ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

[Ed Seedhouse]

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

The math is very simple here.

But judging from the rest, still well above your head.

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????).

This paragraph is factually wrong from beginning to end. No one has said that "there would be no more ice on earth", that is just a falsehood you are telling. Another one. The actual projection is that, if present trends continue, the Arctic ocean will eventually be free of floating ice DURING THE SUMMER.

The Arctic ocean is only a small part of the earth, not the entire earth. Is your geography based on delusions too?

With a nice recovery in winter 2008 to the level of 1979,

Which is completely irrelevant as well as not, in fact, being true.

I tell myself that when you are afraid that the end of the world is coming we should be very happy and say:

I have never said nor suggested that climate change will cause the end of the world. In fact I have said the very opposite. Another fib from you - the count is going up fast!

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

More silly name calling, but still no math from you Carl, even though you called it "simple". I think I know where the simplicity actually resides here.

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.

You insult yourself with your utterly nonsensical posts here far better than I could ever do. And you are doing nothing but digging yourself in deeper.

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

...

No one has said that "there would be no more ice on earth", that is just a falsehood you are telling.

....

No one Ed?

Except 2 are 3 french and english magasine I read every week.

In Al Gore response this month to Sarah Palin about the ice level: "The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade." (If you read is response, please notice that he give the 2007 numbers in his response and hide the 2008 recovery results, see this.)

So I send you back your comments Ed:

Another fib from you - the count is going up fast Ed!

More silly name calling, but still no math from you, Ed, even though you called it "simple". I think I know where the simplicity actually resides here.

You insult yourself with your utterly nonsensical posts here far better than I could ever do. And you are doing nothing but digging yourself in deeper.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Due Dilligence

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 dilligence. You fail yet again to show any seriousness in your pursuit.

Benoit,

The guy was involved in the data presenting wrongly that the recovage in the winter 2008 was lower than the 2007 which led the whole world of media to believe it. But today it has been corrected.

After complains, they proved they used the wrong data by "mistake". The new data now show on the NSIDC that the recovery was simply fantastic. He has been interviewed on this.

Tricky isn't it?

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Due Diligence, Yet Again

The guy was involved in the data presenting wrongly that the recovage in the winter 2008 was lower than the 2007 which led the whole world of media to believe it. But today it has been corrected.

Carl,

1. You are not providing any reference for your story.

2. You could try to tell if it's the one I could find in 10 seconds:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

(There is an interesting thought about comparing data with pixel, ending with a retraction from Steven Goddard.)

3. You are dodging the task of providing an email from Meier in the CRU emails.

4. You are dodging the task of providing the relationship between glaciology and paleonclimatology.

[Ed Seedhouse]

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

So I send you back your comments Ed:

Well, on the evidence presented here that's probably your best bet since you've shown no ability to think on your own without making gross blunders. I won't bother refuting the equivocation in the last post, it's too obvious and it's getting boring.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Communism

Paul,

blah blah blah

You didnt address ANYTHING I referred to. Did you read my post? I said other pollution NOT CO2!!!

What a pile of ignorance, monotonic repetition, narrowmindedness. Read my post again and answer each point, if you can.

Or what the hell.... pull a Tiger Woods and have another kid and then wake up the next morning, go to your Hummer dealer, and buy a bigger one.

Don't worry about other human beings who pay the price for what you do!

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Communism

You didnt address ANYTHING I referred to. Did you read my post? I said other pollution NOT CO2!!!

What a pile of ignorance, monotonic repetition, narrowmindedness. Read my post again and answer each point, if you can.

Or what the hell.... pull a Tiger Woods and have another kid and then wake up the next morning, go to your Hummer dealer, and buy a bigger one.

Don't worry about other human beings who pay the price for what you do!

Paul,

Are you saying that it should try to convince my wife to not have a sixth child since it is not good for the planet? The contribution of Quebec in the extinction of mankind is very good since we have the lowest birth rate of all the occidental countrys. Even if my family has many members, we are not changing the target. If all the countrys in the world would do the same we do in Quebec there would be nearly no more polluters in a few hundread years.

We are 7 in the family. With the Hummer H2 it means that we make per person 100km for 2.2 liters. Most single drivers spend 7-11 liters for 100km per person. You should congratulate my family.

Canadian charter of rights says that my kids and daughters have equal rights. I suppose this include the number of CO2 tons per year too. If there was a carbon tax in canada with an annual credit to each canadian then my family would make profit selling the tons we don't use.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

Well, on the evidence presented here that's probably your best bet since you've shown no ability to think on your own without making gross blunders. I won't bother refuting the equivocation in the last post, it's too obvious and it's getting boring.

Ed,

Al Gore when he says there would be no more ice in the Arctic, refers to 2007 decline in ice levels and he makes a projection for the next decade supposing the same decline during 10 years. In 2007 he evaluate the total decline was to 40% in expand (in fact the remaining 60% of ice is so deep that it represents 90% of the total annual ice but he won't tell us). In 2008 SUMMER, the total recovery of the winter helped so much that the eco-extremists evaluate that the 40% previous decline went to 25%, for an improvement of 15% in just one year but Al Gore in december 2009 still talks of 40%. Base on the 2007 decline he make the scenario of 10 more years similar to it. Since there has been two MORE winters since 2007 why doesn't he use these results too? If their had been the same decline in 2008 and 2009 as we had in 2007 do you really think he would not show the numbers to everybody? THIS IS COMPLETE IRRATIONNAL SCIENCE.

