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

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Tell That to Tom!

I.E., more or less completely irrational.

Would you care to expand?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Tough to Reason

Sorry Carl, you will have to try harder...

He'll probably pull a Jean Hebert and just tell you you're stupid.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Tough to Reason

I do not know to begin since the information in this post is pure rubbish. Let me see...

Arctic Ice melt...
The lowest ice coverage in the Arctic in terms of area in recorded human history occurred in 2007. Next lowest was 2008 and third was 2009. If you look in the Globe and Mail today, data was just released from Cambridge University projecting that in 10 years ships will be able to sail across the North Pole, and in 20 years there will be no ice coverage of the Arctic in summers. Perhaps Carl should look at data on ice coverage on a longer time scale than above? As far as ice coverage matching that of 1979, this is totally false. Not only is the area decreasing, but the average thickness has significantly decreased.

No warming since 1979?
Totally untrue. Perhaps Carl could look at many web sites/books/scientific articles/magazines/etc instead of a few sites of dubious origin (and the National Post).

I quote "The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean)."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Regarding the "Cindy" satellite, I google this and can find nothing. What satellite are you referring to?

Paul,

The new UAH and RSS satellite systems measure the weather of the whole earth every day the same way. I take my conclusion from these systems only in my previous posts.

The links you give refer to data taken from stations on the ground. If you read the FAQ page you will see that they have the same problem as the NASA since their algorithms, their weather stations, and even the data from the past change every year. They also claim to have more weather stations in populated area. Some stations do not take the temperature during the night, etc., etc. To me it is like changing the judges in a dancing competition after each dancer. The evaluator is not stable.

You have the right to think that this OLD method is better than the new satellite systems and I will not make it "personal".

Here are the FAQ from the links you give.


What are the basic raw data used?

Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.

Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?

Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also taken and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs (Rayner et al., 2003). The problems are reduced using night only marine air temperature (NMAT) but at the expense of discarding approximately half the MAT data. Our use of SST anomalies implies that we are tacitly assuming that the anomalies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT. Many tests show that NMAT anomalies agree well with SST anomalies on seasonal and longer time scales in most open ocean areas. Globally the agreement is currently very good (Rayner et al, 2003), even better than in Folland et al. (2001b). However, some regional discrepancies in open ocean trends have recently been found in the tropics (Christy et al., 2001).

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.

Why do anomalies not average exactly zero over 1961-90?

Over both the land and marine domains considerable care has been taken in calculating the base period values for the 1961-90 period. However, as all regions don't have complete data for this 30-year period, the anomaly data do not average exactly to zero for this 30-year period. (......)

How are the land and marine data combined?

Both the component parts (land and marine) are separately interpolated to the same 5° x 5° latitude/longitude grid boxes. The combined versions (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) take values from each component and weight the grid boxes where both occur (coastlines and islands). The weighting method is described in detail in Jones et al. (2001). Land temperature anomalies are infilled where more than four of the surrounding eight 5° x 5° grid boxes are present, as discussed in Jones et al. (2001). Infilling doesn't take place when the box is ocean, except when it covered by sea ice based on 1961-90 average conditions.

How accurate are the hemispheric and global averages?

Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951. They are about four times as uncertain during the 1850s, with the accuracy improving gradually between 1860 and 1950 except for temporary deteriorations during data-sparse, wartime intervals. Estimating accuracy is a far from a trivial task as the individual grid-boxes are not independent of each other and the accuracy of each grid-box time series varies through time (although the variance adjustment has reduced this influence to a large extent). (...)


Why do global and hemispheric temperature anomalies differ from those quoted in the IPCC assessment and the media?

We have areally averaged grid-box temperature anomalies (using the HadCRUT3v dataset), with weighting according to the area of each 5° x 5° grid box, into hemispheric values; we then averaged these two values to create the global-average anomaly. However, the global and hemispheric anomalies used by IPCC and in the World Meteorological Organization and Met Office news releases were calculated using optimal averaging. This technique uses information on how temperatures at each location co-vary, to weight the data to take best account of areas where there are no observations at a given time. The method uses the same basic information (i.e. in future HadCRUT3v and subsequent improvements), along with the data-coverage and the measurement and sampling errors, to estimate uncertainties on the global and hemispheric average anomalies. (...)

