I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: I am not trying to get another of those... (Not Chess Related)

...

However, what we are trying to grapple with are the climate change effects of human activity.:D

This is what we do. And when we try to grapple the climate change effects of human, people make videos saying the sun has no effect at all (see the video number 2). Then Cindy satellite shows that it has an effect. By the time the sun goes back to a peak high (if it does! could last for 20 years also!) maybe the ice level and the average temperature will be back to 1979 level all around the world (if 1979 is a real target)!

Hundreds of years ago people were sacrifiying human beings on hotels to convince the Gods (including the sun itselt) to correct the anomality of the wheather. In 2009 you say that when the sun get back to "normal" we will know what is the impact of human on climate? Do we really know what the sun has in mind for the next 20 years?

Since the ice in arctic recovered to the 1979 level in only 4 months in 2008, this give us an indication that there are forces so strong in the nature that only a few months of cold or a few years of strong black holes on the sun could have more impact than 50 years of global warming.

Yes we can sacrifice productivity, development, industrialization, capitalism and many things to satisfy the gods of the eco-extremists but we must have the right informations to take our decisions.

It is possible that we will not have to sacrify all this. Maybe we will have the time to create democracy everywhere, productivity in every country, develop new technologies, new recycling methods and new energy sources before we have an important impact on nature.

Some good data coming out since march 2008 have for sure created new reports of positivism in newspapers. Good news should make us happy. Only extremists take if for bad news.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Because that would be easy

The documentary presents an history of the climate change debate, first in the scientific litterature, then in the popular one. Being itself a series of ten minutes presentation, it has no time nor the competence to enter into every detail, of course, but it has the obligation to follow some historical developments, hence the old dates like 2002. But quite amazingly, it explains why what you're saying right now does not make sense at all.

The second part tries to show that scientists are used to discuss different hypothesis. The main one, presently, links climate change to human activity. But there are others, for instance cosmic rays. If the Sun sends the Earth more rays, there are fair chances that this would be the main cause of the augmentation of temperature on Earth. Proposing, debating and rejecting multiple hypothesis is essential to the science as we know it.

But now, if we are to believe the data like the one you mention, saying cosmic rays cause the raising of temperature is tough to maintain. In fact, it would be contradictory. In reality, this data refutes that hypothesis. So if we don't want to maintain that human activity creates climate change, we would have another type of hypothesis than ones relying on cosmic rays, as we now know that would not fit our observations.

But in general, according to the law of entropy: the universe is getting cooler and cooler. It just is not happening on the surface of the Earth yet. Well, I'm sure you can find a place on Earth (like in Utah or Monaco) that is way cooler than before, to confirm what you already think you know.

Here is another observation we can make from time to time, here and there: as soon as an author relies on caps lock to win an argument, he's more editorializing and using science to his own noble ends than trying to discuss things rationally.

The Cindy Satellite is about the Sun and not about other cosmic rays coming from other stars. I hope you were joking!

The heat you get from the atmosphere come directly from the sun if I remember what I have learned from my primary grade 1. The report says that the increase in black spots on the sun since 2005 reduce the temperature on our atmosphere. This explain the low temperatures we have and we feel and helped the recovery of ice in arctic in just one year!

The two best sources of temperature mesure systems that human have created are the RSS and the UAH satellite since they take the temperature all around the world year after years always in the same way. (This is much better than the NASA systems which have been proved wrong by a canadian scientist and Nasa reconized it. They will have to increase past temperatures and lower recent temperatures on their charts which were managed by Dr. James Hansen the Al Gore science advisor.)

Here are the results:


UAH


RSS (Remote Sensing Systems)

Both display decreasing temperatures for the last decade, with today temperatures with an anomaly barely over the 30 year average. And both show the same results.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Do You Read?

The Cindy Satellite is about the Sun and not about other cosmic rays coming from other stars. I hope you were joking!

The heat you get from the atmosphere come directly from the sun if I remember what I have learned from my primary grade 1.

