@TMTisFree
Quote:

Your image links to nothing. Just embed it in your post to be sure it displays correctly.

Here is the NASA article which contains 2 images of methane distribution. One at the surface and one in the atmosphere.

Yeah I understand your desire to post the images within a thread. Personally that's against my style. I'd rather click to see the image and read the data other then have an image foisted upon me. Not saying anything wrong with your embed large images style it's just one I tend to steer away from myself.

Quote:

I was just interested in the mirror pattern of the 2 curves

It appears you're not interested in the world but how the 2 graphs seemingly are an inverse mirror of each other? I am convinced they are an inverse mirror as presented. However, since the seasons are 'off' between the 2 hemispheres I think if you changed the graph to represent the seasons aligning (graph Summer Ireland and Summer Tasmania) then likely the mirror effect will go away. Your effect of interest seems to be verging on what Hayes said -- With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want.

Pretty inverse graph means? Not much really.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2009 at 07:20 PM.

@BrianK

And how about the danger from METHANE HYDRATE ICE deposits at the ground of the warming oceans I mentioned in my posting #123?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Here is the NASA article which contains 2 images of methane distribution. One at the surface and one in the atmosphere.

Thanks. The article says:
Quote:

These maps show the distribution of methane at the surface (top) and in the stratosphere (lower), calculated by a NASA computer model.

Where are the real world, ie observed, measured, verified, audited data? The report is a model-based study. One of the model (modified ModelE), also extensively used by IPCC to base their predictions on, is the most critiqued GCM* because it outputs a wrong positive feedback with clouds (iethe sensitivity of the climate's model is high), while not being initialized from real observable data (no reconciliation between the real world data and the output data). So one has to take this kind of 'result' with a (ton of) grain of salt. They can invent the data they want in front of a computer, and then parametrize the variables to fit their preconceived perception or whatever best fit Gavin Schmidt's agenda (G. Schmidt works at GISS**, with J. Hansen who is the scientific expert/counsellor of Al Gore, in case you don't know). When this team of NASA scientists will move on to get outside and acquire real world data, or at least work with real world data which are audited (see numerous previous posts related to GISS data biases), instead of trying to poorly/wrongly model climate systems they only partly (if at all) understand, then, perhaps, it will be time to model something.


Quote:

I am convinced they are an inverse mirror as presented. However, since the seasons are 'off' between the 2 hemispheres I think if you changed the graph to represent the seasons aligning (graph Summer Ireland and Summer Tasmania) then likely the mirror effect will go away.

I agree it is probably a season-based offset. This however does not explain where it comes from (ocean life oscillation in response to temperature or other variable(s), seasonal land usage changes, etc)


Quote:

Your effect of interest seems to be verging on what Hayes said -- With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want.

Can you point me where I did statistics of any kind? Or thrown a conclusion related with methane? Instead, refer to the out-of-reality study you give above, to have a good illustration/understanding of what Mr Hayes said.

* GCM: Global Climate Model
** GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Where are the real world, ie observed, measured, verified, audited data? The report is a model-based study

This was used by me to show why using 2 cities to represent the world doesn't work. When one is talking about the world I want to see worldwide data. It appears now you really were more interesting in how the 2 graphs were inverse to each other? My take it's 2 cities a strech to represent the world.

Quote:

I agree it is probably a season-based offset. This however does not explain where it comes from

Good question and one of the issues with only using your graph is a graph doesn't represent why the data changes it just shows us where and how the data changed. This is why I like to see not the graphs but the backing work so we can better understand what the graphs mean. Clearly the graph you linked to doesn't give us where the methane came from.

Quote:

Can you point me where I did statistics of any kind?

Umm a graph is a representation of statistical data.

Quote:

Instead, refer to the out-of-reality study

Hayes unscientific letter has some good questions but in no way scientifically proved that Steig was wrong. I'm all about doing the science. Hayes helicopter ancedote isn't science.

@BrianK

Quote:

This was used by me to show why using 2 cities to represent the world doesn't work.

Where I wrote that the plot was a world-based data? Even I was, using model-based data to disprove me is plainly wrong either.

Quote:

When one is talking about the world I want to see worldwide data.

tomazkid has provided the plot and I provided you some other data. Search yourself if you want more.

Quote:

It appears now you really were more interesting in how the 2 graphs were inverse to each other? My take it's 2 cities a strech to represent the world.

Here is what I wrote:Quote:

The two plots I gave are qualitatively identical (but mirrored) to the global one given by tomazkid when you restrict your view to the last 10 years.

Are you only interested in nitpicking and rhetoric?

Quote:

one of the issues with only using your graph is a graph doesn't represent why the data changes it just shows us where and how the data changed.

I never say otherwise. Neither the study you provided.

Quote:

Umm a graph is a representation of statistical data.

Not the one I provided. It is a representation of actual, non-smoothed, non-twisted, non-statistically-'improved', real world measured data. Still don't see the difference?

