@TMTisFree

Quote:

Just for fun, the Vostock data are from:

That is more like it. When we have some bad weather I will look further into it.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The reality: 1% difference between 1979 and 2009

This graph clearly shows more than a 1% change.

Here's another link at the same source as you used. 1979-end here is roughly a 30+% change. Here's another link where we see a significantly larger change than 1%. And another in clear dispute of your 1% change.

One of my questions is not only how did the area change by 30-40% (not 1%) but how has the volume changed. The volume isn't measured really well. Subs measured 3-5' of thickness in areas now measure 1-2' in thickness. Now ice can float and move about so one would have to get a good sample in various areas. There was an ICE SAT satellite which has some preliminary data late last year. Early signs are much much more than 1% change has taken place. It'll be interesting to view this data and analysis when they become available. They might be I just haven't found it yet.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The 'back-of-the-envelop' modellers now need to return to their computers and do real science

An interesting quote, coming from someone who proudly presented a calculation predicting a 15 micrometer wave to have an average travel distance of 10 attometres before being absorbed by a gas made up from 330 picometre sized molecules spaced on average 400 nanometres apart. Extra points for dropping ten orders of magnitude without noticing it.... And just in case you are wondering, I *did* use the back of an envelope to verify and correct your calculation :)



As for this lovely "theory" (or, as the man himself puts it, the "irrefutable proof") --- come on, even someone with blinders your size must spot the obvious signs of kookiness!

For starters, look at the diagram you posted. Or, for better clarity, look at the one in the original "paper" which has the -LOD shifted by 6 years. Now look at the time from 1950 onwards (the only time we actually have halfway decent measurements of -LOD). Then it becomes quite clear that -LOD as a predictor of dT is laughable.

Furthermore, look at your own graph. You will see that around 1985, -LOD started a decade-long, steep decline. Yet if you view the dT graph, the "corresponding" decline is MIA. What's worse, from 1995 to 2003/4, there was a large, steep *increase* in -LOD (the start of which is visible on your graph --- why Dr. Loebert in 2008 chose to stop his graphs at 2000 is just one of those mysteries that a critical mind should ponder upon...). So if the hypothesis was right, there would be a massive increase in dT just to the right of your graph.

But let's delve a little deeper. Let's look at more fundamental issues. For starters, Dr. Loebert's "paper" is nothing but an essay, self-published on the web. It has not passed peer review. It has not even, to the best of anyone's knowledge, been submitted to peer review.

The "paper" is making use of two data sets. It provides sources for neither. The -LOD one may conceivably be derived from
the IERS data, but if so, the "detrending" applied has done rather nasty things in some places. The dT dataset is a complete mystery, and its similarity to the data available from the NOAA is at best passing.

No other references are provided, either --- not even for that Seaon Theory, which is supposedly explaining how all those mysterious micro gravity waves cause all sorts of effects both on the sun and on earth. Which is a fun one in itself, seeing as Dr. Loebert claims (in proud bold typeface) that "General Relativity must be discarded", and that a single (rather questionable) correlation between two aspects of the same extremely complex physical system does provide "irrefutable evidence for the existence of [a] super-Einsteinian wave type". Wow!

But the coup de grace really comes when you look closely at the labelling on the Y axes of the graph. Note the "detrended"? When one compares the NOAA's non-detrended temperature data to this "detrended" set, one finds, to one's enormous surprise, that in the 1975 onwards timeframe, the detrending removed a trend. A trend of steady increase, in fact. Guess what --- that steady increase is *exactly* the trend that is commonly referred to as "global warming". And strangely enough, the trend removed from the -LOD is, if anything, opposite.

So, Dr. Loebert, after noticing a (questionable) correlation between short term variations in length-of-day and some unknown temperature data set not only falls into the "correlation is causation" trap, but also into the "explaining away short term variations somehow removes the need to explain long term trends" trap.

Call me a cynic, but all Dr. Loebert has achieved is making me a tad more nervous next time I fly in an Airbus plane...

Last edited by umisef on 17-Mar-2009 at 02:24 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A gathering of scientists and researchers has resolved nothing of the politics of climate change. But then why should it? All that can be told, ??and certainly should be told, ??is that climate change brings new and changed risks, that these risks can have a range of significant implications under different conditions, that there is an array of political considerations to be taken into account when judging what needs to be done, and there are a portfolio of powerful, but somewhat untested, policy measures that could be tried.

Thanks for passing on this interesting letter. I note it was called a congress, not a conference. There is quite a difference. Having participated in various capacities in these sort of things in the past (rather different issues and smaller numbers) including writing reports and talking to the media I am somewhat aware of the difficulties in coming up with something unanimous and don't really expect it to be achieved.

The larger report delivered in June I expect to be far more diverse and interesting.

