NOAA sued for witheld documents.... More clear evidence.

[_ldsfaqs]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... a-scandal/

by the way, you all did know that the NOAA "again" has entirely reversed a well known "fact" concerning climate change?
That is the near last two decade "pause" in Warming. They recently said from a new study that there "was no pause", even though THEY THEMSELVES ADMITTED in fact was occuring for the near last 20 years.

So, that's 3 things they've completely reversed their views on, and/or didn't or don't have enough or the proper data on.

- Antarctic ICE has actually been growing, not being lost as claimed for many years. (I mean think about it, how do you screw up ICE, and for so long and with lot's of pretty time lapse video/pics (of course we conservatives knew this all along) ???)

- Elements of pollution have in fact a "cooling" effect, that they didn't have enough data, and didn't consider "enough" of.
(of course, anyone knows pollution will block Sun Rays thus cooling the environment, but not the liberal)

- Now there was no "pause".....

- Let's also include the literally dozens if not 100's of "failed prophecy's" by Global Warming (or prior Global Cooling (many of which are now Global Warming alarmists, among them scientists) ) "Prophets" (I mean scientists and activists).
(simple Google will show the astoundingly many there are)

So, after all these simple and clear as day facts which entirely debunk the "scientific" and intellectual skill and judgment of those claiming man-made catostrophic Global Warming or Climate Change, are you people REALLY going to just keep on believing the crap?

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change.....

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.....

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Note that last sentence..... LOL

[Guest]

The OP is simply false.

1. NOAA didn't reverse its view on anything to do with Antarctic ice. Before they were able to actually gather much data on Antarctic land ice, the models generally predicted that ice would accumulate on the Antarctic continent for years to come because snow would accumulate faster than the ice would melt. When they began to get enough data to track trends, they were surprised to learn, first, that the West Antarctic Peninsula was losing land ice earlier than expected. Moreover, as they got more data, they were again surprised to learn that east Antarctica was beginning to lose ice. if you go back and look at the articles as they come in, you will see over and over comments about the melting starting much earlier than they had expected.

Until the latest paper was published, the amount of land ice on the Antarctic Continent had been measure using two different methods. The latest study uses a brand new method. It also uses data from a data set that ended in 2008. So, the new study says nothing about melting that has occurred during the last several years. The latest study says that, through 2008, the Antarctic was still accumulating land ice. However, as the lead author points out, the rate of accumulate had fallen significantly over the last few decades so, at most, we are talking about the melting beginning a little later than other methods.

I hope the new study is right, as it would mean that we can expect the Antarctic melt to start at a time more in line with the original expectations of climate scientists. That would shift things back to "bad" from "worse than we thought."

In the meantime, science will do what it does. There will be be more study done to try and reconcile the results of this new study with the results of previous studies. Only demagogues who exhibit extreme black and white thinking will portray this as any kind of reversal.

I'll address the other assertions in the OP in separate posts.

[_Res Ipsa]

- Elements of pollution have in fact a "cooling" effect, that they didn't have enough data, and didn't consider "enough" of.
(of course, anyone knows pollution will block Sun Rays thus cooling the environment, but not the liberal)

Climate scientists have known for decades about the cooling effect of particulates in the atmosphere. For example, here is a quote from the Second Assessment Report (1995):

Anthropogenic aerosols (small particles) in the troposphere, derived mainly from the emission of sulphur dioxide from fossil fuel burning, and derived from other sources such as biomass burning, can absorb and reflect solar radiation. In addition, changes in aerosol concentrations can alter cloud amount and cloud reflectivity through their effect on cloud properties. In most cases tropospheric aerosols tend to produce a negative radiative forcing and cool climate. They have a much shorter lifetime (days to weeks) than most greenhouse gases (decades to centuries) so their concentrations respond much more quickly to changes in emissions.

So, it is completely false that climate scientists suddenly discovered in 2015 that particulates in the atmosphere have a cooling effect.

As I wrote in the thread faqs started on this subject, the new study is about how fact the effects of various forcings, positive and negative, occur. It is in no way a change of position by anyone. It does not say that burning fossil fuels cools the planet. The negative forcing caused by particulate matter is much, much smaller than the positive forcing caused by the emission of greenhouse gases. The paper an attempt to reconcile differences in predictions for Equilibrium Climate Response obtained using two different methods. It does so by using data to determine not only what the total forcings are, but how fast the climate responds to them.

My previous post: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 42#p937940

ETA: I'll get to the other claims, but maybe not until tomorrow.

[_Brackite]

2014 became the warmest year on record globally.
- http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30852588
- https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january ... ern-record
- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-science/
- http://www.weather.com/science/environm ... 14-earth-0


And 2015 is going to be the warmest year on record globally.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/cap ... us-margin/
- http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34915448
- http://www.climatecentral.org/news/glob ... tter-19814
- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-i ... bal/201511

The September–November globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for September-November in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.27°F (0.15°C).

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

by the way, you all did know that the NOAA "again" has entirely reversed a well known "fact" concerning climate change?
That is the near last two decade "pause" in Warming. They recently said from a new study that there "was no pause", even though THEY THEMSELVES ADMITTED in fact was occuring for the near last 20 years.

So, that's 3 things they've completely reversed their views on, and/or didn't or don't have enough or the proper data on.

