MYT: Both of those men are indeed on the AGW bandwagon. Newt debated John Kerry, not on AGW itself, but how we can combat it. Pawlenty wrote a few editorials for the GOP Gov. Assoc. trying to push the GOP to embrace this issue and out-Democrat the Democrats. It will all lead to things like cap-and-trade and/or an EPA regulatory nightmare. Newt was on-board with revisions to the Endangered Species Act which are violating private property rights.
MYT: Newt Gingrich is a global warming envirokook, right in line with Pawlenty, Huckabee & Romney. He debated John Kerry some time ago (I think I mentioned this in the vid) over HOW we can deal with anthropogenic global warming, not whether it's a reality or not.
@MyTotalRemedy -- Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote. You'll see the candidates in an entirely new light and you'll be able to cast a vote to save America as we know it. Most Democrats and some Republicans have bought into the idea of one world government and global redistribution of wealth. Learn how to recognize them!
Its interesting that half the leading republican candidates voted that GW is real and caused by humans. Even George Bush admitted it when he was coming to the end of his 2nd term. I imagine most democrats are in that same camp. Many of the original climate deniers have retreated to "yes it is real and likely being caused by humans but it wont be a disaster" (e.g., Roy Spenser and John Christy). Yet a few neanderthauls still cling to the old theories mainly for political dogma reasons.
DRK: When and where did Dr. Spencer repudiate his disbelief in AGW? Patrick Michaels has always been of the opinion that man's contribution to GW is extremely limited and will not cause the catastrophic events the Goracle and other snake-oil sellers like James Hansen say. Of course, we can look back in time and see disasters of quite a large magnitude, long before the automobile.
@UTubekookdetector I believe it was at an AMS meeting I heard him discussing his views. Of course, what he says in private to his fellow climate experts may be different from what he says in public.
Yes, I had forgotten about Pat Michaels or I would have included him on the list too.
DRK: Funny that you should mention John Christy, he was just instrumental in getting the NOAA-16 pulled from service (it's not limited to that satellite though). due to "sensor degredation." The U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were "degraded" and unreliable for assessing climate change. Christy made light of this years ago apparently.
@UTubekookdetector Odd, NOAA 16 is still operational and gathering data according to NOAA (I just checked with them), some systems are degraded but you would expect that in such an old system. Now you do realize that the problem Christy found several years ago was in his own work. He goofed when analyzing satellite data and jumped to all sorts of incorrect conclusions based on that faulty analysis (like GW was not happening). He has acknowledge his mistake.
DRL: It's an old system? Huh? It's not even 10 years old. You seem to be a bit misinformed. The gov't has already admitted global warming satellite sensors “degraded” temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in are under scrutiny. I believe NOAA-16 is offline. The NAS, in a 2007 455-page report concluded that because of degradation in the U.S. satellite network, the country's ability to monitor the climate and severe weather was at great risk.
@UTubekookdetector I just checked the NOAA data archives and NOAA-16 data is there from yesterday (16th). So it seems that it is that you are misinformed and my colleague at NOAA was correct. Look for yourself at the NCDC or NGDC - few clicks and you can confirm for yourself.
DRK: Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was put back online after being taken offline on 8/10. My point stands. If these satellites are good for only 7 years (I'll take your fish story about building this and that with a grain of salt), then why is it still online? If they know they're susceptible to bad data after 7 years then why continue gather data with it? You just undercut your own argument. Amazing.
@UTubekookdetector I pointed out that you can test a sensor that is degrading and correct the signal - all that does is increase the uncertainty of the answer. By how much and how significantly if at all depends on the sensor and the calibration method. These senosrs are calibrated agianst standard stars and the Moon from time to time. You also have several of them so you can compare ovelapping observations to see how much degradation if any has occured so your arguement is flawed (again).
DRK: Yes, that;'s why NOAA-16 was offline on 8/10 as I said (you never commented on that, only that it's operational now) and the automatic readings of the satellite been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees F. What's your source for the cut-and-paste you put up pertaining to specific elements of NASA's budget? It still begs the question: You're not denying the errant readings, just that it was budget cuts.
@UTubekookdetector I commented that NOAA said it was still on line and it was. There is no gap in its data coverage including 8/10. As I said you only have to check the data itself. Christy would have had nothing to do with whether it was on line. That would be NOAA satellite operaterations
The NASA budget - I have access to NASA internal net & the figures were there. I did find some similar numbers on the web by googling the NASA budget with some minor differences (inflation assumptions?).
DRK: I need to make this point again. You agree with the NAS assessment that our satellite system is in disarray, but you blame it on "budget cuts." If so, why continue gathering data? Consider NOAA-16, it recorded a reading of 604F at Egg Harbor, WI. On 7/4 it recorded a temp of over 400 degrees (actually several times well over 100) at Lake Michigan. NOAA's Pistis at first denied this, then acknowledged that the readings took place, later trying to blame it on "cloud cover."
@UTubekookdetector No I do not agree that the NAS said that the satellite system is in disarray. They said (and for goodness sake read the report!) that measurements will be less accurate and there will be less coverage with less capable instruments unless the satellite fleet is maintained in the future. They were talking about planned systems liek NPOESS and GOES-R, neither launches <2015. The Obama administration is moving now to plug those gaps. NAS said nothing about current measurements.
@UTubekookdetector What happened was that some of its images were removed from the data base because of anomalous pixels - ever hear of space weather? This sort of thing happens allthe time. The Sun becomes a little more active and floods geospace with particles and they mess up soem of the pixels inthe focal plane. Remidy - you dump those images.
If you check the GOES Solar X-ray Data you will see there was a large (M) flare on 7/8 Aug - travel time for the particles to Earth 1-3 days. QED.
@UTubekookdetector All sensors degrade - I believe I already said this - we all know that, everybody knows that (except you it seems), and the analyisis takes into account such degradation. Sometimes it gets so bad that the sensor cant be used anymore. We seem to be dealing with here are a few solar energetic particles from a flare messing up the focal plane for a while and them failing to remove the images from the database. I am not taking denier blogs seriously - too many false alarms already
DRK: I know they all degrade eventually and yes, you did say that before. I wondered how long you would be able to suppress your kook opinions and mention Fox. I knew you were a nut, I just didn't expect so many fish stories about insider info. At first you said there were only 5 sensors and that 14 # can't be true. Now it seems you're backtracking and just saying O'Connor isn't being specific, which is it?
@UTubekookdetector I have not back tracked on anything - thones I mentioned as being on the original plan for GOES are still there and none of them have been cancelled.
You, I note, keep trying to divert away from listing the 14 sensors that have been removed. I called you on it and you still cant list them (because they were never there to be cancelled). You were duped.
Time after time what you have said has been false yet you stick to your dogma that says who is the nut right there.
DRK: And ass I told you before, I don't accept your hearsay arguments about building this and that for NASA. Sorry. Funny you should mention false claims, there were plenty of those in y our 2007 IPCC report. They got info from defunct websites and the WWF. Complaining about "denier blogs" sounds like a person who throws stones and lives in a glass house.
