A surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean

[SB Shock]

All seems like great data - until you start looking into the details.

1. If you ever find a map of actual measurement versus what they are showing you - 66% of the data generated is estimated. That should be huge warning sign.

2 Measurement locations have been swallowed up by urban sprawl - we all know city create heat islands. It hilarious when you see some of the photo of before and after of measurement locations

3. Calibration issue with satellites. Download some of the data sets and look at them. The have found their is error in the data (like satellites losing altitude). But some of the client scientist either not smart enough (or fraudulently) don't apply the corrections. Then there are the questions of what calibration corrections are they not applying. Anybody who works in technical field knows that your instrumentation has to have calibration checked generally ~6 month because of drift and sensitivities. Nobody is going that with satellite sensors.

4. Relative perspective - why are they saying ten hottest years since 1998 - they don't have Of course when you start putting up more satellites you are going to see more - but since they don't have the historical data to accurately look at past data and put it in proper context. It all reconstructed.

5. There were much hotter periods than now.

6. Climate models are crap - with instabilities in them. None ever verify.

7. Funding - only goes to those who are going to show whatever the narrative is wanted or agenda. There is no science anymore. That why the climate religion continues to be rocked.

8. Carbon trading is a scam.

So is the planet warming - of course the fact is in relative earth history we are coming out of mini-ice age. So wouldn't you expect a period of warming?

Will there be cooling? There has been in the past. So why could it not happen?

The real question is we are we doing stuff to speed up the warming? Well they have already proven that the hockey-stick was fabricated and warming trends are much less than predicted. So is it manageable if the trends are much smaller than predicted?

The reality a warmer climate might be bad for some, but for most of the world it is actually better. There is huge tracks of lands and resources that un-inhabitable.

[shock]

"Global warming" as we know it is a hoax. It is a way for governments around the world to create a distraction. R12 is a better refrigerant than R-134A, but was banned in legislation championed by Clinton. Do you know why? Under the guise of "environmental concerns", it was banned because Clinton himself had an exorbant amount of stocks in 134A. Look at the governments around the world. Some of the most closet oppressive governments produce the most global warming science.

Another fact- Russians were mapping Alaska in the 1700s. One of the things they were tracking was the receding glaciers. When Captain James Cook combined his maps of Alaska with the Russians he found that the glaciers had receded 20 miles in ~ 2 years. In the 1700s.

[Kung Wu]

Sooo, looking at the map I can see that Hillary Clinton was in an airplane between Greenland and the U.K. at the time the satellites snapped their data.

[shoxlax]

Sooo, looking at the map I can see that Hillary Clinton was in an airplane between Greenland and the U.K. at the time the satellites snapped their data.

Post of the year!

[Aargh]

I'm a firm believer in global warming. I'm also a firm believer in "who cares". Global warming (and cooling) is an absolute fact in the entire history of the planet. The current warming trend (without regard to its source) is progressing so slowly that we humans should have no trouble adjusting.

The places where agriculture is produced may shift. We may learn not to build cities right on the edge of the oceans. In the time frame in which those changes may occur, potential changes will only be an inconvenience to populations, governments, cities, environments, etc. It's no big deal. By the time the oceans rise enough to wipe out civilization on the coasts, the infrastructure there will be outdated, obsolete, and crumbling from age - even if it's new construction in the next century or so.

The temperature of the Earth has changed radically in the past and will continue to do that. One of the first effects of significant global warming is to produce an ice age in the northern hemisphere. Melting the ice caps in Greenland stops the Gulf Stream, which warms northern waters - leading to the buildup of ice caps in Greenland, which causes warm water to be pulled into the northern hemisphere.

We're in more peril from the super-voicanoes in Yellowstone and Siberia erupting again, or a lesser volcano blocking sunlight for a couple of years than we are from global warming. We're in more peril from a terrestrial body hitting Earth than from global warming.

Global warming can be politicized, so it is. Volcanoes can't bve identified as the eviol ideologies of political opponents, even though they are more likely to disrupt civilization than carbon dioxide emissions.

Let the temperature of the Earth change. It's not going to end the world. Well, eventually, it will. The sun is in a phase of star lives where it's getting brighter every year.

[tropicalshox]

Ben Carson: "I want more than 50 percent."

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/ben-carson-clean-energy-goals

[wufan]

I'm all about being a good steward of the environment. I think global warning alarmists and environmentalists go about it the wrong way.

[wufan]

I'm a firm believer in global warming. I'm also a firm believer in "who cares". Global warming (and cooling) is an absolute fact in the entire history of the planet. The current warming trend (without regard to its source) is progressing so slowly that we humans should have no trouble adjusting.

The places where agriculture is produced may shift. We may learn not to build cities right on the edge of the oceans. In the time frame in which those changes may occur, potential changes will only be an inconvenience to populations, governments, cities, environments, etc. It's no big deal. By the time the oceans rise enough to wipe out civilization on the coasts, the infrastructure there will be outdated, obsolete, and crumbling from age - even if it's new construction in the next century or so.

The temperature of the Earth has changed radically in the past and will continue to do that. One of the first effects of significant global warming is to produce an ice age in the northern hemisphere. Melting the ice caps in Greenland stops the Gulf Stream, which warms northern waters - leading to the buildup of ice caps in Greenland, which causes warm water to be pulled into the northern hemisphere.

We're in more peril from the super-voicanoes in Yellowstone and Siberia erupting again, or a lesser volcano blocking sunlight for a couple of years than we are from global warming. We're in more peril from a terrestrial body hitting Earth than from global warming.

Global warming can be politicized, so it is. Volcanoes can't bve identified as the eviol ideologies of political opponents, even though they are more likely to disrupt civilization than carbon dioxide emissions.

Let the temperature of the Earth change. It's not going to end the world. Well, eventually, it will. The sun is in a phase of star lives where it's getting brighter every year.

Excellent post! To tag onto this, the above post that pointed out all the inaccuracies with climate modeling is a big problem. You can't know how to be a good environmental steward when bias and incomplete data is being reported.