Operation Ice Bridge: NASA's airborne mission to monitor global warming

Well first, I think you should get a proof-reader. That is, unless the planes really ARE going to be trying to monitor the "solar" ice caps, that is.

(BTW, THAT would be the real cure for Global Warming)

@Lightning Joe. Fixed. Thanks, SmartPlanet Video Team

Oh My God. What a colossal waste of taxpayer money. When the
US goes bankrupt as a result of frivolous spending like this, I'm sure
no one will care about any of this anymore. Maybe "cooler heads"
will then prevail.

Are you that fascinated with supporting the myth of man made global warming that you have to run 2 posts at the same time on the same story?

And what is with NOAA posting that the past 10 years might be the warmest decade in history? When you look at their data behind the story they really mean it might be the warmest decade in the last 50 years. Big difference folks between the headlines and the data.

And what happened to the corrected temperature data from our friends at East Anglia?

They admitted to altering their data. They admitted that the real temperature change measured over the past 20 years showed a slight decrease in temperature. A decrease they quickly referred to as statistically insignificant.

Some one at NOAA did not get the corrected data from the experts at East Anglia. This is further proof that when groups of people lie to keep their research funding coming it becomes hard to keep the story straight.

I will say the same thing as before. This project is a waste of money because these people cannot be trusted to perform real science with an agenda driving their thirst for future funding.

Why not utilize UAV which are much cheaper to operate to gather this data? Would it make to much sense to simply acquire a dozen UAV's by increasing an existing Air Force contract and thereby both lengthening that program and providing jobs to the people that build them. Its probably less costly to retrofit UAV's with different instruments than a DC-8 where extra safety tests need to occur. Why doesn't anyone think about ongoing costs?

Here we go again with the climate change deniers who can't see anything around
them but a minuscule and insignificant ant hill of expectant human error or
oversight, while the mile high mountain of global warming evidence linking man-
made CO2 to our climate change is standing behind them. But that's a denier
for you.

Your opinion of me means nothing in the scope of things on this planet. All I say is, do some research with an open mind. I would love to be proven wrong, but so far all the junk posted here does not hold up to the scientific method. Which is why people on this site launched an attack on the scientific method last month.

Look with an open mind and you will find much of the garbage published about man made global warming is written by people basing their writings on second or third hand information. An opinion piece based on a magazine article that was based on a newspaper story about a research project is not science or even good journalism. It is junk.

When you chase all of it back to the root science you see the original science says nothing about global warming. What you are seeing is just a twisted perspective of one statement pulled out of context from a news story first done on some legitimate science.

A great example of the man bear pig crowd misrepresenting science to support man bear pig is the C3 project in Antarctica. Another clear case of myth gone wild is the fact that polar bears are dying from global warming.

Do you know this whole argument is based on 1 reported drowning of a polar bear? Al Gore lawyers admitted this little fact while unsuccessfully defending his movie against a suit claiming it contained fraudulent statements claimed as proven science. They lost when 9 major points of science in the movie were proven to be factually wrong.

Research it back and you will see there are no pictures of the dead bear and more importantly there is no autopsy report backing the claim of the bear dying of drowning. How do we know a bear even died that day?

It is the same old story. The reporter interviews some one who says they heard from a friend who knows somebody who had this acquaintance who saw a dead polar bear on a beach. Assumptions are made and junk science is born to support the assumptions.

OK, let's take this one step at a time.
Take a look at the global surface mean temperature anomalies data, which compares the current global land and ocean temperatures to the global dataset that goes back in one form or another back to 1880:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201001-201010.gif

1) are you questioning the validity of the dataset? The analysis? And if so for either question, on what grounds? Be very specific.

Stay on topic. Looking at the disinformation.

The C3 project is drilling the deepest ice cores ever recovered by mankind on Antarctica.

They have found a pattern of rising and falling CO2 that follows changes in global temperatures. When this pattern was reveled in their first report, to my knowledge they have released 3 reports over the life of the project, the man bear pig crowd jumped on one sentence in a newspaper that said CO2 levels had risen by X in the past X years.

What they left out was the following sentence that said this was repeating a pattern seen over the hundreds of thousands of years covered by the ice cores recovered so far.

They also left out that the pattern seen was rising CO2 levels following rising temperatures. As I said, it is not even good journalism. It is junk.