@UTubekookdetector You mean the ones that were not in the science section. There are 3 reports WG1 (Science), WG2 (Impacts), & WG3 (Mitigation). All the material you mention (which was inconsequential anyway) was in the WG2/3 reports written by engineers and politicians. WG1 was given a high rating even by the bias "citizen reviewers" and that was where the science was which is what we are discussing.
Again diversion and distortion. Shame on you for believing it and propagating it.
DRK: You might want to tell EPA Admin. Jackson and Sen. Boxer then, they were running away from the 2007 IPCC report, which in fact did misstate how much of the Netherlands was below sea level, Himalayan glacier melt, African crop yields, etc. I'm glad that we don't have to worry about the Apocalypse now. The wg1 that you refer to had a plethora of scientists on it if I remember correctly and each had their own little section, that wouldn't mean they endorsed the entire report. con't...
@UTubekookdetector Not the Dutch sealevel myth again - how many time must I dispell this one? The report talks about the area of Holland that WOULD be (note the tense) below sea level if sea level were to rise by a given amount. The deniers use the figure of how much of holland is currently below sea level & then clamor that "oh look they got it wrong". It is another distortion which demonstrates that they have no real arguments to use so they have to fall back on tricks like this.
DRK: The IPCC did predict massive sea level rises, however A paper published yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans) confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC. The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal."
@UTubekookdetector No the IPCC did not predict "massive sea level rise. Please quote the place in the report (section chapter page number) where it did so. It has been critisized for being too conservative on this point as they have not taken glaier melting into account
I have worked with Judith lean. She works just down the road from me at NRL. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple of real solar scientists who would disagree with her conclusions. Name them if you can
DRK: Did you know about this? Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the IPCC. It seems even some "big-hitters" in the arena of climate change were duped by the IPCC.
DRK: It was Nature Geosciences. nature(dot)com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587(dot)html and confirmed the conclusions of the following 2007 IPCC report. Mark Siddall issued the retraction.
ipcc(dot)ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents(dot)html I eagerly await your spin-cycle.
DRK: Back in Dec 08, Sen. Inhofe compiled and published a list of over 600 scientists who don't buy the AGW propaganda. Some of them were former IPCC scienfists and considering there were only 52 scientists involved in the 2007 IPCC report, I would hardly call that anything substantial. The link is rather long, if you went to epw(dot)senate and searched for "U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" you'll find it
@UTubekookdetector I have seen the report and did a study checking the names of the scientists - most of them were not scientists at all and most of the few that were not climate scientists (over half of those had retired years ago and a couple were dead).
PS There were over 400 scientists involved in writing the WG1 (science) IPCC report (see the Authors appendix) & about 600 who reviewed it. The ones listed in InHoffe's list are people who sent in comments (as you or I could have done).
DRK: I'd say if someone was sending in comments claiming to be a climate scientist or any other sort of scientist and that wasn't the person's position, they would get in a heap of trouble (Inhofe's list), so I don't accept your generalized rebuttal on that issue, a few scientists on the list being dead doesn't negate the fact that there are climate scientists who don't buy AGW. Your reply concerning Lean (I don't care about allegedly working with her) begs the question: Why only ONE source?
@UTubekookdetector Not only one source - Peter Foucault was also on the committee. If you check what they actually said in that section and the references they used you would see that they used the results from papers from many different authors to come to their conclusions.
DRK: I do need 2 other things from you. 1) For the record, state again that the IPCC conclusions about Himalayan glaciers, Amazon deforestation, African crop yields, sea level rise were politicized BS. Did you see Siddall's retraction? 2) Give me the names of the scientists on Inhofe's petition that are dead. I'll cross check it. Did you see George Taylor was one of 8 scientists that backed up Senate candidate Ron Johnson's belief that AGW is basically a crock? Good day!
@UTubekookdetector George Taylor, who heads the Oregon Climate Service, had been widely known as the state climatologist since 1991. The position was discontinued along with federal funding in the late 1980s. In February 2007, Gov. Kulongoski asked OSU's president to stop Taylor from calling himself the state climatologist.
Taylor: A political appointee who overstates his qualifications: in other words a charlaton. That's your best example?
DRK: Taylor is certainly a credentialed voice in the climate change debate, now you're bringing up (again--as you did when you mentioned Fox News, seems like a trend I'll watch for) something I never mentioned. Soon also signed that petition supporting Sen. candidate Johnson. I need to mention again, it's obvious you didn't read those GAO reports.
@UTubekookdetector His credentials are false - there has not been an Oregon state climatologist for over 20 years yet he still claims to be it. Again if that is your best shot then you need to keep your powder drier!
DRK: You're an idiot, I never brought up the state climatologist bit, you're googling. Taylor got a degree in meteorology from UT Univ. back in the 70's. You're beating up straw men. As for your bit about Ball and the fossil fuels industry, this is called "argument by outrage" and doesn't address the issue at hand. Another user tried this one me with Spencer & Singer. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo
@UTubekookdetector You brought up Taylor not me and then claimed he was "credentialed" I merely pointed out that his claimed credentials were BS. for every BSc meteorologist that are deniers I can see you and raise you 30 PhD climatologists who vouch for AGW.
But is not about who said what or who has the most votes it is about the science. Unfortunately for you the physcis is unyieldingly on the AGW side.
DRK: Yes, Taylor is credentialed, I said nothing about whether he was OR"s climatologist or not. Look at the degree he received from the Univ. of UT. You say, " is not about who said what or who has the most votes." Good to know, you just undercut most of your arguments against Inhofe's petition. Still waiting for those "names" you put up. I couldn't find them on the petition. The science says, we've had massive climatological changes with lower CO2 levels and higher CO2 levels before the auto.
DRK: The only "FOX" I found was Dr. Michael R. Fox, who holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry. You must've missed Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology when you were getting talking points off the web. What about Peter Link or Diane Douglas? I didn't find "Charles Spangler Quisenberry " on the Inhofe petition. I didn't find "quinan" or "Geri Halliwell" either.
@UTubekookdetector No tthe Inhoffe petition the Oregon petition - the Inhoffe petition is a different kind of fraud. Balling for example had to admit that he took $408,000 from the fossil fuel industry after trying to sue a newspaper for saying he had. He has also accepted grants from the coal industry. 3 out of 800 not bad.
DRK: I just checked the Inhofe petition, I have it bookmarked (last update was some time ago), the names you mentioned ARE NOT on there. Perhaps you need to get those bifocals cleaned, as I said, NONE of those false names you mentioned are on there. No Michael J. Fox, there is a Michael R. Fox. As for your comments on NOAA16, the Dept. of Agri. noted that NOAA16 started malfunctioning in 04, when a scan motor problem caused a barcode appearance. Images from the NOAA17 satellite replaced NOAA-16
DRK: I also need to ask you again (because you didn't reply), tell us all for the record that the IPCC conclusions about sea level rise, Himalayan glacier melt, African crop yields et al. were politicized and need not be taken seriously. I'd also like to ask you, has NOAA-16 had any malfunctions in say, the last 6 years or has it been running like a well-oiled machine? Just curious.
@UTubekookdetector The IPCC conclusions on sea level rise were based on published papers prior to 2005 (thems the rules) and they wer ein error - yes they were understated by quite a large margin because they were not allowed to include glacier melt or ice cap melt in the report as they were not yet confirmed and thus could not be modeled - they have been now. I predict that th enext report will have a much arger number for sea level rise.
