ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Communism

Ok, well then, what about the people on the street who have to breathe the poisons your Hummer is putting out? I'm not talking about CO2, there are plenty of other poisons in car exhaust, and a Hummer is one of the worst offenders. Are these people on the street meaningless to you, in favour of your precious kids? If you're really wanting security for your kids, why not put them in a bus? Or an army tank?



You keep saying I'm "aggressive", you are lying just as much as you claim the climate "extremists" are. I haven't threatened you in any way, I don't throw beer bottles at anyone. I call you a moron because you distort history and make non-logical arguments, such as saying the government should require car dealers to take back used cars for recycling, and calling that capitalism! But calling you a moron isn't being aggressive. You just use that to make me look like an "extremist". You are as much of a distorter of facts as you claim the climate people are.

I also notice you didn't make any reply to what my refutation of your argument about blaming socialism for the sins of fascism. I used your argument to claim we can blame the origins of America as a free society if it becomes a bankrupt 3rd world country. This is where your logic leads, and you have no answer for it. I guess you don't like it when your false logic is turned against you! If you weren't spouting all this garbage, I wouldn't be calling you a moron. Simple as that, and nothing aggressive about it.



No, it is incorrect for you to say the data show CO2 in not causing warming, because climate scientists are disagreeing with you. This question needs settling by an international court. Would you agree to accept the decision of such a court if such a case were heard by it? No, because you WANT the data to not show CO2 is causing global warming. Your bias is extremely clear to everyone on this board. I am not biased, I can accept whatever decision such a court would make.

The people throwing the beer bottles are NOT the same people who produce the climate data. You see the climate data and you say "Not true" and you drive a polluting Hummer. They see the climate data and they say "True" and they throw beer bottles at your Hummer. YOU AND THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY GUILTY. Do you understand this concept? I don't condone them throwing beer bottles at your Hummer. I have presented my idea for an international court case to decide the questions of climate change. Both sides must be willing to accept whatever decision would come out of such a court case.



No, but you'll blow poisonous exhaust to people on the street, including bicyclists who are not producing any pollution. As long as your kids are safe and sound in an armoured shell, who cares about people on the street?



Who decides what is "rational thinking"? You? And anything that goes against your views is not rational thinking?



Be careful. You can be sued for comments like this.



I had never heard about Godwin's Law before this past summer, but here, you are guilty of it!

Paul,

People on the street that brethe my car pollution, this is ridiculous. CO2 is not pollution. 100 billions tons is made by nature and 3 billion per year by human. Water vapor has far more influence on the temperature than CO2 as shown by studies and I have shown one here. In the climategate email the top scientist confirm this by saying:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin

[...]How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin


Since there is no global warming there is no need to worry about anybody car emissions. In fact the less I take gas, the lower the price will be and the more the chinese and the indians will burn it in their car which don't have catalyzer and this produce real pollution like our cars used to produced in the past.

Read the emails of the climategate. The scientist you are referring to, are very upset that they don't see a warming in the data. They had to create it. Did you read the emails yet? If you read french, see a very good resume here. Even if you don't read french, some emails appears in english in the "TABLE". Here is the english translation with google. Have fun, easy and fast to read.

You say the people that throw bottle of beers are not the same people? Extremist in any religion says the samething. See Al Quaida. The religions in my opinion all start with false data and then when the rational people say that the data is not true then start the violence and the agressivity to make everybody "believe". We are talking about science how come do we have to change the data like in a religion?

I have shown the graphs here in my past postings that show clearly that there is no global warming and that ice did recover after El Nino. Your are promoting something that simply does not exist.

We will buy a bigger car when we will have our kid number 6. In my opinion recycling our cars is far more important than the CO2 with is simply natural. The automakers will make an extra 1000$ from you and me to reuse their parts. Making rules and laws is normal for a government. But making rules that does not require too much intervention by the goverment is a good habit.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

He has already done this many times, but you won't look at any of them because you are not ready for truth.



Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't think you have read any of the references at all, for the reason given above.



You claim to have a degree but your research skills are so slight that you can't even find one on your own?

I read about the Kopennag report shown in the opening and this is why I know they refer to the 2007 consensus report. This data is simply false as we see in the climagetegate and the data used in the research show that there is no warming. And this report stops in 2007 and we know that in 2008-2009 the ice level and thicknest did entirely recovered.

There is a lot of articles that I read and most of them are in french. So if Bob can show one or more articles, I will find the referrence and the data use for the study and I will show him how I verify the seriousness of a climate article.

My bachelor in science is real. Science has been a passion since I was 12 and I always knew I would go the bac. 3/4 of the Canadian army officers study in engeneering so I did in Royal Military College in the "Science and Engeneering program".