And of course this congress was convened with a political objective: to bring to political attention studies delivered since the IPCC without the constraints of political oversite, if I can represent it so, in advance of the political conference at Copenhagen later in the year. This much would have been obvious to anyone and probably accounts for the considerable attendance.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

... just a pretext to support a political goal based on an erroneous hypothesis .... It will take probably some time because the science is currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology

This is what irritates me. The entanglement of politics and science. I can understand debating the Iraq War, or the massive Wall Street bailout - those are purely human-manufactured, political issues. But since when did questions of science become political footballs? And something politicians and forum pundits felt qualified to weight in on.

Global Warming is not a matter up for "debate" amongst parlor talking, psuedo-scientists or politicians that don't know what they're talking about. It is either scientific fact or fallacy, and only the scientific method has any hope of establishing which. But either way, I think we must answer the question, don't you?

Quote:

it seems to be a cut&paste from the UnRealclimate buffons. What Vostock ice cores have to do with that? Your hate is dominating your reason. You are seriously ridiculing yourself here

Actually, you seem awfully political in your "opinion" on Global Warming. I don't know why else you'd take such a defensive stance.

Should people agree with your analysis, because they'd be "seriously ridiculing" themselves to do otherwise? Should scientist stop wasting their time investigating a dead-end?

Last edited by jingof on 17-Mar-2009 at 05:15 AM.
Last edited by jingof on 17-Mar-2009 at 05:02 AM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@umisef

Quote:

An interesting quote, coming from someone who proudly presented a calculation predicting a 15 micrometer wave to have an average travel distance of 10 attometres before being absorbed by a gas made up from 330 picometre sized molecules spaced on average 400 nanometres apart. Extra points for dropping ten orders of magnitude without noticing it.... And just in case you are wondering, I *did* use the back of an envelope to verify and correct your calculation :)

This explains your ability to not understand then.

Quote:

For starters, Dr. Loebert's "paper" is nothing but an essay, self-published on the web. It has not passed peer review. It has not even, to the best of anyone's knowledge, been submitted to peer review.

I was waiting for BrianK for this easy response (that is when one has no argument), but I believe being caught before with the G&T paper he is more cautious now...

About your critic: fine, but given your track record not understanding (not reading?) the paper by Dr Nicol about the 'approximation' he has done to have a feeling of the problem (see above, and that I have 'regurgitated' in this thread), I will take it (your critic) with a full load of grains of salt.

Edit: added some more words

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Mar-2009 at 09:15 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Mar-2009 at 07:11 AM.

_________________
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

Different data.

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".

@jingof

Quote:

Actually, you seem awfully political in your "opinion" on Global Warming. I don't know why else you'd take such a defensive stance. Should people agree with your analysis, because they'd be "seriously ridiculing" themselves to do otherwise? Should scientist stop wasting their time investigating a dead-end?

It was in response to this reply by NoelFuller: Quote:

Not sourced but obviously cherry picked, massaged and misrepresented by heartland et al in their service to big oil and coal and their political campaign.

to my previous post which contains essentially plots: Quote:

Temperatures from ice cores.

Data temperatures from Vostok's ice cores are apolitical and public. My post was aimed to support Skyraker ones and had nothing to do with the Heartland's conference or any NoelFuller post. I maintain he was ridiculous to politicize ice cores data that are widely accepted by *the whole* scientific community.

To your last question, the response is obviously no.

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".

@NoelFuller

Except that the final conference statement has nothing to do with Science and the scientists participating at the congress. I guess no one has requested their opinion on the matter. Where are the scientific reports/results presented where is the list of scientists supporting the political press release?

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Mar-2009 at 09:25 AM.

_________________
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".

@TMTiFree
Quote:

Different Data

Really now? Okay the posts, unrelated to your site, used data from satellites from 1979 - current. This IS the most accurate way we have to read the area of ice in the arctic. If your original graph isn't using the most accurate data, satellites, then what data is it using?


@jingof
Quote:

This is what irritates me. The entanglement of politics and science. I can understand debating the Iraq War, or the massive Wall Street bailout - those are purely human-manufactured, political issues. But since when did questions of science become political footballs? And something politicians and forum pundits felt qualified to weight in on.

Nearly everything man does is intertwined in politics. There are numerous examples of this in science. Read about Einstein's theories and the fighting. Read about Semmelweiss and the advent of Germ Theory. For an example about 50 years ago look at Plate Techtonics. For something else political today check out evolution vs Intelligent Design.

@BrianK

Quote:

Really now? Okay the posts, unrelated to your site, used data from satellites from 1979 - current. This IS the most accurate way we have to read the area of ice in the arctic. If your original graph isn't using the most accurate data, satellites, then what data is it using?