DRK: Pertaining to your comments about sea level rise, I'm sure you're familiar with Richard Alley, who recently poo-pooed the climate models the IPCC was using to predict sea level rises, saying, "We don't really have an ice-sheet model that we trust." In addition, they make assumptions about the viscosity of the mantle and its response to loading and unloading of ice sheets.
@UTubekookdetector I think that was what I said - the models are not reliable so the IPCC could not include them.
Alley testified under oath the following just last week:
"Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive.....A rise in the range of 2C to 7C would mean the obliteration of Greenland's ice sheet. What is going on in the Arctic now is the biggest and fastest thing that nature has ever done,"
DRK: Was this before or after he bashed those ice sheet models? According to a 2005 article in Science, we're losing about .04% of Greenland's ice sheet per century. watch?v=1BRPj4EXtUo So pardon moi if I don't buy the Gorewellian "tipping point" bilge.
@UTubekookdetector Michael Hanlon used to be an AGW sceptic, here is what he said:
"Sceptics will argue that Greenland has always had moulins and meltwater rivers; this is true. But what is new is these used to be confined to the very edge of the icesheet, marginal, ephemeral features that lasted just a few weeks in the height of the summer melting season. Now there are lakes and moulins right on the centre of the cap, and persisting well into August."
DRK: Were you also aware of the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research (agu (dot) org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630 (dot) shtml authors Wenzel, Schroter) that concluded sea levels have been rising naturally since the peak of the last major ice age 20,000 yrs. ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 yrs. ago. It also contradicted the IPCC "predictions" concerning sea level rises and that sea levels are not significantly rising currently.
@UTubekookdetector I was not aware of that paper but did check it out. They are only using a limited number of tidal gauges over a linited period (mostly in the Early 20th centruy. Other papers using larger data sets contradict them and especially those using satellite data.
DRK: That sounds like a well-rehearsed BS answer. You could also check out Simon Holgate, who affirms that the sea level rise slowed down in the last half of the 20th century, despite all this evil CO2. In addition, an examination of Roman fish tanks has affirmed that sea level rises slowed down in the past 2,000 years, despite all this CO2. I would also say, satellite monitoring of sea level is an awful small sample on an earth that is how old according to you?
DRK: That's not news to me, but the trend indicates that over the last 6,000 years, sea levels have been rising much slower, undercutting your CO2 argument. There's a lot more to it than Roman fish tanks.
@UTubekookdetector Of course sea levels rise after the end of an ice age. Initially they rise quickly and slow up as we reach the peak temperature. The point is that they are starting to rise faster again.
DRK: Still haven't seen you give me a pg # on those names from Inhofe's petition. According to Andrey Proshutinsky, sea level in the Arctic fell slightly from 95-03 and he attributes it mostly to decadal variability. Sea level was higher in the Maldives ca. 1150. I could also point out that Mexico saw a 6.5-10 ft. rise n sea level ca. 141K years ago. Again, pardon moi if I fail to lose sleep over "climate change."
DRK: We must be looking at diff. petitions then, the one that Morano has compiled (I also have it bookmarked) and has displayed on his site does not have those names you mentioned. No need to thank me now. Your latter point was already addressed I believe in reference to these ice sheet models that aren't adequate.
I also wanted to tell everyone, the article I was referring to that said "The NOAA-16 satellite collected images from the 2001 through 2003 seasons. NOAA-16 started malfunctioning in early 2004, when a scan motor problem caused a 'barcode' appearance. Images from the NOAA-17 satellite replaced NOAA-16 starting in 2004" can be found at nass . usda.gov/research/avhrr/avhrrmnu . htm
DRK: In your next message, you need to affirm or deny those phoney names you brought up from Inhofe's petition. I checked the petition, searched for all those names you gave me, I could not find them. Give me a page # if they are on there, in your next post. Thanks!
@UTubekookdetector The himalayan glacier thing was in the WG2 report, not the WG1, and thus had no effect on the scientific conclusions. The corp yields - I have seen no published paper that contract dicts the original paers cited but again that would be in the WG2 report so is irrelevant to the scientific case.
On NOAA 16, as far as I know every satillite has had many malfunctions eevry year. Certainly every one I have ever worked on has. So it is a silly question.
DRK: Lastly, I think the 14 sensors that were cancelled were part of the GOES-R launch that has been delayed and subject to cost overruns, which is pretty typical of virtually any gov't endeavor. If I find out anything else, I'll let you know and you can go off on Fox Noise if it doesn't fit your template.
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
DRK: Here are 2 GAO reports which clear the air on much of this SatelliteGate stuff. The reports consistently cite cost overruns (which is typical of nearly any government venture. Costs have exceeded the rate of inflation, one more than doubled. Ineffective interagency management was also cited. Several satellites have been subjected to numerous technical problems.
DRK: "no sensors have been lost on GOES-R." Swing and a miss. Apparently one of the writers put "14 sensors" when they should've put "14 products will not be provided. These include cloud base height, ozone layers, ocean color, turbidity, and cloud imagery." That's pertaining to GOES-R’s Hyperspectral Environmental Suite. It was cancelled, this is referenced in the GAO report and I verified it with Steve Goodman. Again, reading the GAO reports undercuts your blame Bush canard. Good try though.
@UTubekookdetector So I was right - these were not sensoors. Did your little friend mention when HES was cancelled? The answer is 2006. So who cancelled it - Bush
2006 was BEFORE the competition for the spacecraft (thus before the specs for the mission were written) was done so HES was not ever part of the baseline design. Nor could there have been any cost overruns because the program had not been started as of that time
DRK says, "Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R... 1 sensor cancelled by Bush." Nice mea culpa, don't thank me now. There are cost overruns for those programs, most any gov't program has them. Let me give you an example I think even you can understand. Let's say Bush pulled the plug on the Capitol Hill Visitors Ctr. in 2003 after years of delays & the cost more than doubling. The "blame Bush" crowd would begin whining, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know Edwards' budget law.
DRK: For some reason, the link when I copied it onto my browser didn't work either. Go to gao dot gov and search for a May 2010 report titled "POLAR-ORBITING ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES. Agencies Must Act Quickly to Address Risks That Jeopardize the Continuity of Weather and Climate Data" The other is an Apr. 2010 report titled "ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES. Strategy Needed to Sustain Critical Climate and Space Weather Measurements." Both go over the cost overruns and the lack of a plan from Obama.
@UTubekookdetector The polar orbiting satellites are NOT GOES-R. GOES-R is a geosynchronous satellite (thats what the G stands for). There cannot be cost overruns in a program that had not been funded yet. NPOESS was suffering cost overruns (caused by the contractor Northrop) but that had nothing to do with GOES HES cancellation. I led one of the teams that was going to propose for HES. We had a solution that would hav cost 1/3 of the normal cost of such an instrument. Even so they cancelled it
DRK: For the last time, no more hearsay stories, unless you're going to reveal your name for everyone, which I would not expect you to do. So, last time I'm going to tell you, no more hearsay stories. Got it? The information from the GAO reports that you didn't read contradict your story. There are cost overruns with almost all of these programs and interagency haggling over who gets what. Steve Goodman (that's not hearsay) contradicts your postion anyway. Don't thank me now.