The present optimal averages with annual uncertainties are accessible from the Hadley Centre. The data include values filtered to show decadal and longer-term variations and uncertainties. This replaces the IPCC 2001 version at the above site (see Parker et al. 2004). (...)

Why are values slightly different when I download an updated file a year later?

All the files on this page (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion. Updating includes not just data for the last month but the addition of any late reports for up to approximately the last two years. In addition to this the method of variance adjustment (used for CRUTEM3v and HadCRUT3v) works on the anomalous temperatures relative to the underlying trend on an approximate 30-year timescale. Estimating this trend requires estimation of grid-box temperatures for years before the start of each record and after the end. With the addition of subsequent years, the underlying trend will alter slightly, changing the variance-adjusted values. Effects will be greatest on the last year of the record, but an influence can be evident for the last three to four years. Full details of the variance adjustment procedure are given in Jones et al. (2001). Approximately yearly, the optimally averaged values will also be updated to take account of such additional past information



.... ridiculous to me to take conclusions from that kind of data. Do you really think that we should estimate the global warming hypothesis with that instead of the satellites of UAH and RSS?

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Tough to Reason

He'll probably pull a Jean Hebert and just tell you you're stupid.

Please don't talk in my name Paul. This guy is not stupid, he simply reads different articles. Nothing personnal here.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Tough to Reason

100 billion humans without losing a single animal species. If you really believe this you are living in another world. We have had five great extinction periods on the earth, and we are presently undergoing the sixth. Global population is presently 6.7 billion and expected to peak at about 9 billion by 2070 or so. 100 billion is absurb, totally unbelievable... Talk about technology being your religion...

Paul,

We will have cities on the ground and on the oceans. We have infinite energy from the sun.

The city will probably be a huge building of some kilometers radius with many levels. I read of lot of scientific magazines and I remember reading articles about it. On each level you have trees, lakes, etc. Could have 1 million people living in such a city.

Here is an image I found. The articles I read had much more details and there was many pictures, if I find it back I will show you.


Each level is a small city

There should be mega-cities in the arctic and on the oceans. Quebec is 18 times the size of France. It means we could have at least many billions people here in Canada... with tomorrow technology and robots.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Tough to Reason

Thanks Egidijus. CINDI is a NASA satellite studying charged particles in space, not in the atmosphere.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cindi/

I quote from this web site "CINDI will study the elements that influence space weather near Earth’s equator."

Sorry Carl, you will have to try harder. Space weather is not weather in the atmosphere on earth. Space weather is the interaction of charged particles with the magnetic field of our planet. These charged particles originate in the sun, and follow the Van Allen belts to the earth. When they reach our atmosphere at the poles (following the magnetic lines of force) they interact with oxygen and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and cause things like the aurorae borealis (northern lights). This is totally different from weather in our atmosphere.

In other words, CINDI has no direct measurements on climate change...

The Sorce satellite was launch to study the sun and it is with this satellite that they found and study the black spots on the sun.

Then after they launch the Cindy project. This project showed that the sunspots had an effect on the Earth upper atmosphere. The studies shows a correlation between the global temperature on earth and the sunspots.

I put two satellites in one by mistake, sorry my memory was not so good here.

Here are the comments from the link I showed on Cindy and you can find many articles:

During periods of high solar activity, which correspond to high sunspot counts, the upper atmosphere of the Earth warms and expands.

According to Earle, UT Dallas professor and CINDI Co-Investigator, since late 2005 monthly sunspot numbers have been very low, and have not yet begun to rise significantly. CINDI data shows the impact of the past few years of low solar activity on the ionosphere.

“CINDI has encountered an extremely cold atmosphere in conjunction with an uncharacteristically long solar minimum period,” Earle said.

“The C/NOFS mission is the first attempt to perform quasi-real time predictions of space weather, through coordinated satellite observations and ground-based computer modeling.”