Quote:

Hayes unscientific letter

He did not claim it is. Reread it.

Quote:

Hayes helicopter ancedote isn't science.

It is an observation and a factual one: something entirely different from a statistically filled data study from a team mostly known for that.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Even I was, using model-based data to disprove me is plainly wrong either.

This wasnt used to disprove your graph. But instead to show that if we're talking world wide changes it's more valuable to have a look at world wide data.

Quote:

I never say otherwise.

of course I don't say you do say otherwise. Intsead I highlighted a commonality we both understand the provided graph doesn't provide us causality to the obersvations.

Quote:

He did not claim it is. Reread it.

Of course I never say that he did. What is happening here is you made the claim that the Steig study is an 'out-of-reality' study and the evidence of this is an understanding of what Hayes says. I point out strongly that Hayes response was not scientific and therefore in and of itself can't be used to disprove Steig. At best the letter raises some questions which need more research. The fair claim is that Steig is not fully proven due to the letter's unanswered questioned. This doesn't mean that Steig was proven wrong and Hayes right.

Quote:

It is an observation and a factual one:

I agree there's an observation here that a helicopter was not used. If we want to conclude the 'too cold for helicopter' is factual then we need to see the proof which is more in-depth than Hayes' claim. An example would be Hayes providing us temps on the date of travel and model of helicopter along with it's cooresponding safe temp data to show this is truly factual.

Now part of Hayes use of the helicopter ancedote is to show how Steig is wrong. If Hayes does show us this is factual we do have to remind ourselves this is 1 camp and 1 point in the whole of Antarctica. Clearly it is shy of the data we'd expect to look at the whole of a contient.

@TMTisFree

Refer to this post and this post to have a rapid survey of what some 'real scientists' think about models.

Note that it is not CO² that is in the GCM models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language: ‘prescribed CO²’).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: Umm a graph is a representation of statistical data. Not the one I provided. It is a representation of actual, non-smoothed, non-twisted, non-statistically-'improved', real world measured data. Still don't see the difference?

Yes it's one of definition.

STATISTICS –noun 1. the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.
2. the numerical facts or data themselves.

I'd argue the numerical facts themselves are statistics. One needs not smooth the data to still have it be statistical data it can be the actual measure (2). But, in a graph we see the collection of data (measure on date/time), the classifiction (amount of methane) , and a further interpretation of data (plotting measure vs time). I think even (1) could apply here.

My understanding of what you mean is an unfiltered data represented on a graph. IMO that's still a statistical representation. So ours is a disagreement of definition if anything.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jan-2009 at 04:34 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

At best the letter raises some questions which need more research.

That was my whole point, need to lose your time and mine to search forward something you will not find.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

STATISTICS –noun

A representation of data does not fit in your definition: no explicit numerical facts or numerical data and no use of mathematical theories of probability either.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: STATISTICS –noun A representation of data does not fit in your definition: no explicit numerical facts or numerical data and no use of mathematical theories of probability either.

My definition, taken from a dictionary BTW, Does certainly include the things your claim argues against. A representation of data is a type of interpetation it's in definition #1. Data collection is how one gains explicit numerical facts or numerical data so again definition #1. An analysis is done through the use of mathematical theories again definition #1. I disagree completely with your ascertain all you claim is missing is in there.

@TMTisFree

Btw, I prefer this definition of statistics by Evan Esar:
Quote:

“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.”

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: At best the letter raises some questions which need more research. That was my whole point, need to lose your time and mine to search forward something you will not find.

Perhaps the problem here is we're falling into our ways. I'm requesting something accurate on the statement. You in the past felt justified to overstate an Anti-GW claim because you feel that GW people do it all the time. So in that sense it was fair for you to say 'out-of-reality' to Steig's paper even without proof. Sorry forgot you take that approach.

@BrianK

Quote:

So in that sense it was fair for you to say 'out-of-reality' to Steig's paper even without proof.

You are right to not take my view for granted. Let me quote what some scientists, amongst other, think about this study:

1/ UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, (not a climate change skeptic):Quote:

"I remain somewhat skeptical… It is hard to make data where none exist.”

2/ Dr. Roger Pielke (climatologist, also not an AGW septic):Quote:

“In terms of the significance of their paper, it overstates what they have obtained from their analysis.”

3/ Dr. John Christy (climatologist):Quote:

"One must be very cautious with such results because they have no real way to be validated. In other words, we will never know what the temperature was over the very large missing areas that this technique attempts to fill in so that it can be tested back through time.”

4/ As I wrote earlier, Chapman and Walsh demonstrate in 2007 that in Antartica: Quote:

“Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates with starting dates before 1965 producing overall warming and starting dates from 1966 to 1982 producing net cooling rates over the region.”

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 25-Jan-2009 at 06:57 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

IMNSHO, Man-Made Global Warming is nothing more than a Hoax put forth by people with an agenda. I have read many (so-called) scientific papers in support of AGW and have found them to be nothing more than alarmist theories where the facts don't back up their conclusions. In fact, most factual evidence says that the Earth has just finished experiencing a natural warming period that was very mild by historical context. As far as natural global warming goes, the maximum temperature experienced in 1998 was very low. However, that period has ended and the Earth has already started cooling, dramatically. There is a large body of evidence pointing to this.

Don't bother asking me for proof, I didn't ask anyone else for proof, I went out and read the scientific papers for myself. You can too.

_________________
AmigaOne XE 800Mhz/1024MB
Radeon 9200 128MB
160GB HD/2x 4GB HD
SII0680 PATA133
Audigy 2
3Com 100Mb PCI Card

@STRICQ

If I have time, I plan to write some articles here about the history of AGW to better understand and explain the HOW and the WHY we are where we are at the moment. No date, yet.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@STRICQ

Quote:

STRICQ wrote: IMNSHO, Man-Made Global Warming is nothing more than a Hoax put forth by people with an agenda. I have read many (so-called) scientific papers in support of AGW and have found them to be nothing more than alarmist theories where the facts don't back up their conclusions. In fact, most factual evidence says that the Earth has just finished experiencing a natural warming period that was very mild by historical context. As far as natural global warming goes, the maximum temperature experienced in 1998 was very low. However, that period has ended and the Earth has already started cooling, dramatically. There is a large body of evidence pointing to this. Don't bother asking me for proof, I didn't ask anyone else for proof, I went out and read the scientific papers for myself. You can too.

You are lucky to be educated and have time enough to dig into the mountain of (not so)scientific papers and find a way to have an opinion about AGW. Most quidam can't.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@STRICQ

Quote:

put forth by people with an agenda.

Yes, it all comes back to $$ one way or another. More cash for studies or action.

Like this story: China dams reveal flaws in climate-change weapon

Link to the full story

Quote:

XIAOXI, China – The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative "carbon credits" into the pockets of Chinese developers.

Quote:

Those ideals produced the Clean Development Mechanism as a market-based tool under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to combat climate change. The CDM allows industrial nations, required by Kyoto to reduce emissions of gases blamed for global warming, to comply by paying developing nations to cut their emissions instead.

Quote:

Companies thousands of miles away, such as Germany's coal-burning, carbon dioxide-spewing RWE electric utility, accomplish this by buying carbon credits the U.N. issues to clean-energy projects like Xiaoxi's. The proceeds are meant to make such projects more financially feasible.

Isn't China a major mess with new Coal burning plants going up each week?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

"Correlation demonstrated between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere" can be found here.

Dammy

Last edited by damocles on 26-Jan-2009 at 11:23 AM.

_________________
Dammy

@Interesting

Quote:

Isn't China a major mess with new Coal burning plants going up each week?

They use the technology(ies) available to them. Do you attempt to refuse them the right to create and use low cost energy? While the Occident kills its economy with taxes/cap&trades on carbon emissions (Kyoto costs in 2005: 50 billions $, 75 billions $ projected in 2008), China moves on and increases its economy.

It is not their fault if the Clinton's administration had withdrawn a promising nuclear power plant design (IFR* was invented at Argonne National Lab. some 24 years ago) because he thought USA did not need it. IFR is more than a concept: it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFR has the following advantages over current technologies:

1. It can be fueled entirely with material recovered from today's used nuclear fuel.
2. It consumes virtually all the long-lived radioactive isotopes that worry people who are concerned about the "nuclear waste problem," reducing the needed isolation time to less than 500 years.
3. It could provide all the energy needed for centuries (perhaps as many as 50,000 years), feeding only on the uranium that has already been mined
4. It uses uranium resources with 100 to 300 times the efficiency of today's reactors.
5. It does not require enrichment of uranium.
6. It has less proliferation potential than the reprocessing method now used in several countries.
7. It's 24x7 baseline power
8. It can be built anywhere there is water
9. The power is very inexpensive (some estimates are as low as 2-3 cents/kWh to produce)
10. Safe from melt down because if something goes wrong, the reactor naturally shuts down rather than blows up
11. And, of course, it emits no GHG**.

Even J. Hansen (NASA GISS global warmist) believes it is an essential technology (to reduce GHG**).

The energy crisis is not a crisis due to energy, but to political (non-)decision(s) based on scientific fallacies: one the biggest being that oil/fuel/petroleum have a fossil origin (supported by Big Oils) ie are assumed to be in limited/finite quantities. Russian science knows since half a century that oil comes from and is renewed in deep abiotic/abiogenic origins, under the Earth mantle. It is quite understandable why this modern science (that oil/petroleum is a naturally renewable energy) is, politically-speaking, an abomination for everybody ranging from eco-terrorists to Big Oils and governments, and is therefore not known/learn in our so-called developed/modern countries

*IFR: Integral Fast Reactor
**GHG: greenhouse gaz(es)

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 26-Jan-2009 at 08:57 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 26-Jan-2009 at 08:56 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 26-Jan-2009 at 08:53 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".