Global Warming is over.

[cale]

The troll is strong with this one

[gwb72tii]

antarctic ice mass gain, but you'll shoot it down anyway
somehow rwh, you missed the "other" science on this one.
is NASA a crediblw source for you on this one rwh?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

no warming since 1998, even though CO2 is past the tipping point according to herbal (funny since in the past it's been much higher and we've had subsequent ice ages) - note i fully expect you to shoot the messenger instead of critiquing the message

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

[gwb72tii]

and anyone with some common sense can see thru the assertions that AGW scientists are somehow innocent little people held above the fray. And somehow, being massively outspent by tax payer subsidized grants, money from private companies has more "influence" lolololol.

wanna see where the money is in AGW?
its in green energy, like solar (solyndra anyone?) and wind, both massively subsidized by the taxpayer (sound familiar?)
in an incestuous circle jerk, prove AGW with shoddy math models, no emperical evidence necessary, and the government funds your new science project for hundreds of millions, even when there's no demand for it.

comrade, be quiet! the science is settled.

[gwb72tii]

and here's another point, since i'm on a roll after a very long day
i freely admit there are brilliant scientists that suspect AGW is very real, and are conscientious, ethical scientists.
what you won't see is alarmists admit the same on the flip side of the coin. even though herbal et al admit to not being an experts, they close their eyes, ears and common sense to ANY opinion not supporting their narrow belief in the AGW hypothesis (carefully chosen words here Kershaw).
anyone can find equally conscientious, ethical scientists that come to completely different conclusions on the same data, but somehow they've been corrupted by magically influential private donations

another case of truth being stranger than fiction

[cale]

antarctic ice mass gain, but you'll shoot it down anyway
somehow rwh, you missed the "other" science on this one.
is NASA a crediblw source for you on this one rwh?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

Falling back onto old arguments I see, do you guys just rotate the same old arguments every few months out of stupidity or boredom?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page5.php

[rwh11385]

antarctic ice mass gain, but you'll shoot it down anyway
somehow rwh, you missed the "other" science on this one.
is NASA a crediblw source for you on this one rwh?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

Interesting that I only saw you post the sea ice red herring multiple times and never presented this. Why so hostile George? And why do you act like I'll shoot down actual science like you RWNJs do? That's not what logical or scientific people do man, regardless of if the results agree with what they thought previously. Why don't you understand that? Is reality fluid to suit your purpose so you assume no one else is credible because you aren't?

Do you have a source that reconciles the two measurements? And maybe one that doesn't make statements such as:

Note there’s the mention of the “climate warming, consistent with model predictions” at the end of the report. They’d say the same thing if ICEsat had measured loss instead of gain, because as we’ve seen before, almost everything is consistent with warming and models no matter which direction it goes.

The real question is why does the author of WATTS UP WITH THAT think that it is a case of ICEsat disproves GRACE's analysis, and not that the estimates should be combined to understand the true reality of ice mass. But maybe reality isn't what either of you are interested in...

Did you research ICEsat vs. GRACE, at all, before pasting that link to understand what you were posting?

I guess it doesn't matter since for current readings since ICEsat was decommissioned in 2010. ICEsat-2 goes up in 2016. (http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/)

Here's the best I could find about comparison the two: http://www.geology.byu.edu/wp-conten...0al%202009.pdf

Due to its orbit inclination (94°) and pointing angle (nearly nadir), ICESat data do not cover latitudes higher than about 86°. We have chosen to deal with the resulting data gap by assuming elevation changes to be null inside it: this approximation is justified by the negligible (about 1Gt/yr) mass change occurring within the polar cap, both as observed by GRACE and predicted by forward GIA models

The main issues are: GRACE and ICESat (post-) processing strategies, the limited temporal resolution and the spatial interpolation of ICESat data, and the correction for variable snow accumulation. As far as the choice of a specific set of GRACE products is concerned, we have verified that the solution discussed here is compatible to within one standard deviation of results obtained by using the GRACE monthly fields provided by the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ). A further comparison between the various approaches used to process GRACE measurements is beyond the scope of this paper and is the object of current and future studies. The spatial interpolation of ICESat data remains a challenging issue, since most Antarctic mass loss occurs as a result of the discharge of fast and narrow glaciers, which may not be sufficiently sampled by the relatively sparse ICESat measurements in the coastal areas; however, ICESat does detect large and well-defined basin-scale changes surrounding such outlets, thereby detecting the major extent of ice loss over the five years considered here. Another issue regarding the elevation trends obtained from ICESat is that measurement campaigns, each lasting about one month, only occur 2–3 times per year, which limits the possibility to separate seasonal signals from the secular trend, as discussed by Gunter et al. (2009); however, a large part of our GIA signal is located over the two main ice shelves and is therefore only marginally influenced by firn depth variations over grounded ice.

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2010-0209-200142/fulltext.pdf

The results show that the two independent data sets possess strong spatial correlations, but that there are several factors that can significantly impact the total derived ice mass variability from both missions. For GRACE, the primary source of uncertainty comes from the modelling of glacial isostatic adjustment, along with the estimates of C2,0 and the degree one terms. For ICESat, it is shown that assumptions about firn density, rate biases, and the sampling interval of the various laser campaigns can have large effects on the results. Despite these uncertainties, the similarities that do exist indicate a strong potential for the future refinement of both GIA and mass balance estimates of Antarctica.