C/NOFS’ mission is to improve our understanding of space weather, much in the way weather satellites have improved our understanding of ordinary weather.

The upper atmosphere of the Earth starting at about 43 miles high is made up of neutral molecules and atoms mixed together with charged ions and free electrons.

The ions are produced when normal atmospheric gases absorb high-energy light from the sun. In our atmosphere, electrically charged particles can interact to interfere with the radio signals from communication satellites and GPS satellites.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Lessons So Far

....

We just can't wait for Cindy to suggest that now is the time to take our responsibilities. There are times to debate, to think, and to act.

....

If there is Warming or not, nobody wants to live in garbages and breath toxic air. So yes we must act anyway.

Like some parents I know, they want us to go to church to become good parents. But yes we can be good parents by going to church and also without going in a church.

Do I need to believe that the end of the world is coming soon, to become responsible? No.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

Would you care to expand?

Let's leave my weight out of this, shall we?

[Garvin Nunes]

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

While I believe global warming is both happening and caused by man I think it is very good for Canada. I therefore support global warming.

Further more polar bears are very nasty creatures and I think the people who want to save them didn't live near any.

[Kerry Liles]

An interesting viewpoint

long, "Yes, there is!" and "No, there is not!" discussions going. I merely present this article or Op-Ed as someone called the previous URL for your information.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=2083871

See this article in the oxymoronically-named "American Thinker" (ok, I admit, that part about the oxymoron was a cheap shot)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ional_sec.html

by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

May I also suggest looking for other articles by him at the same website; one of my favourites of his was an Open letter to John McCain (during the last election) beginning at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._viscou_1.html

I believe the Viscount has a rare gift for using the English language.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

Let's leave my weight out of this, shall we?

That one made me laugh. Would you care to elaborate, then?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

That one made me laugh. Would you care to elaborate, then?

What's to elaborate on? I read several of the so-called "objectivists" many years ago, including Ms R. herself, and found them nonsensical, with glaring logical errors in most every paragraph. I have seen no evidence since that would cause me to change my opinion.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

What's to elaborate on? I read several of the so-called "objectivists" many years ago, including Ms R. herself, and found them nonsensical, with glaring logical errors in most every paragraph. I have seen no evidence since that would cause me to change my opinion.

Fair enough. Did you find any logical error in the Cherry-Picker's guide?

[Garvin Nunes]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

What's to elaborate on? I read several of the so-called "objectivists" many years ago, including Ms R. herself, and found them nonsensical, with glaring logical errors in most every paragraph. I have seen no evidence since that would cause me to change my opinion.

Actually libertarians including many objectivists now have an internal debate over "externalities", which means technically their movement can encompass both sides of an environmental issue.

Their proposed solutions are interesting too. They would allow people owning land adjacent to a polluter (for example) to sue them in civil court. While many environmental orgs like Sierra Club already use this method successfully I think the idea would be to make further "tort" protections available as opposed to giving more funding to an agency like the EPA in the U.S. (Keep in mind the EPA is just a reflection of whatever party controls the US. So under Bush it was used to prosecute/shut down environmentalists.)

The main problem with using externalities and an expansion of tort concept in the name of an environmental cause like "Global Warming", is that its hard to point your finger at an individual polluter and show directly the damage he did to your property.

But i think many issues like mercury poisoning etc. DO more intuitively fit under this concept and the process of prosecuting those would naturally also help on Global Warming issue...If indeed it turns out the issue is caused by humans. (And if it isn't you still end up having a procedure for resolving those other environmental issues.)

But can you actually illustrate one of the logical errors by Ayn Rand? I'd like to see a quote and the error in reasoning if that's possible..

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Tell That to Tom!

But can you actually illustrate one of the logical errors by Ayn Rand? I'd like to see a quote and the error in reasoning if that's possible..

I expressed an opinion - this is an opinion forum. Feel free to disagree with me.

I will suggest a preemptive read of "Filthy Lucre", by Joseph Heath, to anyone who wants to expound on economics.

I know a libertarian who is a nice guy, but totally irrational about economics.