Bold face lies published in what you would call a major scientific magazine.

Do the research.

And before you quote a report, Smith et al 2008, try reading it.

Smith admits to, Quote: the global average was modified to exclude data from regions with sparse sampling to minimize damping of global-average anomalies.

If you read further in the report what he is referring to is dropping cooling modern temperatures that do not match their expectations and more importantly they drop warmer historical records that do not match their expectations.

The dampening effect Smith refers to is the flattening of the temperature curve that would not support their theory of warming. They are considered anomalies because they do not fit their agenda.

So you could say I question the manipulation of the data that is done to get an expected outcome.

Just as I suspected: you can't distinguish the difference between the mechanisms of the warming cycle that is currently taking place and the mechanisms of previous warming cycles. Why is it that folks can understand that your car malfunctioning can be caused by a host of causes, but because global warming took place in the past, this time it cannot be human triggered?

And the issue you seem to have about CO2 following rising temperatures has been explained over and over again, so I cannot believe that you haven't heard it before. I refer you to the following explanation, written in 2004:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Your Smith critique is the junk science: the modifications Smith has performed is transparent, been studied and been cleared as valid by the climatological community and scientific peers. I tend to believe their conclusions over yours as you show me nothing that shows me that you understand it better than the larger scientific community.

C3 has debunked your assertions of a different mechanism at work yet your scientific community ignores it. Why? For the same reason Smith dropped data. Because it does not support their agenda.

And Smiths report is a clear example of disreputable scientists supporting each other. People he based his work on performed the peer review of it.

Please note he was reexamining the data already examined by others. There was no new data added. In fact, by adding additional filters to pull out what he considered anomalies he was strengthening their arguments. Those people he was supporting peer reviewed his work, which is not very good science in my book.

Again bad science based on bad science.

That is akin to the corrupt auditor who was supposed to be watching Madoffs books. Being in on the scheme he was not exactly an impartial review.

What bluff did you call? Look at the root science and you will see.

Also, Instead of quoting a link from a biased page try reading the original report linked on the page. It might open you eyes to what they are basing the statements on.

Are the statements based in fact or junk? Figure it out.

Where are you getting your lines of "reasoning"--the discredited CO2Science.org website? Those folks who cherry picked data to "prove" that the Middle Ages were warmer than today?

If so, then it's ironic that some of the same folks you claim are debunking the relationship between ice core CO2 levels and past warming cycles are actually the SOURCES of the widely accepted explanation of why warming precedes CO2 elevation in the core data. Specifically, check out Jeff Severinghaus' comment at my original post above, or in the comments section here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

And what the heck is C3? A conference? How in the heck does a conference debunk the overwhelmingly accepted mechanisms that you say are debunked? Specifically what presentation/s give a credible alternative explanation?

I have no reason to think that "front" sites such as www.CO2Science.org have any relation to real science or that they have an inside track on the truth that has somehow been missed by 98% of the climatological scientific community. I can give you (and have already given you) true peer reviewed conclusions that you have somehow forgotten to give me valid reasons as to why they are wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee now because the data is coming in from all directions that is making the causal connection between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, etc. stronger and stronger.

Scientists cannot dismiss models that explain the data unless there is an alternative model that describes the data dynamics in an even more compelling way. Give me a better model that does a better job explaining the data that's coming in. Be specific.

C3 is an ice core deep drilling project that has been ongoing for over 10 years. It is hard science studying the causes of the natural cycles of CO levels following temperatures. They have presented alternative explanations to what is going on. The man bear crowd ignores the fact they are all based on natural processes.

If you did any research on the real science looking at historical global weather patterns you would know about it.

And you talk about cheery picking yet ignore the fact that Smith and others FILTER what they call anomalies to manipulate data to get the results they want.

When you put back the data they admitted to filtering and look at the pure data the results are not what their agenda says.

The people you criticize for cheery picking data are actually working with pure raw data compared to the manipulated junk your so-called scientific community uses. Reading the Smith report mentioned here showed the sad state of western science if they are any real representation.

The report has almost a full page just to explain the manipulations done by Scientist A before Scientist B manipulated it for his report which Scientist C further filtered for his report.

By the time Smith looked at the data it had been manipulated and altered several times. It is convenient that after each manipulation the alleged proof of man bear pig grew stronger with each report. The temperature spikes shown by Smith are more than double the results found by the first person to look at the data sets.