@UTubekookdetector "...unless you're going to reveal your name for everyone, which I would not expect you to do..." How unobservant can you be? My name is right there on my posts - if you doubt my credentials go to amazon and look fro a book entitled "The Many Faces of the Sun" I am the lead author on it. It is a bit dated but a good read if you like solar physics.
As HES was cancelled BEFORE the program was funded it was not cancelled because of cost overruns - there were no costs to overrun
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
DRK: Lastly, Spencer writes this on his website (it's been up for years): "research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution." That doesn't sound much like a move to the left, he's totally on the other end of ideological spectrum when compared to say, James Hansen.
@UTubekookdetector I love his introdcutory remarks to his blog where he says that the person to listen to on global warming is your local TV meteorologist (note not climatologists which is supposedly one of). Most TV meteorologists are out of work actors or tv jounalists who paid the AMS $500 to attend a 1-day course on meteorology so they know the difference between a high & low pressure system, a hurricane & a tornado, or summer & winter. If they work for FOX they are required to be a denier.
@UTubekookdetector The NAS report was quite specific. It was lamenting the cuts in future programs at NOAA (NPOESS & GOES) & the NASA research program endangering FUTURE measurements because of fewer satellite missions and fewer less capable instruments in their long term plans. It said nothing about current measurements just that the quality of climate monitoring would (Note the future tense) degrade if the current aging spacecarft were not replaced by as many similarly capable climate missions
DRK: I will certainly look up NASA's budget #'s, but I won't google, I'll find some specifics somewhere in gov't outlays. Obama signed the budget extension in March 09 and early this year signed the $1.1 trillion "minibus." One would think the problems would be fixed. GOES-R has had 14 sensors cancelled, don't keep gathering bad data, that's my point. If the satellite program is underfunded, don't keep belching out bad data until it's up to snuff.
@UTubekookdetector Please tell me which 14 sensors that is on GOES R. GOES-R has only 5 sensors - ABI, GLM, SUVI, SEISS, & the magnetometer. So it is rather hard to cancel 14 of 5 instruments. The only instrument removed from the baseline conscept was the IR sounder and that was because of budget cuts. I was part of the proposal team that won the spacecraft contract and two of the instruments (SUVI and GLM).
DKR: According to John O; Sullivan, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively neutered. I'm still not buying your "inside information" clap-trap. Unless you give me some gov't website showing specific outlays within NASA, your evidence will not be considered credible. I'd say the crazy temp readings are proof enough.
@UTubekookdetector I named the 4 sensors on GOES R - please name the ones that have been removed. About 5 years ago they excluded the ABS (the 5th sensor Advanced Baseline Sounder) but that was to save $s & ABI (Advanced baseline Imager) could duplicate the measurements with a relatively cheap upgrade.
He may be confusing GOES-R with NPOESS - it has been all but cancelled because of massive cost overruns. NPOESS was a dumb idea (Bush) & is restructured with most of the instruments in place
@UTubekookdetector O'Conner was not specific he just claimed that 14 sensors were cancelled - he never said which ones. I've named the ones there - name the ones that were canclled.
As for the measurements of cloud imagary, ocean color, and snow cover will come from the ABI instrument - I know that for a fact. I suspect most of the others will too. The only one I dont think ABI can do is cloud base height but the current GOES cant do that you would need ABS for that.
@UTubekookdetector Point 2: The satellite design life is 7 years, I said nothing about the sensors (they were built by somebody else). Most space missions end when the satellite goes caput not the sensors. While I worked for an aerospace company we built 141 sensors for NASA (manily), NOAA, and DOD. Only one of our sensors failed before its design life and the average was 4 times the design life. Only two of those died before the satellite did. All of them degraded but only one was unuseable.
DRK: No offense, I don't really care about what you supposedly did. If I believed every leftist Cro-Magnon that told me they did this and that... I don't really care. Do you have an independent source to cite for your observation? I'm going to check it out as well.
@UTubekookdetector Yes, the facts do tend to get in the way of a good old fashioned dogmatic rant, dont they? Check all you like have fun - I'll await your appology with baited breath!
DRK: I just checked NASA"s outlays on OMB historicals, their budget in 1962 was (nominal dollars) $1.257 bln, in 2000 it was 13.428 bln and in 2009 it was 19.168 bln. I've heard your "they were muzzled" line before and included it in another of my vids. James Hansen was not muzzled. watch?v=Rq5L6fn5Q8U
Back to the NAS, it seems you're not disputing the fact that bad data was coming in, just that it was because of non-existent budget cuts.
@UTubekookdetector I note that you took the year (1962) before NASA had become fully funded to do the manned program if you take the next year in constant $ terms (2007) NASA budget was $24B. During the Bush years the NASA budget was constant in real $ terms but there was a massive shift from science to the Moondoggle program. The Earth Science budget was slashed form $2.4B to $1.1B & 4 climate missions cancelled under Bush.In 2010 it is $17.1B which is near to its historic average
@UTubekookdetector The planned life for these satellites is 7 years (how do I know? the company I retired from recently built them). You act that we dont know that sensors degrade & that there is no way of compensating for it. Both are incorrect
The NAS report is why they recommended the building of an Earth science calibration mission (CLARREO). I participated in the workshop that defined the flowdown observational requirements for CLARREO held at the University of Maryland about 5 years ago
@UTubekookdetector The NAS report warns of degradation of the US satellite capability to monitor climate because of BUDGET CUTS imposed by the Bush administration (revenge for scientists not towing the party line on GW). Not the degradation of the existing sensors but the degradation in the number and quality of future sensors. Google: "Earth Science & Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade & Beyond (2007)" & read the bloody thing before you quote it next time.
Global Warming is bullshit. Just another money maker. Another scare tactic. The only man made bullshit we are doing is pollution. We have had cold and hot spells for many many many moons.
Ron and Fred are correct. You've been had buddy.
imrnlil 9 months ago
You can like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich and T-Paw.
Paul and Gingrich both know what they're talking about from years of experience. Very knowledgeable people.
You wanna rip into Sarah Palin for the ball-busting terminology, bailouts, and r-word stuff?
MyTotalRemedy 10 months ago
Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty are not envirokooks. Their critics are.
A concern for the environment and a socialist mandate aren't always the same thing.
MyTotalRemedy 10 months ago
MYT: Both of those men are indeed on the AGW bandwagon. Newt debated John Kerry, not on AGW itself, but how we can combat it. Pawlenty wrote a few editorials for the GOP Gov. Assoc. trying to push the GOP to embrace this issue and out-Democrat the Democrats. It will all lead to things like cap-and-trade and/or an EPA regulatory nightmare. Newt was on-board with revisions to the Endangered Species Act which are violating private property rights.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
What's the Newtster's official position on if we're causing global warming or not?