The Sun is in the cosmos; it emanates rays. So it is the main source of cosmic rays on earth. Some of the scientific articles you made us believe to have overchecked have the term "cosmic rays" in their title. In grade 1, you learn to read. Maybe you need to refresh your grade 1 skills. In the meantime, you should at least pay attention to the video you are commenting right now, or at least take another look at it. You did watch it, did you?

Yet again, you provide us with a graphic without any scientific source, any legend, nothing: pure hand-waving. Here is what I could find in a ten seconds search on the new terms you are providing to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

There is a graph at the right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...mperatures.png

Here is a nice-looking, complete graph. We know where it's from and what is tries to show. Here is the other one, just below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:At..._1979-2005.jpg

I don't know exactly what is the difference between the higher troposphere and the lower one data. I hope Paul Beckwith can enlighten us. Or maybe can you?

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Do You Read?

The Sun is in the cosmos; it emanates rays. So it is the main source of cosmic rays on earth. Some of the scientific articles you made us believe to have overchecked have the term "cosmic rays" in their title. In grade 1, you learn to read. Maybe you need to refresh your grade 1 skills. In the meantime, you should at least pay attention to the video you are commenting right now, or at least take another look at it. You did look at it, did you?

Yet again, you provide us with a graphic without any scientific source, any legend, nothing: pure hand waving only. Here is what I could find in ten seconds search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

There is a nice graph at the right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...mperatures.png

Here is a nice-looking graph. We know where it's from and what is tries to show. Here is the other one, just below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:At..._1979-2005.jpg

I don't know exactly what is the difference between the higher troposphere and the lower one data: I hope Paul Beckwith can enlighten us. Or maybe can you?

The Cindy satellite is about the Sun only and you are the one that tried to refer to the cosmos.

What do we need to explain about the two charts I have shown? It is clear, read it. I feel you are not serious and only want to create confusion.

Goodbye.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Land of Confusion

The Cindy satellite is about the Sun only and you are the one that tried to refer to the cosmos. What do we need to explain about the two charts I have shown? It is clear, read it. I feel you are not serious and only want to create confusion.

I am only using the term some scientists are using. Here is for instance one title cited in the documentary you still don't seem to have watched while still being urged to comment:

The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming

Here is one of the possible link to find its abstract :

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00016

Here is another title of a scientific article with the term, this time by someone who formulated what is being called the Iris hypothesis, which of course you would discover by watching the documentary you are now commenting:

Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate

Here is again a link for its abstract:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

Now, we don't want to create any confusion : I surely don't and why would you? To be able to interpret the chart you are hand-waving us, I would need to know more about its origin: where it is taken from, what it represents and what the scientists are concluding from it. Using an anonymous graph taken for an anonymous web image storage is uncommon for scientists, but quite common for editorialists.

[Bob Gillanders]

The American Denial of Global Warming

Carl,

I have found an excellent video dealing with both the science and politics of global warming from an historical perspective. The video is nearly an hour long, so grab a coffee first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

The speaker is Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D, Professor of History at the University of California. She first deals with the science going back over 50 years. But then the most fascinating stuff comes when she deals with the politics. She attributes much of the propaganda on the denial side to the George C. Marshall Institute. The Institute was originally founded to support Reagan’s SDI program (“Star Wars”), but turned its attention to global warming in 1989 with the end of the Cold War. Key individuals at the Marshall Institute include Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer. Frederick Seitz’s previous job was with RJ Reynolds to defend the tobacco industry against charges that smoking was linked to cancer. While S. Fred Singer was busy denying acid rain, ozone depletion, and the dangers of second hand smoke.

Why would they do it? Naomi explains that near the end. But for anyone interested in the politics and/or are still sitting on the fence, I strongly recommend you watch the whole video. Very interesting!

