Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

Are our ocean buoys lacated in the wrong spots too?

[RiversideGator]

Sorry gb but the facts indicated cooling for the past 10 years.  I know this interferes with your ideology and preconceived notions but the facts are the facts.

[jandar]

Many ocean buoys actually break away from their moorings every now and then.

Go read up on how Dr Josh Willis (a NASA scientist) "adjusted" the readings of the ARGOS buoys. He was concerned that from 2003-2005 the ocean showed cooler temperatures. So instead of taking this measurements from thousands of these buoys, he instead adjusted them to correlate with measured air temps. This of course meant warming readings than what was actually read.

Or better yet, question why does the satellite data from NASA show that global temperature is averaging a drop in temperatures since 2003 to the tune of 2.84-3.6C every 100 years.
While the GISS data (Jim Hansens favorite, and the one many call into question with bad sensor placement) shows a potential drop of only .96C.
(this is if the current cooling trend continues from 2003 to 2103)

And to end this post, I present another badly placed weather station.

[tufsu1]

Sorry gb but the facts indicated cooling for the past 10 years.  I know this interferes with your ideology and preconceived notions but the facts are the facts.

really....please provide this data...most everyone I know agrees that temps. over the 8 years prior to 2007 were some of the highest recorded.

[gatorback]

So what was warming up the atmosphere then? 

[gatorback]

Are you sure?  And your formal training is? 

Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real

Posted on: Tuesday, 20 January 2009, 09:25 CST
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

***

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1625642/scientists_agree_humaninduced_global_warming_is_real/index.html

[jandar]

1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939

Top 10 hottest years on record according to corrected data by NASA. (it took an outside source to find their software bug and report it)
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-14-2007/0004645546&EDATE=
So the past 10 years: 1998, 2006, 1999 make the top ten.

Perhaps this quote says it all:

Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

Please understand that each and every site/paper/person has an agenda. The scary thing about the internet is people will post something that might have been right 5 years ago, but later discredited, and yet no one will take the time to fully research the issues.

[tufsu1]

thanks for the info...I just coul;dn't remember it off hand...but 1999, 2000, and 2006 among the top 10....sure doesn't sound like 10 years of cooling as stated by River above!

[gatorback]

Sometimes River goes on opposite--just like my 6 year old nephew.

[RiversideGator]

As measured by satellite instruments, there was a temperature spike in 1998 and there has been no year since as warm.  So, from the 1998 peak temps appear to be declining:


http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/

[RiversideGator]

Note that we now have over 30 years of satellite data by now. 

[gatorback]

according to your good friend, CN, the data from satellites is no good.  Ha

...I would highly debate information obtained from a satellite (an instrument hundreds of MILES above the ocean surface)...

[Charleston native]

Gatorback, quit twisting my words and taking them out of context. This is highly unexpected that you would resort to such an infantile response.

My statement about satellite data was strictly referring to a satellite's ability to detect ice depth by shooting a laser beam on a highly reflective surface, which is the ice sheet. You know that, and to use my words in this context for another argument is completely pathetic. I'm rather disappointed in you.

As a matter of fact, after further reading the article link, it still provided NO clear explanation in measuring ice DEPTH.

[gatorback]

Sorry you took that as twisting your words.  I guess you get to decide which data from satellites is valid and what data is not irrespective of what 90 % of the worlds climatologist say.  In the future I will try to not respond in such a manner.

[Charleston native]

You seem to enjoy being obtuse with this topic lately. Yes, it is a twisting of my words. A blatant distortion. Nowhere did I ever say that all satellite data is invalid because of distance. Nice use of projection as well (90% of what the world's climatologists say) in addition to the lie.

I think you are becoming unhinged.