MyTotalRemedy 10 months ago
MYT: Newt Gingrich is a global warming envirokook, right in line with Pawlenty, Huckabee & Romney. He debated John Kerry some time ago (I think I mentioned this in the vid) over HOW we can deal with anthropogenic global warming, not whether it's a reality or not.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyTotalRemedy -- Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote. You'll see the candidates in an entirely new light and you'll be able to cast a vote to save America as we know it. Most Democrats and some Republicans have bought into the idea of one world government and global redistribution of wealth. Learn how to recognize them!
vechorik 3 months ago
Good vid. I love how the left claims that Republicans deny Global warming when some actually do. lmao.
jeremyoyer2 1 year ago
Pawlenty dyed his hair. He's going to run.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
Its interesting that half the leading republican candidates voted that GW is real and caused by humans. Even George Bush admitted it when he was coming to the end of his 2nd term. I imagine most democrats are in that same camp. Many of the original climate deniers have retreated to "yes it is real and likely being caused by humans but it wont be a disaster" (e.g., Roy Spenser and John Christy). Yet a few neanderthauls still cling to the old theories mainly for political dogma reasons.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: When and where did Dr. Spencer repudiate his disbelief in AGW? Patrick Michaels has always been of the opinion that man's contribution to GW is extremely limited and will not cause the catastrophic events the Goracle and other snake-oil sellers like James Hansen say. Of course, we can look back in time and see disasters of quite a large magnitude, long before the automobile.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I believe it was at an AMS meeting I heard him discussing his views. Of course, what he says in private to his fellow climate experts may be different from what he says in public.
Yes, I had forgotten about Pat Michaels or I would have included him on the list too.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Funny that you should mention John Christy, he was just instrumental in getting the NOAA-16 pulled from service (it's not limited to that satellite though). due to "sensor degredation." The U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were "degraded" and unreliable for assessing climate change. Christy made light of this years ago apparently.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Odd, NOAA 16 is still operational and gathering data according to NOAA (I just checked with them), some systems are degraded but you would expect that in such an old system. Now you do realize that the problem Christy found several years ago was in his own work. He goofed when analyzing satellite data and jumped to all sorts of incorrect conclusions based on that faulty analysis (like GW was not happening). He has acknowledge his mistake.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRL: It's an old system? Huh? It's not even 10 years old. You seem to be a bit misinformed. The gov't has already admitted global warming satellite sensors “degraded” temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in are under scrutiny. I believe NOAA-16 is offline. The NAS, in a 2007 455-page report concluded that because of degradation in the U.S. satellite network, the country's ability to monitor the climate and severe weather was at great risk.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
NOAA-16 was taken offline on 8/10, if it's operational now, I have no idea why. Susan Bohan also pointed out a myriad of problems with Landsat 7.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I just checked the NOAA data archives and NOAA-16 data is there from yesterday (16th). So it seems that it is that you are misinformed and my colleague at NOAA was correct. Look for yourself at the NCDC or NGDC - few clicks and you can confirm for yourself.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was put back online after being taken offline on 8/10. My point stands. If these satellites are good for only 7 years (I'll take your fish story about building this and that with a grain of salt), then why is it still online? If they know they're susceptible to bad data after 7 years then why continue gather data with it? You just undercut your own argument. Amazing.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I pointed out that you can test a sensor that is degrading and correct the signal - all that does is increase the uncertainty of the answer. By how much and how significantly if at all depends on the sensor and the calibration method. These senosrs are calibrated agianst standard stars and the Moon from time to time. You also have several of them so you can compare ovelapping observations to see how much degradation if any has occured so your arguement is flawed (again).
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Yes, that;'s why NOAA-16 was offline on 8/10 as I said (you never commented on that, only that it's operational now) and the automatic readings of the satellite been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees F. What's your source for the cut-and-paste you put up pertaining to specific elements of NASA's budget? It still begs the question: You're not denying the errant readings, just that it was budget cuts.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I commented that NOAA said it was still on line and it was. There is no gap in its data coverage including 8/10. As I said you only have to check the data itself. Christy would have had nothing to do with whether it was on line. That would be NOAA satellite operaterations
The NASA budget - I have access to NASA internal net & the figures were there. I did find some similar numbers on the web by googling the NASA budget with some minor differences (inflation assumptions?).
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I need to make this point again. You agree with the NAS assessment that our satellite system is in disarray, but you blame it on "budget cuts." If so, why continue gathering data? Consider NOAA-16, it recorded a reading of 604F at Egg Harbor, WI. On 7/4 it recorded a temp of over 400 degrees (actually several times well over 100) at Lake Michigan. NOAA's Pistis at first denied this, then acknowledged that the readings took place, later trying to blame it on "cloud cover."
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector No I do not agree that the NAS said that the satellite system is in disarray. They said (and for goodness sake read the report!) that measurements will be less accurate and there will be less coverage with less capable instruments unless the satellite fleet is maintained in the future. They were talking about planned systems liek NPOESS and GOES-R, neither launches <2015. The Obama administration is moving now to plug those gaps. NAS said nothing about current measurements.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK : Roy Spencer also said that "whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR
(or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16
AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for
climate monitoring." It doesn't sound like it's just a "bit less accurate."
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector What happened was that some of its images were removed from the data base because of anomalous pixels - ever hear of space weather? This sort of thing happens allthe time. The Sun becomes a little more active and floods geospace with particles and they mess up soem of the pixels inthe focal plane. Remidy - you dump those images.
If you check the GOES Solar X-ray Data you will see there was a large (M) flare on 7/8 Aug - travel time for the particles to Earth 1-3 days. QED.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: That sounds good, except it doesn't explain Pistis' mea culpa. He changed his story after the fact.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector All sensors degrade - I believe I already said this - we all know that, everybody knows that (except you it seems), and the analyisis takes into account such degradation. Sometimes it gets so bad that the sensor cant be used anymore. We seem to be dealing with here are a few solar energetic particles from a flare messing up the focal plane for a while and them failing to remove the images from the database. I am not taking denier blogs seriously - too many false alarms already
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I know they all degrade eventually and yes, you did say that before. I wondered how long you would be able to suppress your kook opinions and mention Fox. I knew you were a nut, I just didn't expect so many fish stories about insider info. At first you said there were only 5 sensors and that 14 # can't be true. Now it seems you're backtracking and just saying O'Connor isn't being specific, which is it?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I have not back tracked on anything - thones I mentioned as being on the original plan for GOES are still there and none of them have been cancelled.
You, I note, keep trying to divert away from listing the 14 sensors that have been removed. I called you on it and you still cant list them (because they were never there to be cancelled). You were duped.
Time after time what you have said has been false yet you stick to your dogma that says who is the nut right there.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: And ass I told you before, I don't accept your hearsay arguments about building this and that for NASA. Sorry. Funny you should mention false claims, there were plenty of those in y our 2007 IPCC report. They got info from defunct websites and the WWF. Complaining about "denier blogs" sounds like a person who throws stones and lives in a glass house.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector You mean the ones that were not in the science section. There are 3 reports WG1 (Science), WG2 (Impacts), & WG3 (Mitigation). All the material you mention (which was inconsequential anyway) was in the WG2/3 reports written by engineers and politicians. WG1 was given a high rating even by the bias "citizen reviewers" and that was where the science was which is what we are discussing.
