured.
Please tell me how you take direct climate data from 500 years go, considering that there were not instruments then. Proxies are used when ever there is no direct method of measuring things. Without proxies we have no history.

.. because it is a religion and not science.
Climate change is a religion, but real science do use proxies.

Temperature measurements are certainly very accurate, for one particular point in space. Would you mind telling me what a particular measurement has to do with an average global temperature?


Global averages is where you take readings from 100's of places and average them out. Because they can not compare the actual temperature of, say for instance, the sahara desert with the north pole, they take anomalies. They decide the "proper" range for a location on a specific day is a certain temperature and then compare that to what it is and decide that this anomaly means.

The problem is, you really need to know what the correct range for that area is, and that is a problem since very little of the earth was measured before satellites went up. That means our "proper range" of different areas is based on guess, satellites and bias. The last is the real problem.
06-05-2019 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:In science, you never use proxies. Those are for religion. The "method" of measurement must always be directly of that to be measured.
Please tell me how you take direct climate data from 500 years go,

Guess what? You can't!
dehammer wrote:
considering that there were not instruments then.

Makes no difference. Strawman fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Proxies are used when ever there is no direct method of measuring things.

Tree rings don't indicate temperature.
dehammer wrote:
Without proxies we have no history.

Sure you do. You wrote a post here. That's history. Science has no theories about unobserved past events. They are not falsifiable.
dehammer wrote:
.. because it is a religion and not science.
Climate change is a religion, but real science do use proxies.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is not measurements or observations. It does not use proxies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
dehammer wrote:
Temperature measurements are certainly very accurate, for one particular point in space. Would you mind telling me what a particular measurement has to do with an average global temperature?

Global averages is where you take readings from 100's of places and average them out.

Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Prediction based on foreign Domain.

Thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are not read at the same time or read or calibrated by the same authority. There are not enough of them. We can't manufacture enough of them. Go learn statistical math. Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers.
dehammer wrote:
Because they can not compare the actual temperature of, say for instance, the sahara desert with the north pole, they take anomalies.

Math error. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Use of out of band data because it's out of band.
dehammer wrote:
They decide the "proper" range for a location on a specific day is a certain temperature and then compare that to what it is and decide that this anomaly means.

Math error. Failure use of summary as input to the same summary. Failure to select by randN.
dehammer wrote:
The problem is, you really need to know what the correct range for that area is,

No, you don't. You cannot use a summary result to produce that summary!
dehammer wrote:
and that is a problem since very little of the earth was measured before satellites went up.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
dehammer wrote:
That means our "proper range" of different areas is based on guess, satellites and bias.

Just guess. Just blind freakin' guess.
dehammer wrote:
The last is the real problem.

Use of random numbers as 'data' is a real problem today. People like you believe it actually works.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 23:11
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you say foghorn
07-05-2019 19:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
dehammer wrote: Please tell me how you take direct climate data from 500 years go, considering that there were not instruments then.

There's only one way. You get into a time machine a travel back 500 years into the past.

i.e. it's not possible to take measurements of the past. We don't get to claim to know what those values are.

That's worth repeating: We don't get to claim to know what those values are.

dehammer wrote: Proxies are used when ever there is no direct method of measuring things. Without proxies we have no history.

Proxies are used for only one purpose: to delude oneself into believing he knows those values that he cannot know.

If you see the word "proxy" then you have extreme faith, ... you have religion.

If you see the word "proxy" then you have no science.

dehammer wrote:Climate change is a religion, but real science do use proxies.

Nope. Enough said.

dehammer wrote: Global averages is where you take readings from 100's of places and average them out.

You aren't any good at statistics. Ask me how I know.

Hold on, I'll help you out. If you take a "global average" by averaging hundreds of temperature readings, ... or even thousands, ... or even tens of thousands, your result will still have a margin of error far too high to make it usable in any application.

Listen up: If you are going to talk about an "average global temperature" then you absolutely need to define, up front, what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error. AFTERWARDS you must ensure that your dataset supports that level of margin of error.

So let's start there. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for measuring/computing the earth's average global temperature? +/-1-degree celsius? Half a degree? Two degrees? What?


dehammer wrote: Because they can not compare the actual temperature of, say for instance, the sahara desert with the north pole, they take anomalies.

First of all, a scientist absolutely can compare a temperature reading in the Sahara with a temperature reading in northern Greenland. I believe the operation used is called "subtraction."

Secondly, in science, "anomalies" are only considered AFTER analyzing a valid dataset that supports a predetermined margin of error. Nothing is ever measured in "anomalies" (what an absurd concept!).

Temperature is measured. Anomalies are determined ... afterward.

dehammer wrote: They decide the "proper" range for a location on a specific day is a certain temperature and then compare that to what it is and decide that this anomaly means.

Nope. They determine the required maximum margin of error and take measurements until they can support that margin of error.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-05-2019 19:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote:
Guess what? You can't!

Makes no difference. Strawman fallacy.

Tree rings don't indicate temperature.

Sure you do. You wrote a post here. That's history. Science has no theories about unobserved past events. They are not falsifiable.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is not measurements or observations. It does not use proxies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Prediction based on foreign Domain.

Thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are not read at the same time or read or calibrated by the same authority. There are not enough of them. We can't manufacture enough of them. Go learn statistical math. Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers.

Math error. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Use of out of band data because it's out of band.

Math error. Failure use of summary as input to the same summary. Failure to select by randN.

No, you don't. You cannot use a summary result to produce that summary!

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Just guess. Just blind freakin' guess.

Use of random numbers as 'data' is a real problem today. People like you believe it actually works.

Looking back at your post, you were pretty thorough. I probably could have just copy-pasted what you wrote. You covered a lot of ground actually.

... but sometimes I just gotta hear the sound of my own fingers typing.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally16718-05-2019 21:23
Research examines new links between retreating glaciers and global warming130-04-2019 16:04
Cause of global warming: melting glaciers.626-04-2019 05:16
Mount Everest glaciers are melting. And it's exposing the bodies of dead climbers824-03-2019 02:07
Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN214-03-2019 20:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact