Yes, they can be photoshopped but I doubt NASA is photoshopping them.
1979
2003
Posted on 10/14/2005 8:04:12 AM PDT by ZGuy
The NY Times Oct. 10 report tried to convince the public that global warming is real. But there still isn’t any evidence that human activity is melting the polar regions.
If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic warmed until 1938. From 1938 until 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.
Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there’s been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.
And the data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of that claim.
During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it’s estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 – a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming – the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn’t seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.
Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.
Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, but the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling.
No doubt many of the Times’ readers do have “dark visions” of global warming, but that seems to be due more to the newspaper’s consistent skewing and omission of facts over the last decade rather than the facts themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Man-made Global WarmingTM is a MYTH!
Man-made Global WarmingTM is a MYTH!
Man-made Global WarmingTM is a MYTH!
"Lying about environmental conditions never stopped a lying environmentalist (I.E. an enviro wacko)."
Socialist wackos. When the wall fell, the socialist movement in America took over the enviro groups. The Kyoto Global Warming Hoax is nothing more than an attempt to restribute wealth [output & production].
redistribute
Yes, they can be photoshopped but I doubt NASA is photoshopping them.
1979
2003
I don't think "man made" global warming was the issue in the story. The story was about how entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the melting polar ice caps. They're hunting for oil, they're fishing, etc.
Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent. (Illustration from NASA)
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
Does this mean we're not all going to fry and then drown. Bummer!!!!
The posted excerpt repeatedly refers to atmospheric CO2 levels in relation to arctic temperature readings. It also mentions "global warming" by name. Since the Global Warming gang invariably point their fingers at manmade activity when the subject of atmospheric CO2 levels is raised, I felt my list was applicable.
Fine, whatever.
Bump...
Whether or not human activity is the cause is up for debate, and it probably can never be proven either way.
ping
Let's see, let's try this on for size, the North Pacific ENSO supercycle ... right about the same frequency as these oscillations in the Arctic. Hmmmmmm!!!!!
What time of year was each photo taken? Why are there only two photos and not a series of them? Etc.
In truth, Arctic ice extent has always varied substantially. There are year to year variations and ones over longer periods of time. For example, last year's ice extent was right about at the long term mean.
That is underhanded. 1979 was a year of unusually large ice extent and 2003 was unusually low. Use different years for two photos and you could show that the ice seems to be growing. Neither is correct. The extent varies substantially it is not a highly repeatible attribute. What is the mean, what is the variance, what are the stats?
Of course, the warming camp hates stats. Stats prove that they are blowing smoke based on the their Malthusian beliefs that human population needs to be reduced by 50% and that we need to have government controls of the eneergy consumption of individuals!
Which glacial ice are you refering too? Are all glaciers, everywhere in the world, receding? Be honest.
Wow, look at all that ocean front that opened up. And all that fishing area. Think of the new transportation routes that will open up. I think I'll start buying land in northern Canada and Alaska. Turn up the heat baby!
"The climate is changing and polar and glacial ice is melting. Those are facts.
Whether or not human activity is the cause is up for debate, and it probably can never be proven either way."
Stop that!!!! You're making sense. No matter which side you're on, you're supposed to find the numbers that support your position and then cite only those as proof.
Every single one? No.
GlobalW bump
Earth has been warming lately. Yesterday it got up to 30, and today it might hit 35.
And as for the ones that are expanding, what is driving the expansion?
>>>Well, the satellite photos do show that the ice has melted. And photos don't lie.<<<
But photos can be deceitful if selective placement is practiced. Please post the same photo for every year that satellite photos exist, and we shall see if there is a trend, or not.
Yah I noticed that kinda funny aint it.
I'm guessing that it will come down to all the radiant heat from the blacktop on earth is beaming our heat at mars and thus it will turn out to be the fault of captialist nations like ourselves.......... ;-)
The photos are right off the NASA website. The two I posted, which are the same two that were in the NY Times article, are on the main page for that section.