Again diversion and distortion. Shame on you for believing it and propagating it.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: You might want to tell EPA Admin. Jackson and Sen. Boxer then, they were running away from the 2007 IPCC report, which in fact did misstate how much of the Netherlands was below sea level, Himalayan glacier melt, African crop yields, etc. I'm glad that we don't have to worry about the Apocalypse now. The wg1 that you refer to had a plethora of scientists on it if I remember correctly and each had their own little section, that wouldn't mean they endorsed the entire report. con't...
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Not the Dutch sealevel myth again - how many time must I dispell this one? The report talks about the area of Holland that WOULD be (note the tense) below sea level if sea level were to rise by a given amount. The deniers use the figure of how much of holland is currently below sea level & then clamor that "oh look they got it wrong". It is another distortion which demonstrates that they have no real arguments to use so they have to fall back on tricks like this.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: The IPCC did predict massive sea level rises, however A paper published yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans) confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC. The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal."
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector No the IPCC did not predict "massive sea level rise. Please quote the place in the report (section chapter page number) where it did so. It has been critisized for being too conservative on this point as they have not taken glaier melting into account
I have worked with Judith lean. She works just down the road from me at NRL. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple of real solar scientists who would disagree with her conclusions. Name them if you can
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Did you know about this? Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the IPCC. It seems even some "big-hitters" in the arena of climate change were duped by the IPCC.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I get Nature and did not notice that article - reference please.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: It was Nature Geosciences. nature(dot)com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587(dot)html and confirmed the conclusions of the following 2007 IPCC report. Mark Siddall issued the retraction.
ipcc(dot)ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents(dot)html I eagerly await your spin-cycle.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
DRK: Back in Dec 08, Sen. Inhofe compiled and published a list of over 600 scientists who don't buy the AGW propaganda. Some of them were former IPCC scienfists and considering there were only 52 scientists involved in the 2007 IPCC report, I would hardly call that anything substantial. The link is rather long, if you went to epw(dot)senate and searched for "U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" you'll find it
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I have seen the report and did a study checking the names of the scientists - most of them were not scientists at all and most of the few that were not climate scientists (over half of those had retired years ago and a couple were dead).
PS There were over 400 scientists involved in writing the WG1 (science) IPCC report (see the Authors appendix) & about 600 who reviewed it. The ones listed in InHoffe's list are people who sent in comments (as you or I could have done).
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I'd say if someone was sending in comments claiming to be a climate scientist or any other sort of scientist and that wasn't the person's position, they would get in a heap of trouble (Inhofe's list), so I don't accept your generalized rebuttal on that issue, a few scientists on the list being dead doesn't negate the fact that there are climate scientists who don't buy AGW. Your reply concerning Lean (I don't care about allegedly working with her) begs the question: Why only ONE source?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Not only one source - Peter Foucault was also on the committee. If you check what they actually said in that section and the references they used you would see that they used the results from papers from many different authors to come to their conclusions.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I do need 2 other things from you. 1) For the record, state again that the IPCC conclusions about Himalayan glaciers, Amazon deforestation, African crop yields, sea level rise were politicized BS. Did you see Siddall's retraction? 2) Give me the names of the scientists on Inhofe's petition that are dead. I'll cross check it. Did you see George Taylor was one of 8 scientists that backed up Senate candidate Ron Johnson's belief that AGW is basically a crock? Good day!
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector George Taylor, who heads the Oregon Climate Service, had been widely known as the state climatologist since 1991. The position was discontinued along with federal funding in the late 1980s. In February 2007, Gov. Kulongoski asked OSU's president to stop Taylor from calling himself the state climatologist.
Taylor: A political appointee who overstates his qualifications: in other words a charlaton. That's your best example?
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Taylor is certainly a credentialed voice in the climate change debate, now you're bringing up (again--as you did when you mentioned Fox News, seems like a trend I'll watch for) something I never mentioned. Soon also signed that petition supporting Sen. candidate Johnson. I need to mention again, it's obvious you didn't read those GAO reports.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector His credentials are false - there has not been an Oregon state climatologist for over 20 years yet he still claims to be it. Again if that is your best shot then you need to keep your powder drier!
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: You're an idiot, I never brought up the state climatologist bit, you're googling. Taylor got a degree in meteorology from UT Univ. back in the 70's. You're beating up straw men. As for your bit about Ball and the fossil fuels industry, this is called "argument by outrage" and doesn't address the issue at hand. Another user tried this one me with Spencer & Singer. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector You brought up Taylor not me and then claimed he was "credentialed" I merely pointed out that his claimed credentials were BS. for every BSc meteorologist that are deniers I can see you and raise you 30 PhD climatologists who vouch for AGW.
But is not about who said what or who has the most votes it is about the science. Unfortunately for you the physcis is unyieldingly on the AGW side.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Yes, Taylor is credentialed, I said nothing about whether he was OR"s climatologist or not. Look at the degree he received from the Univ. of UT. You say, " is not about who said what or who has the most votes." Good to know, you just undercut most of your arguments against Inhofe's petition. Still waiting for those "names" you put up. I couldn't find them on the petition. The science says, we've had massive climatological changes with lower CO2 levels and higher CO2 levels before the auto.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Try
Dr Charles Spangler Quisenberry (died 1978)
Dr James Roger Quinan (died 2002)
And that is just a few of the Q's
Dr Fred Seitz (died 2008) - the originator of the petition.
Also includes
Dr Frank Burns (who died in a plane crash during the Korean war - on MASH) Honeycut and Pierce were there too!
Michael J Fox and Geri Halliwell signed too apparently both well known climatologists! Not!
I did a random check of 50 of those with Phds - no cliamtologists.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: The only "FOX" I found was Dr. Michael R. Fox, who holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry. You must've missed Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology when you were getting talking points off the web. What about Peter Link or Diane Douglas? I didn't find "Charles Spangler Quisenberry " on the Inhofe petition. I didn't find "quinan" or "Geri Halliwell" either.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector No tthe Inhoffe petition the Oregon petition - the Inhoffe petition is a different kind of fraud. Balling for example had to admit that he took $408,000 from the fossil fuel industry after trying to sue a newspaper for saying he had. He has also accepted grants from the coal industry. 3 out of 800 not bad.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I just checked the Inhofe petition, I have it bookmarked (last update was some time ago), the names you mentioned ARE NOT on there. Perhaps you need to get those bifocals cleaned, as I said, NONE of those false names you mentioned are on there. No Michael J. Fox, there is a Michael R. Fox. As for your comments on NOAA16, the Dept. of Agri. noted that NOAA16 started malfunctioning in 04, when a scan motor problem caused a barcode appearance. Images from the NOAA17 satellite replaced NOAA-16
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
DRK: I also need to ask you again (because you didn't reply), tell us all for the record that the IPCC conclusions about sea level rise, Himalayan glacier melt, African crop yields et al. were politicized and need not be taken seriously. I'd also like to ask you, has NOAA-16 had any malfunctions in say, the last 6 years or has it been running like a well-oiled machine? Just curious.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The IPCC conclusions on sea level rise were based on published papers prior to 2005 (thems the rules) and they wer ein error - yes they were understated by quite a large margin because they were not allowed to include glacier melt or ice cap melt in the report as they were not yet confirmed and thus could not be modeled - they have been now. I predict that th enext report will have a much arger number for sea level rise.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Pertaining to your comments about sea level rise, I'm sure you're familiar with Richard Alley, who recently poo-pooed the climate models the IPCC was using to predict sea level rises, saying, "We don't really have an ice-sheet model that we trust." In addition, they make assumptions about the viscosity of the mantle and its response to loading and unloading of ice sheets.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I think that was what I said - the models are not reliable so the IPCC could not include them.