Since you didn't provide me with a link to the data, I had to google "c3" and "ice core" and that's what they came up with. If you would please provide a link to what you are referring to, we can continue the discussion in a civil manner.

Your broadly worded critique of Smith's "manipulation" of data reeks of quoting others without understanding what you are talking about. Here is a link to Smith's 2008 article on cleaning up the data that my original link/graph above is based on:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf

Do you have any specific critique of his methods? They are publicly available, as is the dataset that he works with, so I'd be very interested in hearing about anything he has done statistically that is a deliberate distortion of the data to make it look like warming occurred where it didn't really exist.

In contrast, did you also read the link I provided you that critiqued the CO2Science.org Middle Ages warming hoax? They may be working with raw data, but they manipulate it, and do so in ways that are not statistically sound, unlike Smith. I have provided you with documentation to that effect--please feel free to counter with specifics.

I had to go offline to find more information on C3. They do not attract the same media coverage as people shouting about man made global warming. Do the legwork. It can be rewarding.

If you read many of the reports mentioned on this site you will see the methodology explained shows how muddy they make the data. They tend to start with data that has already be scrubbed and filtered many times over. It is a mutual admiration society where each report builds on the one before it.

They are just rehashing old statements by adding additional filters to clean out anomalies that conflict with their data. Most of these scientists never go back to the raw data. This is where the gang at East Anglia plays a big part in the hoax.

The scientists at East Anglia where often the first people to manipulate data gathered by others for use in reports made by still other people. They were considered a professional scientific clearinghouse and trusted as such. They were supposed to be the experts who complied weather data and constantly updated their pool of knowledge based on each new data set. Instead of aggregating the data to expand their knowledge base they chose to manipulate new data to match their set expectations and agenda.

The clearest example of this is where they admitted to refuting valid satellite data showing a cooling pattern on the euro/asia landmass with a mix of land data and extrapolated data from tree ring studies. I specifically mention this incident because the tree ring data supported the satellite data so they used it up to a given year and then substituted land based station data from another part of the world, the western USA to be specific, to support their argument. They neither noted the change in data sets or the change in location of the samples.

This scam was outed in the email leak and later admitted to by members of the cabal.

As I have said before. Go back to the raw data and the reports of the original collectors. Once the data has been scrubbed of anomalies it is useless because of the personal bias of those doing the scrubbing.

Your C3 information is not available online, nor apparently is any other information about this important 10 year old project.

Your critiques of the Smith et al article that I provided you a direct link to continues to be generic and so broadbrushed that it leaves no real room for further inquiry or discussion.

Your tired re-hashing of the East Anglia email "scandal" continues to ignore the conclusions of at least 5 inquiries, all of whom could find nothing wrong with the science, just with the responses of the scientists to the deluge of requests made to them by all of the inquiries.

Bottom line: you seem to have mixed up having an opinion with discussing the issue with the purpose of educating yourself and others around you, perhaps even finding a bit of truth along the way.

I'll defend your right to have an opinion and express it. But please don't waste your time and mine attacking others who are actually interested in discussing the issues by using credible sources, using clear logic and genuine inquiry.

And please just state it's your opinion and don't muddy the waters with claims that you are the only one who has studied certain privileged pieces of information that reveal the truth, and that all others are just dupes who have been suckered in by scam artists.

Just because something cannot be found in a 5 second Google search does not make it irrelevant. Believe it or not there was data storage before the Internet. They were called libraries.

All I can say is read the very reports you keep quoting. The stench in them is over whelming. The selective cherry picking to support an agenda is blatant.

If you think there is a repetitive theme to my remarks, than you are beginning to grasp the tactics used by the man bear pig crowd. A politician once said, if you repeat a lie enough people start to think of it as the truth.

I?ll stop repeating myself because you obviously have a closed mind on the topic.

I am not the only person who feels this way. I am just more vocal about it. I?ll pass on some advice that helped open my eyes. If you are as enlightened as you imply, all I will say is take a closer look at the actual data. Take off the filters they have imposed on what you see.

Decide for yourself and stop quoting bogus links to drivel.

"All I can say is read the very reports you keep quoting. The stench in them is over whelming. The selective cherry picking to support an agenda is blatant."