Mine is the last 'realtime' data (Cryosphere) and is the sum of both Artic and Antartica. Some of your plots have different dates [different beginnings=not satellite based and ends, different baselines], and/or are just Artic or Antartica.

Edit: IIRC the lower I checked since January was 1% on this site; unfortunately there is no history in there. The difference was/is usually under 10% since then, depending on the week. Below is the statement issued by Cryosphere about sea ice area early 2009 (no precise date): Quote:

"Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction."

Source (PDF)

Btw I already discussed this subject in this post. You are really turning in circle with a few hundred posts diameter.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Mar-2009 at 06:06 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".

@BrianK

Quote:

Nearly everything man does is intertwined in politics. There are numerous examples of this in science. Read about Einstein's theories and the fighting. Read about Semmelweiss and the advent of Germ Theory. For an example about 50 years ago look at Plate Techtonics. For something else political today check out evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Yes, I knew someone would point this out and I'm well aware of these facts. Historically, religion has also frequently inserted into matters of science as well. All this is well known.

We as a society think we've advanced beyond the middle ages where the Catholic Church held scientist back from concluding that the sun was at the center of our solar system, not the earth. Yet, every time scientist take on a question with broad implications we're right back to politicians and/or theologians telling scientists where they're wrong.

My point is not that it doesn't happen, but rather that never has the politician been correct and the scientific community wrong. And yet here we go again.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@jingof

No BigC around? I have a good picture to illustrate your point about Catholic Church and Science:



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:

I maintain he was ridiculous to politicize ice cores data that are widely accepted by *the whole* scientific community.

You seem to be very selective about which conclusions you'll believe, where "the whole scientific community" accepts.

For example, according to a January 19, 2009 survey by UIC, 90% of climatologist believe the earth is warming and 82% believe humans are contributing to the effect:

http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/newsbureau/cgi-bin/index.cgi?from=Releases&to=Release&id=2389&fromhome=1

Sure, you can explain it away (as you have) by saying "these scientists are protecting their funding", but that attitude could be used to explain away every scientific advance in history. They were all funded at some point. Funding concerns do not invalidate scientific consensus.

So, if you'll believe one scientific consensus, why not the other?

And if you believe 90% of climatologists are wrong about their own field of expertise, how is it that you are so qualified to pass such a judgement?

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@jingof

Quote:

You seem to be very selective about which conclusions you'll believe, where "the whole scientific community" accepts.

The "whole scientific community" was about the ridiculous politicization of the Vostok ice cores data. Why putting my words out of its context and generalizing?

Quote:

scientific consensus

These two words are self contradictory.

Quote:

So, if you'll believe one scientific consensus, why not the other?

I do not believe in anything. I am convinced or not. I am convinced that the ice cores are apolitical, public and accepted as reliable data. Now you can say that scientists have a consensus on that data if you want, but this is just *your own* judgement, not mine.

Quote:

And if you believe 90% of climatologists are wrong about their own field of expertise, how is it that you are so qualified to pass such a judgement?

It is so easy to manipulate such 'survey' that I will not lose my time commenting on. Ask BrianK for that.

You keep repeating the word 'belief/believe'. Belief is for religious zealots or politics not for scientists.

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: scientific consensus These two words are self contradictory.

Umm... okay.. _You_ phrased it "are widely accepted by *the whole* scientific community". Maybe "widely accepted" would be more accepted to you?

Quote:

Quote: So, if you'll believe one scientific consensus, why not the other? I do not believe in anything. I am convinced or not. I am convinced that the ice cores are apolitical, public and accepted as reliable data. Now you can say that scientists have a consensus on that data if you want, but this is just *your own* judgement, not mine.

What!? You don't "believe in anything". Are you related to Bill Clinton? Do you know what the meaning of "is is"? Anyway, what do you think is the difference between a "belief" and a "conviction"?

Anyway, nice attempt at deflecting and avoiding a difficult question you can't answer.

Quote:

Belief is for religious zealots or politics not for scientists

Umm.... I think you've confused the words "faith" and "belief". If I'd used the word "faith", I'd agree with you. But one can "believe" something based upon a preponderance of the evidence, without being labeled a "religious zealot".

Quote:

Belief is for religious zealots or politics not for scientists

Not for scientists? You almost sound like you are including yourself in that company. Unless you are a climatologist, all you have is your "belief" because you lack the qualifications to extol it as anything more.

Quote:

Now you can say that scientists have a consensus on that data if you want, but this is just *your own* judgement, not mine.

It is not *my own* judgement. I have not personally conducting any sampling of scientific opinion, and cannot conclusively attest to the accuracy of any surveys I've seen. To a big degree, _we are all_ at the mercy of journalists, scientists and politicians to show a certain degree of accuracy, professionalism and honesty. And sometimes they disappoint. However, I am far from convinced that we must throw out the entire journalistic, scientific and political processes and disbelieve everything because *sometimes* there is manipulation. I think that is far to cynical an attitude to take that ultimately forces one into the unproductive corner of accepting only their own uncertainty and pessimism, over anything they see or read.

Quote:

It is so easy to manipulate such 'survey' that I will not lose my time commenting on. Ask BrianK for that.

Do you really think that of 3,146 scientists surveyed, the UIC can manipulate 90% of those scientists into communicating something they don't intend?

Or perhaps you think the scientists are doing the manipulating? Why? To secure fraudulent funding? Personally, I don't buy it.
I think these scientists are too smart to allow themselves to be manipulated like that, and don't believe a majority of scientist have to fraud their way into gainful employment.

Or perhaps you believe the UIC pre-screened the scientists involved in the survey to support their own agenda? If so, where is your survey of 3,000+ scientists and climatologists showing 90% with the opposing conclusion? Or do you believe their need for fraudulent funding would preclude such a counterpoint?

By your logic, no survey of scientists can ever be trusted under any circumstance. Oh, unless someone you trust conducted the survey, in which case, others won't trust it! If we can't trust scientists, whether queried one at a time or as a group, because "maybe they'll be manipulated", then what use are they? I'm mean, we aren't going to believe them anyway, right?

Quote:

he was ridiculous to politicize ice cores data that are widely accepted by *the whole* scientific community The "whole scientific community" was about the ridiculous politicization of the Vostok ice cores data. Why putting my words out of its context and generalizing?

You're missing the point. The point is, you can't site "scientific consensus" when it suits you and dismiss scientific consensus when it doesn't. This is a context-neutral point, so don't tell me I'm quoting you out of context or generalizing.

Besides, how do you know it is "widely accepted by the whole scientific community"? I mean, you are they one calling all surveys into question right!

So, you finally found a survey of "widely accepted" that you'll subscribe too? Why, because this survey happens to support your conclusion, therefore, it must be right?

My underlying point is, being an Amiga enthusiast doesn't qualify *any* of us to be so damn convinced that we know better than scientists who've spent their careers researching the topic.

Last edited by jingof on 18-Mar-2009 at 02:38 AM.
Last edited by jingof on 17-Mar-2009 at 10:39 PM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Then I found that facts presented as evidences by All Gone was in fact lies at best

be nice to Al Hore

Quote:

scientific frauds at worst.

I prefer the term "junk science"

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

@TMTisFree

Quote:

was waiting for BrianK for this easy response (that is when one has no argument), but I believe being caught before with the G&T paper he is more cautious now...

I'm happy for, as you say, G&P. Now that their paper is published I expect to see it shot down in consquence articles. Though I suspect it will simply be left to wither on the vine.

Quote:

Below is the statement issued by Cryosphere about sea ice area early 2009

From your same site "The largest change (in the Arctic) has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%"-- But you claimed 1%? Upping your factor 10 fold to now claim 10% is an improvement. (NOTE: Interesting to see you posting info from contributors to the IPCC congrats! The Cult of Gaia is taking over your mind with their lasers. Time to go buy some more tinfoil. )

Perhaps you got the 1% figure confused? If you view the previous link from me and go to the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent you'll see approx. 1 std. deviation of increase for Antarctica.

Quote:

I maintain he was ridiculous to politicize ice cores data that are widely accepted by *the whole* scientific community.

We see this all the time. Your widely accepted Vostok Ice Core Show a close coorelation to CO2 and methane levels. Yet we see some anti-gws claim no such coorelation ever existed. Amazing how political.

@jingof

Quote:

Historically, religion has also frequently inserted into matters of science as well

Religion has also, historically, been one of the largest political powers. Even today we see Presidents meeting with the Pope who "politically" is only in charge of Vatican City.

Quote:

Yet, every time scientist take on a question with broad implications we're right back to politicians and/or theologians telling scientists where they're wrong

Indeed we need statesmen to respond to these issues. They are early on few but they frequently do come around. Take for example Catholic Church which at one time forbade doctors from operations. During this era medicine advanced under Islam. Islam supported opening up the body for operations. Eventually the Catholics got it.

Quote:

but rather that never has the politician been correct and the scientific community wrong

Well not true. One example of the above is where the religion, Islam, and the scientific community were both correct and on the same page.

One issue I can see science and religion will soon come to another fight is that of the nature of duality. There simply is no scientific evidence for duality. I wonder if the church will give it up and revert to their original belief system?


BTW -- good luck convincing TMTiFree that 'consensus' means majority opinion.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

I've got $20 against. Now all I need is a global warming bookie.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 18-Mar-2009 at 02:43 AM.