Alley testified under oath the following just last week:
"Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive.....A rise in the range of 2C to 7C would mean the obliteration of Greenland's ice sheet. What is going on in the Arctic now is the biggest and fastest thing that nature has ever done,"
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Was this before or after he bashed those ice sheet models? According to a 2005 article in Science, we're losing about .04% of Greenland's ice sheet per century. watch?v=1BRPj4EXtUo So pardon moi if I don't buy the Gorewellian "tipping point" bilge.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Michael Hanlon used to be an AGW sceptic, here is what he said:
"Sceptics will argue that Greenland has always had moulins and meltwater rivers; this is true. But what is new is these used to be confined to the very edge of the icesheet, marginal, ephemeral features that lasted just a few weeks in the height of the summer melting season. Now there are lakes and moulins right on the centre of the cap, and persisting well into August."
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Were you also aware of the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research (agu (dot) org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630 (dot) shtml authors Wenzel, Schroter) that concluded sea levels have been rising naturally since the peak of the last major ice age 20,000 yrs. ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 yrs. ago. It also contradicted the IPCC "predictions" concerning sea level rises and that sea levels are not significantly rising currently.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I was not aware of that paper but did check it out. They are only using a limited number of tidal gauges over a linited period (mostly in the Early 20th centruy. Other papers using larger data sets contradict them and especially those using satellite data.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: That sounds like a well-rehearsed BS answer. You could also check out Simon Holgate, who affirms that the sea level rise slowed down in the last half of the 20th century, despite all this evil CO2. In addition, an examination of Roman fish tanks has affirmed that sea level rises slowed down in the past 2,000 years, despite all this CO2. I would also say, satellite monitoring of sea level is an awful small sample on an earth that is how old according to you?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Did sea level go up or did the fish tanks go down?
You dont need 4B years of data to find a 10-year trend. Besides we have sea level estimates going back into the last ice age.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: That's not news to me, but the trend indicates that over the last 6,000 years, sea levels have been rising much slower, undercutting your CO2 argument. There's a lot more to it than Roman fish tanks.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Of course sea levels rise after the end of an ice age. Initially they rise quickly and slow up as we reach the peak temperature. The point is that they are starting to rise faster again.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Still haven't seen you give me a pg # on those names from Inhofe's petition. According to Andrey Proshutinsky, sea level in the Arctic fell slightly from 95-03 and he attributes it mostly to decadal variability. Sea level was higher in the Maldives ca. 1150. I could also point out that Mexico saw a 6.5-10 ft. rise n sea level ca. 141K years ago. Again, pardon moi if I fail to lose sleep over "climate change."
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector On the names - please read my previous posts - I have answered that at least twice. THE OREGON PETITION!
The problem with single site analysis form tide gauges or proxies is that you have also to know whether the land is going up or down (and you dont)
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: We must be looking at diff. petitions then, the one that Morano has compiled (I also have it bookmarked) and has displayed on his site does not have those names you mentioned. No need to thank me now. Your latter point was already addressed I believe in reference to these ice sheet models that aren't adequate.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
I also wanted to tell everyone, the article I was referring to that said "The NOAA-16 satellite collected images from the 2001 through 2003 seasons. NOAA-16 started malfunctioning in early 2004, when a scan motor problem caused a 'barcode' appearance. Images from the NOAA-17 satellite replaced NOAA-16 starting in 2004" can be found at nass . usda.gov/research/avhrr/avhrrmnu . htm
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
DRK: In your next message, you need to affirm or deny those phoney names you brought up from Inhofe's petition. I checked the petition, searched for all those names you gave me, I could not find them. Give me a page # if they are on there, in your next post. Thanks!
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The himalayan glacier thing was in the WG2 report, not the WG1, and thus had no effect on the scientific conclusions. The corp yields - I have seen no published paper that contract dicts the original paers cited but again that would be in the WG2 report so is irrelevant to the scientific case.
On NOAA 16, as far as I know every satillite has had many malfunctions eevry year. Certainly every one I have ever worked on has. So it is a silly question.
drkstrong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drkstrong -- Ron Paul says end the EPA -- and pollution laws should be TOUGHER!
/watch?v=XsZ6-2BdpIQ
Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 for the true agenda behind the carbon tax -- global government.
vechorik 3 months ago
DRK: Lastly, I think the 14 sensors that were cancelled were part of the GOES-R launch that has been delayed and subject to cost overruns, which is pretty typical of virtually any gov't endeavor. If I find out anything else, I'll let you know and you can go off on Fox Noise if it doesn't fit your template.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Here are 2 GAO reports which clear the air on much of this SatelliteGate stuff. The reports consistently cite cost overruns (which is typical of nearly any government venture. Costs have exceeded the rate of inflation, one more than doubled. Ineffective interagency management was also cited. Several satellites have been subjected to numerous technical problems.
gao(dot)gov/new(dot)items/d10456(dot)pdf gao(dot)gov/new(dot)items/d10558(dot)pdf
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector neither of your links work
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: "no sensors have been lost on GOES-R." Swing and a miss. Apparently one of the writers put "14 sensors" when they should've put "14 products will not be provided. These include cloud base height, ozone layers, ocean color, turbidity, and cloud imagery." That's pertaining to GOES-R’s Hyperspectral Environmental Suite. It was cancelled, this is referenced in the GAO report and I verified it with Steve Goodman. Again, reading the GAO reports undercuts your blame Bush canard. Good try though.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector So I was right - these were not sensoors. Did your little friend mention when HES was cancelled? The answer is 2006. So who cancelled it - Bush
2006 was BEFORE the competition for the spacecraft (thus before the specs for the mission were written) was done so HES was not ever part of the baseline design. Nor could there have been any cost overruns because the program had not been started as of that time
So not 14 sensors, 1 sensor cancelled by Bush.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK says, "Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R... 1 sensor cancelled by Bush." Nice mea culpa, don't thank me now. There are cost overruns for those programs, most any gov't program has them. Let me give you an example I think even you can understand. Let's say Bush pulled the plug on the Capitol Hill Visitors Ctr. in 2003 after years of delays & the cost more than doubling. The "blame Bush" crowd would begin whining, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know Edwards' budget law.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
DRK: For some reason, the link when I copied it onto my browser didn't work either. Go to gao dot gov and search for a May 2010 report titled "POLAR-ORBITING ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES. Agencies Must Act Quickly to Address Risks That Jeopardize the Continuity of Weather and Climate Data" The other is an Apr. 2010 report titled "ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES. Strategy Needed to Sustain Critical Climate and Space Weather Measurements." Both go over the cost overruns and the lack of a plan from Obama.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The polar orbiting satellites are NOT GOES-R. GOES-R is a geosynchronous satellite (thats what the G stands for). There cannot be cost overruns in a program that had not been funded yet. NPOESS was suffering cost overruns (caused by the contractor Northrop) but that had nothing to do with GOES HES cancellation. I led one of the teams that was going to propose for HES. We had a solution that would hav cost 1/3 of the normal cost of such an instrument. Even so they cancelled it
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: For the last time, no more hearsay stories, unless you're going to reveal your name for everyone, which I would not expect you to do. So, last time I'm going to tell you, no more hearsay stories. Got it? The information from the GAO reports that you didn't read contradict your story. There are cost overruns with almost all of these programs and interagency haggling over who gets what. Steve Goodman (that's not hearsay) contradicts your postion anyway. Don't thank me now.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector "...unless you're going to reveal your name for everyone, which I would not expect you to do..." How unobservant can you be? My name is right there on my posts - if you doubt my credentials go to amazon and look fro a book entitled "The Many Faces of the Sun" I am the lead author on it. It is a bit dated but a good read if you like solar physics.