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: The American Denial of Global Warming

Carl,

I have found an excellent video dealing with both the science and politics of global warming from an historical perspective. The video is nearly an hour long, so grab a coffee first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

The speaker is Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D, Professor of History at the University of California. She first deals with the science going back over 50 years. But then the most fascinating stuff comes when she deals with the politics. She attributes much of the propaganda on the denial side to the George C. Marshall Institute. The Institute was originally founded to support Reagan’s SDI program (“Star Wars”), but turned its attention to global warming in 1989 with the end of the Cold War. Key individuals at the Marshall Institute include Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer. Frederick Seitz’s previous job was with RJ Reynolds to defend the tobacco industry against charges that smoking was linked to cancer. While S. Fred Singer was busy denying acid rain, ozone depletion, and the dangers of second hand smoke.

Why would they do it? Naomi explains that near the end. But for anyone interested in the politics and/or are still sitting on the fence, I strongly recommend you watch the whole video. Very interesting!

Ok I watched it. She talks in the name of "scientific community" which is also propaganda in my opinion. Eco-Extremists do a better job anyway than the propaganda she denounce from the denials community since they have movies in our Cinema in on home DVDs with Michael Moore and Al Gore all mostly based on false informations.

We must not listen to denial propaganda nor from eco-extremist propaganda either.

Personnaly I never listen to anything coming from NASA (which is very political) since they lost all credibility with erronous charts and a lot of propaganda eco-extremists. I don't listen to movies or long story done by either sides.

If we take our information not from Nasa but from Universities and new global and stable satellites then we can go beyong propaganda.

This is why the UAH and RSS global wheater satellite systems and the data use by the Illinois satellite information are so important. They cover the whole earth always the same way each year (while NASA use hundread of differents sources that vary in time and that are dramatically changed and recompute every 5 or 10 years). The results from the three good satellite sources (Ice level in Artic in 2008 went back to 1979 level in 4 months, the anomalities of the weather for the last 10 years compare to the last 3 decades is very small) is what spark good news in the last two years BUT then some people feels that any good news has to be associated to propaganda to stop the green movement!!! Come on, these satellites were created to have stable global information to go beyong data interpretation and manipulation. They cover the whole earth except some very small spots in the hemispheres.

This is funny but I am not worry. Lets wait a few more years of data from these global weather satellites + the CINDY sun satellite info about the black spots (to show the presumed huge importance in sun variation) and the sketiscism could go down... if the data continue to show good results.

Carl

[Kerry Liles]

Re: The American Denial of Global Warming

Carl,

I have found an excellent video dealing with both the science and politics of global warming from an historical perspective. The video is nearly an hour long, so grab a coffee first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

The speaker is Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D, Professor of History at the University of California. She first deals with the science going back over 50 years. But then the most fascinating stuff comes when she deals with the politics.

Thanks for the link...

BTW, something that has become my favourite annoying moment is related to Global Warming: on almost every cold day (and they are coming my friend...), someone says to me - "so much for global warming, eh?" Arrrrgggghhhh

[Benoit St-Pierre]

A Skeptic Satellite

If we take our information not from Nasa but from Universities and new global and stable satellites then we can go beyong propaganda.

This is why the UAH and RSS global wheater satellite systems and the data use by the Illinois satellite information are so important.

The principal researcher at UAH is Dr. John Christy. Here is his home page:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

And here is one interview with NPR:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/~christy/20...PR-CHRISTY.wma

UAH cool stuff page is here:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/essc/

From these sources and many others (my list of links presented elsewhere evolved a bit) we should certainly not say that Dr. Christy is neutral: he's more of a true believing skeptic. (Since he's a Christian, I am not sure he would be happy about your remarks concerning religion.) His personal position certainly does not imply that he's tweaking the satellite, but it sure does not satisfy the criteria you're willing to have us believe important.

In any case, saying that the NASA could tweak their data because they are biased is quite dubious. It would be interesting to have that story about the NASA error, so everyone could make his own mind. From what I could see, it's the same tactical trick as the hockey stick, from the same guy, actually. Shall we wait until Mr. MacDonald finds us an op-ed regarding that affair?