And if Al Gore can say that in a decade there would be no more ice in the Arctic, can you tell me what would happen to the ice elsewhere on the planet in 30 years if we keep is projection (2007 decline for the next 30 years)? This is why in his film you see the ocean invading half of the United States.

He is simply making some projections? No, people believe what he says. They saw his film in theaters, dvd, etc.. For his falses projections they gave him a Nobel Price.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Due Diligence, Yet Again

Carl,

1. You are not providing reference to your story.

2. You could try to tell if it's the one I could find in 10 seconds:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

(There is an interesting thought about comparing data with pixel, ending with a retraction from Steven Goddard.)

3. You are dodging the task of providing an email from Meier in the CRU emails.

4. You are dodging the task of providing the relationship between glaciology and paleonclimatology.

Steven Goddard retracted.... because he had previously used the official data for his study but the official data was in error and was hiding the 2008 ice recovery, it was even showing that 2008 was worst than 2007 melting. The good official data now shows clearly the very good recovery in 2008 winter so he had to retract.

Funny, do you think that they would ever do a mistake in the increase of ice extend? I don't think so.

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Dodging Bullets Yet Again

Steven Goddard retracted.... because he had previously used the official data for his study but the official data was in error and was hiding the 2008 ice recovery, it was even showing that 2008 was worst than 2007 melting. The good official data now shows clearly the very good recovery in 2008 winter so he had to retract.

1. You still are not providing any reference for your story.

2. Again, you provide a very incomplete interpretation of the story, here about why Goddard retracted. So here are the statements from Goddard and Meier:

Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.

"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.

This is the answer to this statement:

The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.

The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing, in a plot right on the same page as where Mr Goddard obtained the images he uses for his own analysis:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.

Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.

The passage in bold is our emphasis. It is related to the discussion and unveils the trick behind asking readers to interpret data simply by looking at a graph that looks like an image. Interpreting an image representing data (i.e. a graph) is not as easy and straightforward as one might think.

3. You are still dodging the task of providing an email from Meier in the CRU emails.

4. You are still dodging the task of providing the relationship between glaciology and paleoclimatology.

5. You are now attacking motive of your opponent, yet again.

Merry Christmas to you and everyone!

[Ed Seedhouse]

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

Al Gore when he says there would be no more ice in the Arctic,

Actually, Gore (who I am not particularly a fan of), never said any such thing. Since you start every post with a lie I'll ignore the rest.

[Carl Bilodeau]

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

Actually, Gore (who I am not particularly a fan of), never said any such thing. Since you start every post with a lie I'll ignore the rest.

Al Gore said it.

Here is an extract:

GORE: Well, you know, the -- the global warming deniers persist in this air of unreality. After all, the entire north polar icecap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade. What do they think is causing this?

The mountain glaciers in every region of the world are melting, many of them at an accelerated rate, threatening drinking supplies -- drinking water supplies and agricultural water supplies. We have these record storms, drought, floods, fires, three deaths (ph) in the American West, climate refugees beginning now, expected to rise to the hundreds of millions unless we take action.


He never talks about the recovery of 2008 and 2009, he is taking data from the 2007 projection.

Carl

[Ed Seedhouse]

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

Al Gore said it.

Assuming the quote is right, it proves my point. Gore does not say that "there would be no more ice in the Arctic", as you claimed. He said, in the passage you cited, assuming it is quoted correctly, that the Arctic ice cap would disappear if trends continue. They are not the same claim, and you have been caught fibbing again.

I will not bother replying to the rest of your post which just repeats already refuted claims and lends evidence to the supposition that, whatever math you studied in the nameless institution that allegedly gave you a degree, you either largely failed to understand or have subsequently forgotten.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Communism

Paul,

Are you saying that it should try to convince my wife to not have a sixth child since it is not good for the planet? The contribution of Quebec in the extinction of mankind is very good since we have the lowest birth rate of all the occidental countrys. Even if my family has many members, we are not changing the target. If all the countrys in the world would do the same we do in Quebec there would be nearly no more polluters in a few hundread years.

We are 7 in the family. With the Hummer H2 it means that we make per person 100km for 2.2 liters. Most single drivers spend 7-11 liters for 100km per person. You should congratulate my family.

Canadian charter of rights says that my kids and daughters have equal rights. I suppose this include the number of CO2 tons per year too. If there was a carbon tax in canada with an annual credit to each canadian then my family would make profit selling the tons we don't use.

Carl

Carl, since you are ignoring my previous points and trying to take this in a whole different direction, I will end this now and you are the loser in the debate.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Communism

Carl, since you are ignoring my previous points and trying to take this in a whole different direction, I will end this now and you are the loser in the debate.

I know warming deniers and real science is the loser in the debate. I see it everyday in the news disinformation. Congratulation to you.

Carl