I actually did delve into the Smith article and found it to be very interesting, defensible and convincing. Since your critique is completely emotional and nonfactual, I have to conclude that you, too can find nothing wrong with it. You certainly have not come up with a single point that you contest a coherent way.

Your thread is one of the more fascinating examples of projection that I have seen in quite a while. If you bring up any cogent points for discussion, I will reply to them accordingly.

I'm also not holding my breath.

The challenge to get offline and do some real research, beyond a google search, has been refused.

And people call me a denier.

Happy New Year all.

I suspect that if C3 doesn't refer to the McCormick Climate Change Conference (which does discuss ice cores), perhaps the C3 refers to the Climate Cycles Change, or C3 website. If you plug in the words "ice core" and "c3" you get the following link at the top: C3: "2010 Greenland Ice Core Study"

Sadly, this headline is for another bogus rehash of how the Middle Ages were hotter than today, a distortion that was debunked in the link I provided above.

Perhaps you are referring to the Vostok Core study of a few years back, or the more recent EPICA Dome C core study? Both of these core sampling projects document the CO2 gases in the past in ways that I've already described above as well.

If these are not what you are referring to, and you cannot offer any authors' names, institutions, agencies or grants, no library will be of any use. I have to assume that you bluff has been called.

You would have failed my investigative science class.

HI #4,

... might be the warmest decade in the last 50 years.

You must have misread that. There is no way NOAA is saying the past decade is anything but the warmest in their records unless maybe they're talking about the Continental US only.

They admitted to altering their data. They admitted that the real temperature change measured over the past 20 years showed a slight decrease in temperature. A decrease they quickly referred to as statistically insignificant.

Oh please, East Anglia has said no such thing. I challenge you to cite any place where EAU is quoted as saying anything close to that.

#7

... much of the garbage published about man made global warming is written by people basing their writings on second or third hand information.

If you want first hand information go to RealClimate. You get it there straight from the mouths of several of the more prominent members of the climate science community. http://www.realclimate.org/

They have found a pattern of rising and falling CO2 that follows changes in global temperatures.

Since we are not currently transitioning into a glaciation or out of one that observation does not apply to today's world. The idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming goes back to Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" long before any ice cores were drilled. At this point I think it's up to you to prove that something besides CO2 is causing the present warming.

klassman6, I think HI is getting his information from a website called C3 Headlines in particular this link: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html

Why should I trust scientists who propose shooting hundreds of tons of sulfur into the stratosphere to fight global warming when we as a planet just spent 40 years and perhaps trillions of dollars reducing global sulfur emissions to fight acid rain?

Proposals like that made in Cancun recently further demonstrate that these people are either incompetent or snake oil salesmen trying to make a buck.

If putting sulfur in the atmosphere is the fix then lets lower the cost of buying and owning cars by dropping the need for catalytic converters. That would be a far more cost effective solution.

But wait. The global warming hacks like Al Gore would not make money off that solution. So we must drive around filtering SO2 from our cars while paying billions to someone to spread SO2 by plane.

Have any of you ever noticed that it always comes back to money with these guys?

Either they have their hands out for grant money to perpetuate their research or money to pay for the fix to the latest problem they create a buzz around.

The laws are so lax on selling carbon credits that I could legally sell credits based on the garden I plant every year.

And C3 is not a web site. To find C3 look at a map.

You know that. I know that. But looks like he's not going to admit it. Time to move on in my book.

HI #23

Nice change of subject. Rather than answer any of my assertions you launch into a diatribe about putting sulfur in the atmosphere and scientists getting rich of their grants.

Very few climate scientists are proposing shooting sulfur into the air. Personally I don't think adding SO2 in the atmosphere would be anything but a short term stopgap measure that could cause as many problems as it solves. It doesn't obviate the need to eliminate CO2 emissions, just buys some time to get it done.

Catalytic converters on automobiles don't remove sulfur. There is very little sulfur in most fuels. They cause the products of incomplete combustion to be fully burned reducing the emissions of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons by oxidizing them to CO2 and water.

Has anyone noticed that it all comes back to money for you?

You're pretty good at setting up straw men so you can knock them down.

There is a C Dome on Antarctica and there may well be a location on it that they call C3. But your arguments are straight out of the C3 Headlines web site which has little to do with Antarctic ice cores overall.