- Antarctic ICE has actually been growing, not being lost as claimed for many years. (I mean think about it, how do you screw up ICE, and for so long and with lot's of pretty time lapse video/pics (of course we conservatives knew this all along) ???)

- Elements of pollution have in fact a "cooling" effect, that they didn't have enough data, and didn't consider "enough" of.
(of course, anyone knows pollution will block Sun Rays thus cooling the environment, but not the liberal)

- Now there was no "pause".....

Do you employ quotation marks randomly?

Are you really so uniformed as to believe that we have gained Arctic ice?

Why does a fully grown adult have a third grade reading level, both on comprehension and composition?

[_Tobin]

The September–November globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for September-November in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.27°F (0.15°C).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Ivar Giaever smashes this nonsense quite convincingly. He notes in his presentation that the reason the religious nuts that proselytize global warming are NOW including sea surface temperature (and it wasn't included before in measurements) is to skew the data so they can manipulate the results to get the one they want. It is garbage science and complete hokum. Also of note is the laughable assumption you are making when swallowing this nonsense. It is completely ridiculous to believe that all over the world we have accurate enough measurements to determine what the average temperature of the planet is to 1/10th of a degree. It's complete and utter BS. No-one has any idea what the average temperate of the planet is or should be, but they've supposedly measured it!?! Do you realize where you live the temperature likely changes by 80-100 degrees Celsius? 1/10th of a degree is a meaningless number in light of that.

[_Res Ipsa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Ivar Giaever smashes this nonsense quite convincingly. He notes in his presentation that the reason the religious nuts that proselytize global warming are NOW including sea surface temperature (and it wasn't included before in measurements) is to skew the data so they can manipulate the results to get the one they want. It is garbage science and complete hokum. Also of note is the laughable assumption you are making when swallowing this nonsense. It is completely ridiculous to believe that all over the world we have accurate enough measurements to determine what the average temperature of the planet is to 1/10th of a degree. It's complete and utter b***s***. No-one has any idea what the average temperate of the planet is or should be, but they've supposedly measured it!?! Do you realize where you live the temperature likely changes by 80-100 degrees Celsius? 1/10th of a degree is a meaningless number in light of that.

Some questions, Tobin:

1. How many peer reviewed publications on climate science has Ivar published?

2. When were sea surface temperatures first included in surface temperature indexes?

3. How are the major land-sea surface temperature indices created?

4. Can you provide any evidence from mathematics (as opposed to your personal incredulity) supporting the notion that it is improper for these indices to express their values in tenths of a degree?

5. Over the last several hundred thousand years, what is the difference in average surface temperature between ice ages and inter glacial periods?

[Guest]

1. How many peer reviewed publications on climate science has Ivar published?

Answer: None. It is also an irrelevant question since logical and reasonable criticisms don't require you to publish on a topic. A hypothesis should be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism if it is true.

2. When were sea surface temperatures first included in surface temperature indexes?

Answer: Before 1980, the data is unreliable. After 1980, reliable global SST samples came from satellite observations.

3. How are the major land-sea surface temperature indices created?

See 2.

4. Can you provide any evidence from mathematics (as opposed to your personal incredulity) supporting the notion that it is improper for these indices to express their values in tenths of a degree?

See 2.

5. Over the last several hundred thousand years, what is the difference in average surface temperature between ice ages and inter glacial periods?

Answer: We don't know what the Earth's average surface temperature was thousands of years ago since the means weren't around to take measurements from all around the planet (and even then one has to wonder if that methodology is even legitimate?!?). The question is patently absurd.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

by the way, you all did know that the NOAA "again" has entirely reversed a well known "fact" concerning climate change?
That is the near last two decade "pause" in Warming. They recently said from a new study that there "was no pause", even though THEY THEMSELVES ADMITTED in fact was occuring for the near last 20 years.

So, that's 3 things they've completely reversed their views on, and/or didn't or don't have enough or the proper data on.

- Antarctic ICE has actually been growing, not being lost as claimed for many years. (I mean think about it, how do you screw up ICE, and for so long and with lot's of pretty time lapse video/pics (of course we conservatives knew this all along) ???)

- Elements of pollution have in fact a "cooling" effect, that they didn't have enough data, and didn't consider "enough" of.
(of course, anyone knows pollution will block Sun Rays thus cooling the environment, but not the liberal)

- Now there was no "pause".....

Do you employ quotation marks randomly?

Are you really so uniformed as to believe that we have gained Arctic ice?

Why does a fully grown adult have a third grade reading level, both on comprehension and composition?

K&J, faqs said antarctic ice was growing, not arctic ice.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Tobin. A few more:

1. In your original comment, you said

the reason the religious nuts that proselytize global warming are NOW including sea surface temperature (and it wasn't included before in measurements)

What are the "religious nuts" now including sea surface temperatures in and when did they start doing that?

2. What is the factual basis for your claim that satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures are reliable while other methods are not?

3. What is the methodology used to produce the major land-sea temperature indexes?

4. How do satellites measure temperatures at the surface of the ocean?

5. What is the range of temperatures shown by ice cores at those locations from ice ages to interglacial periods?\

6. What would the average daily high temperature in Iowa be during the summer months if you added 80-100 degrees C to it?