In science the consensus is very important and this is why they claimed there was one. Now we know there is no consensus and that one part of the science school was based on false information. In any other science this would be very clear. But here there is simply a religious movement that can not be stopped even if we show that the "bible" was a fake.

Carl

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Ok, show me one article from any of these scientist and let see on what study he refers. So far everything I have read in the last month only refer to the studies that have been proved to be fraud. Even the articles presented at the opening of the Kopennag event and that I have read were referring to the studies of 2007 that have been proved to be taken from the hockey stick and from people involved in the climategate.

Please show me one.

Carl

Okay. I'll take up the challenge. You want to see an article that doesn't rely on data from the NSIDC, right? Oh, you're making this way too easy!:D

I refer you to your post this afternoon on another thread, Global Ocean changes. A study by David Barber from the University of Manitoba. He led an expedition to study arctic ice recovery of 2008 and 2009. His expedition found that the previous satellite data had overstated the arctic ice recovery because the previous good ice was being replaced with "rotten ice". The rotten ice is of a poorer quality. This is independent evidence of global warming, and it's not from the NSIDC. In fact, you even complain that this study is not mentioned on the NSIDC website.

The ball is back in your court. :p

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Okay. I'll take up the challenge. You want to see an article that doesn't rely on data from the NSIDC, right? Oh, you're making this way too easy!:D

I refer you to your post this afternoon on another thread, Global Ocean changes. A study by David Barber from the University of Manitoba. He led an expedition to study arctic ice recovery of 2008 and 2009. His expedition found that the previous satellite data had overstated the arctic ice recovery because the previous good ice was being replaced with "rotten ice". The rotten ice is of a poorer quality. This is independent evidence of global warming, and it's not from the NSIDC. In fact, you even complain that this study is not mentioned on the NSIDC website.

The ball is back in your court. :p

Well you are right I can not do that. And nobody can do that now and even the eco-extremist did not do that yet. The reason is that his stuy is so new (september 2009) that nobody can find any peer review of it and nobody asked questions so far or obtained the data or a scientific publication. We only have an expedition report that came out last month!!!

But I read the whole report the guy did from beginning to the end.

First of all you have to understand that the goal of his study is to show that the ice concentration shown on satellite graph could be tricked sometimes by rotten ice. It can not be associated directly to the global warming at all. It can only help to determine the satellite fiability on ice concentration.

If the peer reviews in the next years shows that he is right, it could also mean that the 1979 ice concentration also contain "rotten ice" in place where the satellites show high ice concentration. Then estimation will have to be done like this: the satellite can mislead us on 5% of the ice coverage. But this would mean that the percentage error would be the same for past data.

So when he says that the ice level in some region could be lower than what the satellite shows, the same apply for the images of the previous years from the satellites and for all regions of the earth.

In his study he says clearly that the ice after some decrease in the 2000 and 2006 now today did extend compared to the past. The ice cover a much wider area on earth like the satellites are showing it.

This is a very new hypothesis he is working on and this is very good for science. But we have to be sketical as any scientist should be. For sure in the next few years some more people will try to validate the rotten ice in different area of the earth and will compare the mesure taken in situ with the satellite data. They will do it also for the past in situ experiments to try to evaluate the "rotten ice" level of the previous years. This was not done yet.

The peer review process (none have been done so far) should also verify the route taken by the boat. Did they picked a specific area that had warm water stream? Remember the tricks of the climategate, we have to be careful!! Did they pick a specific path to prove the "rotten ice" or did they take a real random one? So far he claimed that they chose the path with sophisticated ice detection technology and this could the "the trick".

Personaly, I could be wrong but I feel he picked a special route with warm water stream. The reason: the ice concentration on today's graph from the satellites are so violet that we hardly see pink on most of the graphics. In the past there was much more pink and red.

See by yourself the comparison of 1979 to 2009:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=09&sy=2009

Remember from august 2008 to december 2008 the ice level recovered to the 1979 level in only four months. This guy ended in september 2009 his expedition. If the 2009 winter is as cold as 2008, probably the "Rotten ice" effect will have completly disapeared. Maybe the "rotten ice effect" appear when there is a sudden recovery like we had in 2008 after a long El Nino decreasing.

