New Video : Ice Doesn’t Lie – NASA Climate Scientists Do

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to New Video : Ice Doesn’t Lie – NASA Climate Scientists Do

  1. Norilsk says:

    This time NASA really got caught with their pants down.

  2. Archie says:

    The first two graphs aren’t “apples to apples” since the first is Mean Land and Ocean whereas the second graph is Mean Surface Air. I think NASA added in the ocean data (probably tampered with, as Tony points out somewhere) to skew the graph up. From what I can tell, ocean temperature data have the biggest issues given sampling difficulty and the lack of historical data.

    I’d hazard that the land only data is better data. The adjustment of the data to reduce the ocean blip of the 1940s is a good case in point.

    • tonyheller says:

      Does ice care about the source of the graphs?

      • Archie says:

        Of course it doesn’t care about the source but the two graphs weren’t comparing the same thing. One was Land and the other was Land and Ocean. I think it was one of your videos where you pointed out that NASA changed from using buoy data to ship data to warm up the more recent ocean temperature record (since ships read too high). The inclusion of ocean data into the temperature record makes it difficult to compare more recent graphs with older, land only, temperature graphs. I have no doubt that this is part of the plan. Nevertheless, if some of the data from the 1940s included ship ocean data, it could be reading too high and might warrant a correction. But, if as you pointed out, the current buoy data is being replaced by ship data, the whole thing gets covered in smoke.

        I don’t disagree with your assertions, I only meant to point out a reason why the graphs might read so different.

        • tonyheller says:

          There is little or no reason to believe that in the real world there can any significant divergence between the two.

          • Archie says:

            There must be a lag between the land and ocean temperatures, no? I think the addition of ocean temperatures muddies the water since the best data is for the land (air). You talk about erasing the past and I think the addition of ocean temperatures does just that since it makes the temperature record, pre and post addition, no longer directly comparable.

            When I question my Phd brother about some of this, he like to point out these kinds of discrepancies so as to invalidate the whole argument. I still think the whole point behind it is dishonest but it gives cover against the outright fraud accusation.

  3. Archie says:

    Actually, I just remembered where I’d seen the NOAA fraud of them fudging the record by switching the “good” buoy data with the bad ship data. It was in the Daily Mail article from 2017:

    Here’s an excerpt: “… Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

    Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’ …”

    Worth a look.

  4. Spuyten Duyvil says:

    Glaciers in Mt. Rainier National Park are disappearing so fast according to the author of this Op-Ed, he wants to rename the park using lower case letters. He does not mention renaming glacier national park or glacier bay national park, but it stands to reason he will eventually take note of their response to the current climate optimum. Of course, “significant intervention,” whatever that means, is the answer.

  5. Ulric Lyons says:

    Alpine glaciers retreating in the 20 years before 1902 was because of a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phase. The AMO is always warm during centennial solar minima. The US glacier park follows the same AMO envelope.
    The NCAR temperature series must have been artificially cooled in the 1880-90’s, there would not be global cooling during a warm AMO phase.

  6. Eric Hatfield says:

    One needs to be careful linking temperatures graphs to glacier activity. Glaciers are naturally going to lag behind the temperature trends. One can argue the glaciers retreating during the ‘cold’ period of the graph on the left is due to the fact that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were still warmer than the previous 100-200 years yet still be colder than the later period.

    Having said that I am old enough to remember the ice age scare of the 1970s vividly. Yes, there was no doubt the Earth was cooling from the 1930s into the 1970s. I would expect some recovery of glaciers during that period. Even then there’s no guarantee. Glaciers will continue to retreat as long as the climate remains warmer than the threshold needed to retreat even in a cooling climate. Any temperature reconstruction that doesn’t show that cooling (from 1930s-1970s) is bogus pure and simple. I don’t care how many letters a person has before or after their name.

    My theory is the cooling (during not only the time CO2 was increasing, but during the Grand Solar Max) is man-made. By our industrialization we were in essence creating our own little mini nuclear winter. WW2 didn’t help matters. By the mid 1970s we decided that we should be a bit more careful and started cleaning up the atmosphere. The climate then began to warm in response largely to the ongoing Grand Solar Max. Unfortunately I don’t have the tools to test my theory.

    The question to me is how much of the warming since the 1970s due to bogus manipulations, increasing urban heat island effect that hasn’t been taken out and how much of it is bona fide warming?

  7. Norilsk says:

    Sweeden dumps Australian bonds because they have too high of a carbon footprint. But the joke is on them since they are facing record cold and snow along with North America.

    Outsiders weather and ice age watch

  8. Bob G. says:

    I have rellies neat Glacier park and have been there a dozen times over the decades. I have never seen a trail storyboard that tells how old the parks glaciers are but found it on the net. The Park literature says the glaciers are ONLY 3,000 years old. Apparently it was warmer 4,000 years ago. Of course it was as there are tree stumps in northern Canada where there used to be trees – just tundra now.

    • billtoo says:

      there are roadside signs in Grand Tetons claiming the ice caps there were not present during the 1930s. yet that ice is still here

  9. Aussie says:

    The icing on the cake would be to display the real temperature graph, versus the obviously fake NASA one.

    Otherwise excellent as always.

  10. Norilsk says:

    NASA has more or less truncated the Mann Hockey Stick Graph.

  11. O_O says:

    Hi Tony, at 12:45 in this video you show the NCAR graph with glaciar ice retreating and growing. But according to that graph, isn’t the temperature the same in 1902, 1922, and 1963 when glaciers are disappearing and growing? While this doesn’t support global warming, it is strange to say glaciers are disappearing when it is warming and growing when it is cooling when these happen at the same temperature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.