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Land of Confusion

....

Here is again a link for its abstract:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

Now, we don't want to create any confusion : I surely don't and why would you? To be able to interpret the chart you are hand-waving us, I would need to know more about its origin: where it is taken from, what it represents and what the scientists are concluding from it. Using an anonymous graph taken for an anonymous web image storage is uncommon for scientists, but quite common for editorialists.

The info you show here is from 1998 results. In 2008 the new Cindy Satellite to study the sun came to different conclusions.

In 1998 up to 2007 studies showed that there was no important sun variation. So it was possible to conclude that cosmic rays could have more effect.

BUT IN 2008 THE NEW CINDY SATELLITE SHOWED THAT VARIATION IN BLACK SPOTS ON THE SUN CREATED AN IMPORTANT VARIATION. SO ANY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 1998 DATA SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. The Cindy satellite data showed for the FIRST TIME that these variations had an impact on our atmosphere.

I use bold since it is the fourth time I explain it to you.

I join the chart of UAH and RSS satellite to show you how to read the chart when we want to compare 1979 to 2009 VARIATION. I have added a little long black bar to help you compare 1979 to 2008 data. Also I have added a little black bar to show the 2008 good result in the lower right corner. The three big long color bars showing an "increase in temperature" are there to create confusion probably by an eco-extremist since they start on a low in 1981 (but the satellites started in 1979!!!) and they stop in a high peak while we see a important decline in 2008-2009 period which is ignored by these strange colors bars. Click on the Thumbnails.

The conclusion from this chart is that there was not a significant increase, probably less than .1 degree in the last 30 years and this is what most scientists says about these data. Other scientists simply say nothing because it could make people less green.

This one of the reasons why you have more and more good news report these days (when the report is done with 2008 data :) ).

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Cindy's Cognitive Powers

The info you show here is from 1998 results. In 2008 the new Cindy Satellite to study the sun came to different conclusions.

This sentence alone shows the level of sophistication of your analysis. The info I was showing there was that there exists at least two papers using the term "cosmic rays". You should admit by now that it's not a term I invented. If you did not know about it, well, maybe it's because your knowledge of climatology are as limited as mine. Splashing graphs here and there without mentioning their sources is not helping your cause either.

This sentence also shows another important thing: you seem to imply that the new Cindy satellite can reach conclusions. I think you're exagerating Cindy's cognitive powers here. It's not the satellite that make us reach conclusion: it's the researchers.

Besides, the researches don't just open the satellite to see the data flowing. They need to process it. That's why they use some statistical apparatus, among other things to remove noise. And that's why most of the debates I have seen so far where skeptics have a modicum of justification revolve around statistical methods. A discussion about statistical methodology will always go way beneath the political case you're trying to construct, unless you're thinking about cases like the trial about the missing ballots in Florida. And even then, it was more judiciary than political.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: A Skeptic Satellite

The principal researcher at UAH is Dr. John Christy. Here is his home page:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

And here is one interview with NPR:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/~christy/20...PR-CHRISTY.wma

UAH cool stuff page is here:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/essc/

From these sources and many others (my list of links presented elsewhere evolved a bit) we should certainly not say that Dr. Christy is neutral: he's more of a true believing skeptic. (Since he's a Christian, I am not sure he would be happy about your remarks concerning religion.) His personal positions certainly does not imply that he's tweaking the satellite, but it sure does not satisfy the criteria you're willing to have us believe important.

In any case, saying that the NASA could tweak their data because they are biased is quite dubious. It would be interesting to have that story about the NASA error, so everyone could make his own mind. From what I could see, it's the same tactical trick as the hockey stick, from the same guy, actually. Shall we wait until Mr. MacDonald finds us an op-ed regarding that affair?

Even if they do not want to tweak the data, the result can be the same if they use many sources of informations for the data and that some sources disapear over the time. With the UAH and RSS satellites you fix this "unknown" factor since they give a global picture of the earth always the same way every year.