As HES was cancelled BEFORE the program was funded it was not cancelled because of cost overruns - there were no costs to overrun
drkstrong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Busy tonight but so far you are batting zero. The delay in the GOES-R program was caused by a year long protest by the Boeing Company who lost the competition to supply the space segment. Tyey were hoping to force the winners to share the contract with them or have it awarded to them outright. It failed but prevented a start of the program. In doing so they hoped to force NOAA to restart Boeing's GOES-Q that had been cancelled. Again no sensors have been lost on GOES-R
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Sorry about that but I kept on getting an error message but it posted the reply anyway. Dont know why!
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Lastly, Spencer writes this on his website (it's been up for years): "research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution." That doesn't sound much like a move to the left, he's totally on the other end of ideological spectrum when compared to say, James Hansen.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I love his introdcutory remarks to his blog where he says that the person to listen to on global warming is your local TV meteorologist (note not climatologists which is supposedly one of). Most TV meteorologists are out of work actors or tv jounalists who paid the AMS $500 to attend a 1-day course on meteorology so they know the difference between a high & low pressure system, a hurricane & a tornado, or summer & winter. If they work for FOX they are required to be a denier.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The NAS report was quite specific. It was lamenting the cuts in future programs at NOAA (NPOESS & GOES) & the NASA research program endangering FUTURE measurements because of fewer satellite missions and fewer less capable instruments in their long term plans. It said nothing about current measurements just that the quality of climate monitoring would (Note the future tense) degrade if the current aging spacecarft were not replaced by as many similarly capable climate missions
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I will certainly look up NASA's budget #'s, but I won't google, I'll find some specifics somewhere in gov't outlays. Obama signed the budget extension in March 09 and early this year signed the $1.1 trillion "minibus." One would think the problems would be fixed. GOES-R has had 14 sensors cancelled, don't keep gathering bad data, that's my point. If the satellite program is underfunded, don't keep belching out bad data until it's up to snuff.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Please tell me which 14 sensors that is on GOES R. GOES-R has only 5 sensors - ABI, GLM, SUVI, SEISS, & the magnetometer. So it is rather hard to cancel 14 of 5 instruments. The only instrument removed from the baseline conscept was the IR sounder and that was because of budget cuts. I was part of the proposal team that won the spacecraft contract and two of the instruments (SUVI and GLM).
drkstrong 1 year ago
DKR: According to John O; Sullivan, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively neutered. I'm still not buying your "inside information" clap-trap. Unless you give me some gov't website showing specific outlays within NASA, your evidence will not be considered credible. I'd say the crazy temp readings are proof enough.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I named the 4 sensors on GOES R - please name the ones that have been removed. About 5 years ago they excluded the ABS (the 5th sensor Advanced Baseline Sounder) but that was to save $s & ABI (Advanced baseline Imager) could duplicate the measurements with a relatively cheap upgrade.
He may be confusing GOES-R with NPOESS - it has been all but cancelled because of massive cost overruns. NPOESS was a dumb idea (Bush) & is restructured with most of the instruments in place
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: Imagine that, a gov't program with cost overruns. O' Connor was specific, there have been 14 sensors cancelled on that series.
climaterealists(dot)com/attachments/ftp/TopClimateScientistsSpeakout(dot)pdf
The NPOESS will not have any sensors that measure the sun’s energy output on the 2nd and 4th satellites.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector O'Conner was not specific he just claimed that 14 sensors were cancelled - he never said which ones. I've named the ones there - name the ones that were canclled.
As for the measurements of cloud imagary, ocean color, and snow cover will come from the ABI instrument - I know that for a fact. I suspect most of the others will too. The only one I dont think ABI can do is cloud base height but the current GOES cant do that you would need ABS for that.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Point 2: The satellite design life is 7 years, I said nothing about the sensors (they were built by somebody else). Most space missions end when the satellite goes caput not the sensors. While I worked for an aerospace company we built 141 sensors for NASA (manily), NOAA, and DOD. Only one of our sensors failed before its design life and the average was 4 times the design life. Only two of those died before the satellite did. All of them degraded but only one was unuseable.
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: No offense, I don't really care about what you supposedly did. If I believed every leftist Cro-Magnon that told me they did this and that... I don't really care. Do you have an independent source to cite for your observation? I'm going to check it out as well.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Yes, the facts do tend to get in the way of a good old fashioned dogmatic rant, dont they? Check all you like have fun - I'll await your appology with baited breath!
drkstrong 1 year ago
DRK: I just checked NASA"s outlays on OMB historicals, their budget in 1962 was (nominal dollars) $1.257 bln, in 2000 it was 13.428 bln and in 2009 it was 19.168 bln. I've heard your "they were muzzled" line before and included it in another of my vids. James Hansen was not muzzled. watch?v=Rq5L6fn5Q8U
Back to the NAS, it seems you're not disputing the fact that bad data was coming in, just that it was because of non-existent budget cuts.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I note that you took the year (1962) before NASA had become fully funded to do the manned program if you take the next year in constant $ terms (2007) NASA budget was $24B. During the Bush years the NASA budget was constant in real $ terms but there was a massive shift from science to the Moondoggle program. The Earth Science budget was slashed form $2.4B to $1.1B & 4 climate missions cancelled under Bush.In 2010 it is $17.1B which is near to its historic average
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The planned life for these satellites is 7 years (how do I know? the company I retired from recently built them). You act that we dont know that sensors degrade & that there is no way of compensating for it. Both are incorrect
The NAS report is why they recommended the building of an Earth science calibration mission (CLARREO). I participated in the workshop that defined the flowdown observational requirements for CLARREO held at the University of Maryland about 5 years ago
drkstrong 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector The NAS report warns of degradation of the US satellite capability to monitor climate because of BUDGET CUTS imposed by the Bush administration (revenge for scientists not towing the party line on GW). Not the degradation of the existing sensors but the degradation in the number and quality of future sensors. Google: "Earth Science & Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade & Beyond (2007)" & read the bloody thing before you quote it next time.
drkstrong 1 year ago
Global Warming is bullshit. Just another money maker. Another scare tactic. The only man made bullshit we are doing is pollution. We have had cold and hot spells for many many many moons.
3slimdog 1 year ago