Why don't you look for the ones that refute the apparent evidence -- NASA is, after all, a federal agency, they will give them to you free in response to a FOIA request.
Happy hunting!
I hope this doesn't mean that Al "I invented the internet" Gore is unemployed and he try to run for president. Maybe he'll just add to the state of confusion that those Commie wacko RATS are in.
>>>The photos are right off the NASA website. The two I posted, which are the same two that were in the NY Times article, are on the main page for that section ... Why don't you look for the ones that refute the apparent evidence...<<<
You posted two photos from the NY Times and presented them as evidence of 'global warming'. The near total unreliability of the NY Times in every matter of interest to society begs that you provide corroborating evidence if you use that tabloid for a souce. I ask for corroborating evidence and you want to do my own research? Get real...
Good work. Worth a bookmark.
ping
Just wait until Hitlery is "hot" into spewing her heated speeches for her '08 run for POTUS.
The temperature of the air will rise considerably when she exhales during those speeches.
Don't believe me?
That statement holds more credence than other reasons for man/woman created global warming does.
Thank gawd Ted Kennedy wont be running for he has added fuel with his talk to the scale of about 80 proof in his breath that could put us over the edge with global warming.
NOW you've done it!
You've opened "Pandora's Box"!
We now will be plagued with hearing about what we as humans are doing to increase the temperature of the sun 93 million miles away!
BTTT
Some selective graphics above about the extent of the actic sea ice.
Here is an animation (the best you will see) of the entire sea ice sequence from 1979 to 2004 from NASA's IceSat satellite (the one the above graphics came from).
If you can pick out an actual decline in the arctic sea ice from this let me know.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/103496main_sea_ice2004_320x240.mpeg
I said it before and I will say it again. The two photos I posted are from the NASA website, not the New York Times.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html
Look at the NASA website, they've even got an animation showing the seasonal increases and decreases over time.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/134729main_sea%20ice%20average_NASA%20WebV_1.mpg
Sorry, you can't blame the New York Times. And sorry if you find these facts inconvenient to your worldview, but the polar ice cap actually is getting smaller.
It's pretty easy for me to see that, over time, the maximums and minimums both get smaller.
I wondery why you don't see this? Inconvenient, maybe? People do have a tendency to deny facts they find inconvenient.
And has been changing for the last few billion years. It always does one of two things. It gets colder. Or it gets warmer. Take your pick.
Link to -- data source
That climate changes over time is not the question. In fact, the one thing that climate has never, ever, done... and will never do, is stay the same.
Would we prefer warming, or cooling? What would we do about it if we could?
I don't know. Some places seem to get warmer and other places colder.
>>>I said it before and I will say it again. The two photos I posted are from the NASA website, not the New York Times. <<<
I misunderstood your previous posts. Next time please post your links up front, rather than asking us to do the research to verify your claims.
>>>And sorry if you find these facts inconvenient to your worldview, but the polar ice cap actually is getting smaller.<<<
My worldview includes the FACT that the NYT tabloid is notoriously biased and inaccurate, to the point that I require substantial proof of anything that tabloid publishes, even when referencing a potential unbiased source. So should you.
According to your link, NASA satellite observations of the polar ice began in 1978, hardly a scientifically significant observation period. Therefore NASA data can be easily misinterpreted (and manipulated). For example:
What was the ice pack boundary during the 1930's, or during the 1800's? During the last major hurricane cycle (not the one we are currently in) was the ice pack boundary smaller than normal? Is the polar ice cap really getting smaller, as you, the NYT, and other chicken-littles imply; or is the boundary merely at the small end of a normal cycle that spans more years than the 27 year period NASA has been charting polar ice with satellites?
Enquiring minds want to know.
You seem to be asking for satellite phots from the 1930's or the 1800s, but surely you must realize that this technology did not exist then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