With a four years engineer formation the charts are easy for me to read and interpret. For some reading you have this Canadian blog which can help you understand.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

and this article about rewriting history: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

and this one about the ice level: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6734 -- with comments from visitors

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Cindy's Cognitive Powers

This sentence alone shows the level of sophistication of your analysis. The info I was showing there was that there exists at least two papers using the term "cosmic rays". You should admit by now that it's not a term I invented. If you did not know about it, well, maybe it's because your knowledge of climatology are as limited as mine. Splashing graphs here and there without mentioning their sources is not helping your cause either.

This sentence also shows another important thing: you seem to imply that the new Cindy satellite can reach conclusions. I think you're exagerating Cindy's cognitive powers here. It's not the satellite that make us reach conclusion: it's the researchers.

Besides, the researches don't just open the satellite to see the data flowing. They need to process it. That's why they use some statistical apparatus, among other things to remove noise. And that's why most of the debates I have seen so far where skeptics have a modicum of justification revolve around statistical methods. A discussion about statistical methodology will always go way beneath the political case you're trying to construct, unless you're thinking about cases like the trial about the missing ballots in Florida. And even then, it was more judiciary than political.

Benoit,

I never said you invented the term Cosmic Ray. The only thing I did is to clarify that I was talking about the specific impact of the Sun variation on our atmosphere and that the Cindy satellite was use for this task and not to study the Cosmic Ray coming from elsewhere in the cosmos.

You want to create confusion, I understand.

I know the Cindy satellite can not make conclusion, I wrote rapidly but I think you can understand that since I gave links that talks about the Cindy Satellite, then I was referring to humans making conclusions, not satellite.

Is it useful to bring the discussion to this level? Hmmm only if you want to create confusion.

Goodbye.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Tough to Reason

The only thing I did is to clarify that I was talking about the specific impact of the Sun variation on our atmosphere and that the Cindy satellite was use for this task and not to study the Cosmic Ray coming from elsewhere in the cosmos.

In fact, what you said is this :

The Cindy Satellite is about the Sun and not about other cosmic rays coming from other stars. I hope you were joking! The heat you get from the atmosphere come directly from the sun if I remember what I have learned from my primary grade 1.

To say that the only thing you did is to clarify that you were talking about the specific impact of the Sun variation shows a very particular meaning of the word "clarify".

I know the Cindy satellite can not make conclusion, I wrote rapidly but I think you can understand that since I gave links that talks about the Cindy Satellite, that you can understand I was referring to humans making conclusions not satellite. Is this useful to bring the discussion to this level?

I wonder where you provided links, AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT. AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT, you provided two charts to the discussion. (I am sure to be right now, since I used caps lock.) The first was from an anonymous storage. The second was an attachment here. Where is it taken from is not said, yet again.

You would like to make us understand that there is a relationship between the variation in the black spots on the Sun and the Earth's temperature. What you are showing us is named "Surface and Satellite temperature". If that would be possible to do the way you are doing now, I think you might be able to revolutionize climatology, and maybe every other natural science. We'd save a loads of money and we would not have to read the neverending threads in both Climate Audit and Real Climate blogs.

Actually, what you hold as quite obvious is the talk of this very day :

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nued-interest/

So we are speaking about science as it is being discussed. As far as I can see, the hypothesis you are saying is confirmed by your chart seems held by only a few climatologists. That does not mean they're wrong, nor that they shouldn't be part of the scientific community. On the other hand, that does look like you are having difficulty to prove your case by simply waiving a still unidentified chart while continuing your editorials about energy policies, religion, science in general, and ways of life.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Another Authority!

With a four years engineer formation the charts are easy for me to read and interpret.

To see if that makes you any authority in interpreting climatology's apparatus, could you provide some more background details about that formation?

Maybe we should ask Paul Beckwith if those charts (was there more than one?) are easy to read and understand.