By the way, the area he did his study is the only area on earth this fall that had low ice levels. In november 2009, two months after his expedition, it has been said:

"Both Hudson Bay and the Barents Sea have experienced a slow freeze-up this fall. However, the slow sea ice growth in the two regions probably resulted from different processes, highlighting the complex interactions between the sea ice, atmosphere and ocean. In the Barents Sea, ice growth was slowed by winds that pushed the ice northwards into the central Arctic, while warmer-than-usual temperatures contributed to the slow ice growth in Hudson Bay.
The Barents Sea is the deepest of the Arctic coastal seas. It is open on its southern and northern boundaries, allowing winds and currents to move sea ice in and out of the region. In November, southerly winds built up between an area of high pressure over Siberia and low pressure in the northern Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with Buys Ballot's Law. The winds transported warm air and water from the south, and pushed the ice edge northwards out of the Barents Sea."

Carl

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Personaly, I could be wrong but I feel he picked a special route with warm water stream. The reason: the ice concentration on today's graph from the satellites are so violet that we hardly see pink on most of the graphics. In the past there was much more pink and red.

See by yourself the comparison of 1979 to 2009:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=09&sy=2009

Remember from august 2008 to december 2008 the ice level recovered to the 1979 level in only four months.

Carl, you've already tried this dishonesty and I've already called you on it. Do you know what the word "Winter" means? Gosh you've discovered a new natural phenomenon - water freezes when it gets real cold like it does at the NORTH POLE in WINTER.

Even so, the graph you linked to plainly shows that the ice extent was visibly greater in 1979. Of course if you were honest, and compared summer to summer, it would be a lot more obvious.

'Cause guess what, the problem according to the claims you dispute, is the extent of SUMMER ice at the arctic ocean.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Carl, you've already tried this dishonesty and I've already called you on it. Do you know what the word "Winter" means? Gosh you've discovered a new natural phenomenon - water freezes when it gets real cold like it does at the NORTH POLE in WINTER.

Even so, the graph you linked to plainly shows that the ice extent was visibly greater in 1979. Of course if you were honest, and compared summer to summer, it would be a lot more obvious.

'Cause guess what, the problem according to the claims you dispute, is the extent of SUMMER ice at the arctic ocean.

Summer? I don't see your point but go for it. Do the same test for summer between 2007 and 2009. Click here. See how the extend increased following the winter 2008. Don't you see the good results in summer 2009?

Understand that we went in a low peak in 2007 and we are now in a recovery period since 2008. The recovery can only happen during the winter and this is why for the next few years we have to see how it goes during the september to december period. We are recovering the lost of the El Nino cycle period.

With one winter of recovery in 2008, our 2009 summer extend did very well during the summer compared to 2007 and the ice concentration in violet did improve so much. This summer extend was already only sligtly below normal! We can expect very good result next summer with the actual winter results of december 2009 don't you think.

Now in december 2009 you can see that this winter we have another important recovery like in 2008. The ice concentration is even higher than it was in 1979 since the graph is very violet. See here.

Can you say from the last two winters recovery in ice extend and in ice concentration that the ice will melt and that the ocean will then increase of 6 meters? Are we in catastrophic ice melting period or are we recoverying from a low period following the El Nino cycle?

And Ed, this is the ice subject. If you go for the global temperature from the satellites, you will see that we recovered to the 1979 levels.

P.S.: I will not insult you like you are doing. This is a discussion.

Carl

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

For Greenland ice melt look at slide 10 of the ppt on the link...

http://beta.sierraclub.ca/en/publica...e-science-2007

The maximum melt for Greenland ice in 2007 corresponds precisely with the maximum melt in the floating sea ice. Obviously the data clearly shows that there is no recovery in 2008 and 2009.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

For Greenland ice melt look at slide 10 of the ppt on the link...

http://beta.sierraclub.ca/en/publica...e-science-2007

The maximum melt for Greenland ice in 2007 corresponds precisely with the maximum melt in the floating sea ice. Obviously the data clearly shows that there is no recovery in 2008 and 2009.

The graph show data up to january 1, 2008. So year 2008 is not included.

You have on the graph: 2003 to 2004, 2004 to 2005, 2005 to 2006, 2006 to 2007 and 2007 january 1 to 2008 january 1.

Easy trick, will confuse most people. I tell you, everywhere they hide the 2008 results. 2008 results would go very high on this graph so they hide it.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

September 2008

I tell you, everywhere they hide the 2008 results. 2008 results would go very high on this graph so they hide it.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002...ssrelease.html

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: September 2008

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002...ssrelease.html

This is again Walt Meier from the climategate emails scandal...

Benoit you see the graph by yourselft and the conclusions of many including the guy that went with his boat. Ice concentration did recover. Compare by yourself the ice extend and the ice concentration level instead of relying on the climategate scientists lies.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Walt Meier

This is again Walt Meier from the climategate emails scandal...

1. You're implying that Meier is part of the scandal. But I fail to find one email from Walt Meier here:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Could you help your case by showing us an email extract from this villain?

