Global Warmening and the Sea Ice Measurement

"The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning."



Comment: Just a brief reminder about the polarizing lens on the orbiting satellite. Before 2008 the Arctic ice extent charts showed an upwards bump on 1 July when the polarizing lenses were switched from Antarctic to Arctic mode — this was so that Arctic melt ponds would not be interpreted as open water. The reverse switch was on 1 January so was not evident on the charts because it was at the edge. Anyway, people complained about the bump so they decided to “improve” the chart by gradually turning the polarizing lens. This rapidly became carte blanche for turning the lens any way they wanted, and accounts for much of the symmetry seen nowadays — when the Arctic ice anomaly rises, the Antarctic anomaly falls, and so on. Today we see the Antarctic ice anomaly rising to record levels even as the Arctic ice anomaly is oddly dropping even as the ice edge is strong — this is because the Arctic ice concentration has dropped to about 75% – 80% all across the ice cap — because the melt ponds are all being interpreted as open water (see the washed out orange color on the ice concentration map). It’s just that they’ve (presumably) turned that polarizing lens all the way into Antarctic mode to report as low an Arctic ice area as possible– which thus causes the reported Antarctic ice extent to skyrocket.

This account is my interpretation of what is happening, as it is consistent with the past few years of sea ice data. What’s needed is someone in the satellite data area to come forth and tell the reality.


Comment: Why are temperatures not a good gauge of global warming or cooling for the layman? The fact is that almost all of the temperature data our government agencies and various other agencies around the world publish are statistically “adjusted” for various reasons. Often such “adjustments” are made to fill in blank spots in the data when measuring stations go down or when the measurements from stations are not reported in a timely manner. Other such adjustments are made to account for the fact that large urban areas are heat islands that remain warmer than surrounding rural areas. Even satellite temperature data is adjusted for various reasons. No matter the reason for the adjustments the fact is that they are made using statistical methods and the particular statistical method(s) selected to be applied is based solely on the judgment of people. IOW what your getting when you look at historical temperature data is to some extent colored by AN OPINION!

So the third year the sea ice extents remain significantly above the mean during the summer months at both poles then I will start being concerned about cooling. The opposite goes for warming. No corruption or “adjustment” of temperature data can change these signs. So it seems to me that the satellite measurements of the sea ice extents at BOTH POLES, while not always perfect by any means, as has been proven in the past, are still far more reliable and less susceptible to tampering or error than temperature data at any level from any source and thus make the best and most easily understandable and reliable gauge for the layman to make his/her own judgment on what the worlds temperature is doing.

With all the "Tinkering" and "Massaging" of the data, the entire discussion has been corrupted.  So if you truly believe that Climate Change or Global Warming or any of that is real, then you must support a complete reset of the research into it.

What that means is you must call for a new study.  And it must use the RAW data, nothing massaged or tinkered.  That massaging and tinkering destroys any legitimacy in the research.  And that is how you get people like me who feel that there might be something to it, but I don't trust the people screaming there is climate change because they still ride around in big jets and humongous vehicles while they say that I need to get rid of my suburban which until they put so much alcohol in the gas, got almost 20 miles per gallon and had less harmful emissions than the police department's brand new Tahoe's and Dodge Charger's.  And my Suburban is is 21 years old, and the local PD's get unadulterated gasoline.  That's right they don't have alcohol in their gas.  The county buys it direct from the refinery.  They have their own pumps and tank farm for gasoline and diesel.  For me to get unadulterated gas or diesel I have to go either the Marina or the Farmer's Co-op and pay almost $1.00 more per gallon for undyed unadulterated fuel.  And yet the several times I have done that, My Suburban has put out less emissions than the PD's brand new vehicles*.  I mean brand new as in less than 7 months old.  My 21 year old properly maintained Suburban emits less CO than a 2014 Tahoo the PD uses.  Granted they get 9 more MPG than my Suburban, but my Suburban also weighs 1,500 lbs more than their Tahoe's.

So unless I want to pay almost $5.00 per gallon I get only 11 to 12 mpg on the adulterated pump gas.  And my suburban actually puts out more emissions with the Gasohol.

So the "Gasohol" does cause and cost more harm to the environment than it saves.

I could write an Uber-Mega Post on "Gasohol" and the Corn Subsidies showing how it's costing us higher prices in food, fuel , and vehicle repairs than it is supposedly saving our environment.  It is actually harming our environment as vehicles fuel systems are being damaged by the alcohol as it attacks the aluminum and plain steel parts of the fuel systems and the rubber and neoprene seals.  You need to run high chrome stainless steels for suel systems and that means increased costs, so vehicles cost more.  The alcohol is hygroscopic which means it attracts any moisture from the air.  Just what you want in your fuel, water.  (I'll let Kevin do that as he writes much more eloquently than I do)

So we need to start over from the beginning.  Take the raw data and crunch the numbers over from the start to the finish.

* Tested with a standard CO, CO2, HC hand meter with engine at idle (850 RPM for my Suburban, 1,100 RPM for the Tahoe) and at 2,000 RPM for both vehicles, and 3,000 RPM for both vehicles with A/C off.  My Suburban emitted less CO, CO2 and HC's than the PD's Tahoe.  My Suburban with over 215K miles on it emitted less than a 7 month old Tahoe with 7500 miles on it.  And both my Suburban and the PD's Tahoe were running unadulterated gasoline.  (I won the bet with the Officer and he had to buy me and my mechanic breakfast tacos)

More on the Massaged Data;

EDITORIAL: Rigged ‘science’ The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data