One of the obvious questions that follows from the comparison of these two data types is whether the mass changes observed by GRACE can be correlated to the mass changes that can be derived from ICESat. If so, then these two data sets could be used as an independent validation of each other, or more importantly, they have the potential to improve the determination of ice mass estimates in regions such as Antarctica, where the present uncertainties can be quite large.

If this is done using the modified densities (i.e., in which the Amundsen sea sector is given higher density), the total mass change estimate from ICESat would range from −84 to −103 Gt/year (see Table 1), depending on the GIA model removed, bringing the total mass change trend much more in line with the GRACE estimates

Despite these limitations, the experiments are valuable because they show that the sampling rate could indeed have a sizeable impact on the mass estimates from ICESat, although more investigations are needed before a reliable value of this undersampling error can be determined. If, ultimately, it turns out that the sampling rate is not the predominate cause of the lower mass estimates from ICESat, then this is also useful information. It would suggest that the discrepancy between the GRACE and ICESat estimates is then primarily due to errors in the densities or campaign rate bias, allowing future efforts to focus on improvements to these two specific items

[tjts1]

I'm counting 7 "lols" for science to one "lol" for the bible. Therefore he thinks science is 7 times more "lol" worthy than the bible.

Shit! you're right. Devil is always in the details.

[rwh11385]

and anyone with some common sense can see thru the assertions that AGW scientists are somehow innocent little people held above the fray. And somehow, being massively outspent by tax payer subsidized grants, money from private companies has more "influence" lolololol.

wanna see where the money is in AGW?
its in green energy, like solar (solyndra anyone?) and wind, both massively subsidized by the taxpayer (sound familiar?)
in an incestuous circle jerk, prove AGW with shoddy math models, no emperical evidence necessary, and the government funds your new science project for hundreds of millions, even when there's no demand for it.

comrade, be quiet! the science is settled.

Lol at your argument based on fallacies and zero backing.

Appeal to Common Sense
Appeal to Motive
Ad Hominem by referring to science as "incestuous circle jerk"
And again Ad Hominem when you imply that science is communist.

There's experiments you can do at home on previous pages if you want to have empirical evidence of how greenhouse gases work.

But it's people like you who are against science that is why the Higgs boson wasn't discovered in the US. It was theorized about in the 1960s but undiscovered until one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built was completed (~$5 billion). [Total cost of project $13.25B - http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...a-higgs-boson/] Instead of pursuing knowledge or supporting learning more about the world around us, you want to assume that we know enough already and just leave it at that. And without the ability even to define what "certain enough to act" is, you want to assume that theories are not concrete enough to take steps yet to counteract their predictions - all while frowning at further research that would improve understanding.

Regardless of nay-sayers, NASA and NOAA conduct research to better understand the world around us, thankfully. We're also as a country flying C-130s, GIVs, and Global Hawks through hurricanes - in the name of science. And that research helps to accurately predict the impact of Sandy a week ahead of time. So why does it need to come under attack when they report that their science indicate that the combustion of fossil fuels and other sources of GHG contribute to climate change?

and here's another point, since i'm on a roll after a very long day
i freely admit there are brilliant scientists that suspect AGW is very real, and are conscientious, ethical scientists.
what you won't see is alarmists admit the same on the flip side of the coin. even though herbal et al admit to not being an experts, they close their eyes, ears and common sense to ANY opinion not supporting their narrow belief in the AGW hypothesis (carefully chosen words here Kershaw).
anyone can find equally conscientious, ethical scientists that come to completely different conclusions on the same data, but somehow they've been corrupted by magically influential private donations

another case of truth being stranger than fiction

If you acknowledge that there are smart and ethical scientists, when WHY do you attempt to lump all of them together are extreme socialist alarmists? As you would say - "an incestuous circle jerk".

The scientific concepts and research about GHG have been around for 190 years, long before the times of million dollar grants about global warming.

There's a difference between skeptical and pure denial. If you don't understand that adults shouldn't put their fingers in their ears and ignore everything they don't want to hear, then you will never be capable of having a meaningful discussion, ever. What's ironic is that you make claims that anyone who doesn't claim AGW as a scam as a liberal and a lemming, with their eyes/ears/minds closed while you hypocritically do the exact thing you attempt to call them out for.

[herbivor]

^although you make good points, we are wasting our time. Logic does not work on George.

"To argue with a fool requires two."

[rwh11385]

exactly, you don't have one

Ignorance is not cured by a piece of paper. If you do have a degree it does not show. You cannot reason or use logic and have a poor ability to articulate your thoughts. Educated people should not assume like you have nor does all education take place in a book or classroom, although those are popular means. Acting as if repeating information presented on a computer screen grants you some meaningful learning you are missing out on the importance of critical thinking and social intelligence.

[Thizzelle]

Ignorance is not cured by a piece of paper. If you do have a degree it does not show. You cannot reason or use logic and have a poor ability to articulate your thoughts. Educated people should not assume like you have nor does all education take place in a book or classroom, although those are popular means. Acting as if repeating information presented on a computer screen grants you some meaningful learning you are missing out on the importance of critical thinking and social intelligence.

according to a majority of people a peice of paper does mean alot. Got an A in critical thinking, K thx

[rwh11385]

according to a majority of people a peice of paper does mean alot. Got an A in critical thinking, K thx

Apparently you weren't paying attention when they taught that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

[gwb72tii]

lol

predicted, and predictable

[z31maniac]

lol

predicted, and predictable

Oh delicious, delicious irony.

[gwb72tii]

truth is a bitch, eh?