2. You're also implying that Meier is responsible for the press release. What is written on the page is :

Media Relations Contact: Stephanie Renfrow, NSIDC: srenfrow@nsidc.org or +1 303.492.1497 (se habla Español)

Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that Meier was behind that "trick"?

3. The very first sentence of this press release:

Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on September 14, 2008.

It would be interesting to know how you interpret the impact of miraculous regrowth from winter 2008, considering that it is the only argument you deem worth discussing. But we have at least these three comments :

First one from NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze:

When you look at the sharp decline that we’ve seen over the past thirty years, a ‘recovery’ from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.

Second from Walt Meier:

Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.

Third is NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve:

I find it incredible that we came so close to beating the 2007 record—without the especially warm and clear conditions we saw last summer. I hate to think what 2008 might have looked like if weather patterns had set up in a more extreme way.

4. The relationship between glaciology and paleoclimatology is still obscure. Would you care to tell us the intuitive "network analysis" you did to link the researchers from one to the other?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Summer? I don't see your point but go for it. Do the same test for summer between 2007 and 2009. Click here. See how the extend increased following the winter 2008. Don't you see the good results in summer 2009?

Still don't understand the difference between Weather and Climate yet, eh Carl? Once again you cherry pick your data and claim it proves something. It doesn't.

If I cherry pick another two years, say like this, that shows something entirely different, but does not prove a thing about the climate OR about the trend. What proves something is the totality of ALL the years, put through a least squares fit. That has been done and the result is clearly that the overall trend is that the north polar ice cap extent is decreasing over the years, and that trend is statistically significant and is extremely unlikely to be merely an artifact of the measurements.

For someone who claims to have a degree "in science" you are amazingly ignorant. Did they not give you any math courses at all? Do you even know what a least squares regression is?

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Still don't understand the difference between Weather and Climate yet, eh Carl? Once again you cherry pick your data and claim it proves something. It doesn't.

If I cherry pick another two years, say like this, that shows something entirely different, but does not prove a thing about the climate OR about the trend. What proves something is the totality of ALL the years, put through a least squares fit. That has been done and the result is clearly that the overall trend is that the north polar ice cap extent is decreasing over the years, and that trend is statistically significant and is extremely unlikely to be merely an artifact of the measurements.

For someone who claims to have a degree "in science" you are amazingly ignorant. Did they not give you any math courses at all? Do you even know what a least squares regression is?

Ed,

The math is very simple here.

We have thousands of article saying that the ice is melting and that we have only little time to save the world. And after the 2007 winter the catastrophic articles were event more agressives, they were making graphics showing that IF the melting was always like 2007 there would be no more ice on earth (you call it mathematics YOU????).

With a nice recovery in winter 2008 to the level of 1979, I tell myself that when you are afraid that the end of the world is coming we should be very happy and say:

"The end for the world is not now!!!!". It went back up to the 1979 level and 2009 winter seems to be even better, lets celebrate just a bit, humankind has some more decades!!!

Mathematics should apply to me and to ecoextremists when they create catastrophics charts.

When you insult me, you should be a bit more rational and have some insults to those scientist that said and published stupids informations. Just to be fair play.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Walt Meier

1. You're implying that Meier is part of the scandal. But I fail to find one email from Walt Meier here:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Could you help your case by showing us an email extract from this villain?

2. You're also implying that Meier is responsible for the press release. What is written on the page is :



Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that Meier was behind that "trick"?

3. The very first sentence of this press release:



It would be interesting to know how you interpret the impact of miraculous regrowth from winter 2008, considering that it is the only argument you deem worth discussing. But we have at least these three comments :

First one from NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze:



Second from Walt Meier:



Third is NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve:



4. The relationship between glaciology and paleonclimatology is still obscure. Would you care to tell us the intuitive "network analysis" you did to link the researchers from one to the other?

Please Benoit look a bit more in the emails for Meier. You will find it.

Anything coming from NSIDC should be suspicious because of the climategate. I don't say that everything they say is wrong or false, I only say that on a ethic point of view, we should be able to discuss climate without using their articles. Like when a judge has a possibility of conflict of interest, he prefers to get out just for the sake of the process.

The more people are sketical about NSIDC like I am, the more they will replan their protocols and methods. This is good for science in my opinion. It is not an agressive position I have against them, it is just normal behavior when such a scandal break the credibility of an entire organisation. But it is not your fault Benoit, I understand why you used it.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Due Diligence

Please Benoit look a bit more in the emails for Meier.

The above site has three hits when you search for "meier", but nothing related to the guy in question. If I learned something from Climate Audit, it is the importance of due diligence. You fail yet again to show any seriousness in your pursuit.