@BrianK

Quote:

A recent paper concludes the UN costs are 2-3x too low And the climate could be even worse LINK

Do you suggest the opinion of a former co-chair of the IPCC and the bold claim by an unnamed journalist really matter? There are too many 'scientific politicians' out there to take them seriously. It reminds me the previous Global Humanitarian Forum 'report' (May 2009) which was demonstrated to be a methodological embarrassment and a poster child for how to lie with statistics. Nothing to do with Science, only political ammunitions for Copenhagen 2009.

Quote:

Another study indicates GHG change 2000 Arctic cooling trend

Already reported by Fuller here and replied to here.

Edit: added a sentence

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Sep-2009 at 08:49 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".

On Climate prediction

It seems the world meteorological service, on Sept 4, during its Geneva Conference, agreed to work up a climate prediction service - this depends on refining modelling down to 10 km blocks or something small enough scale to be meaningful at a local level. Only Nature seems to be carrying the story over this weekend and their stories vanish from the freelist quickly so see here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090904/full/news.2009.886.html

Noel

@NoelFuller

Some climate models are already down to a 5x5 km grid. But this is not enough to render the small-scale processes (clouds, turbulent movements, albedo and water variations, etc) and output enhanced local predictions at short term. Until sub-km resolution (say 50-100m) is reach (ie correct equations [and not parametrizations or lookup tables] are used and computing power is exponentially increased), expect no useful local short term prediction (in climate or weather). Not to speak about long term predictions which are bound to failed. This is why it is funny to read how some well-known alarmist scientists are reacting when their predictive monopoly business is projected to escape them (together with the funds of course).

BrianK should note (in reference to the discussion about model long term predictability skill) the following claims:
1/ "People are experimenting in lots of different ways to improve seasonal to decadal predictions but there's no guarantee that it will be possible," says Gavin Schmidt (GISS, USA) ;
2/ "In 10-15 years we may have climate forecasts like we now have weather forecasts," says Guy Brasseur (NCAR, USA) ;
3/ "We'll never be able to produce absolute predictions of what will happen," says Vicky Pope (MET, UK) ;
4/ "We are nervous about the uncertainties and errors associated with the models we are using — and that needs to be part of the message that gets out with climate services," adds Gerald Meehl (NCAR, USA).

Let not forget the following recent claims at the 3rd World Climate Conference:
5/ "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, UK) ;
6/ "[We] have to ask the nasty questions [about the reliability of model forecasts] ourselves or other people will do it." says Mojib Latif (IPCC author, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany). A funny comment by Dr Lindzen Quote:

"Lateef is actually one of the better ocean modelers. However, he used to be all over the German media proclaiming that models were perfect, and should be used to determine policy. When someone responded that since the models were perfect, there was no need for more funding, Lateef developed a deeper appreciation for the model shortcomings. I suppose that there is a lesson here someplace."

Strangely enough, none of these authors (and consequently the climate models they run for submission and inclusion into IPCC's report) did discuss such important caveats in their papers. I am waiting to read such more balanced and realistic discussion in upcoming works.

Edit: breaking the whole § in 3 for readability
Edit2: grammar
Edit3: added a link
Edit4: added Dr Lindzen quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Sep-2009 at 04:27 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Sep-2009 at 02:58 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Sep-2009 at 02:36 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Sep-2009 at 02:07 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".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

BrianK should note in reference to the discussion about model long term predictability skill: 1/ "People are experimenting in lots of different ways to improve seasonal to decadal predictions but there's no guarantee that it will be possible," says Gavin Schmidt (GISS) ; 2/ "In 10-15 years we may have climate forecasts like we now have weather forecasts," says Guy Brasseur (NCAR) ; 3/ "We'll never be able to produce absolute predictions of what will happen," says Vicky Pope (MET) ; 4/ "We are nervous about the uncertainties and errors associated with the models we are using — and that needs to be part of the message that gets out with climate services," adds Gerald Meehl (NCAR

1 & 2) Science is alwayas working to improve itself. These are but questions of resolution. Today we predict summer of 2100 will be at least 1.5 and as high as 6 degrees warmer than that of 2000. It'd be better to have a resolution where we can tell you June 1, 2100 will be 81 degrees at 4PM. However, this doesn't mean the predictions are useless.

3) Correct. I've already commented though on how we can predict when and that water will boil even if we can't predict the exact temp in this 1cmx1cm section will be in 20 seconds.

4) I'd agree more press needs to get out on this. The certainities in the predictions are high, if I recall correctly about 90%. However, we see various people treating these items as exact predictions. All the time from both camps we see things such as temperatures but failures to show the certainity with error bars. Take for example the WMP. I've seen someone here claim this period exists but can't tell us when it started or ended. Lots of error in there. And the WMP itself has error bars. Often anti-GW cherry pick the top end so they can claim it was hotter than today.

@BrianK

Quote:

Science is alwayas working to improve itself.

An oxymoron. I am not speaking of Science correcting itself in the long term run, but of scientists who deliberately mislead (lying by/of omissions, not correcting the MSM exaggerations) about their models' predictability and the resulting perfection:
1/ deceptively perceived by laymen ;
2/ conveniently used by politicians and eco-fascists against 1/.

Quote:

However, this doesn't mean the predictions are useless.

It rings alarms when someone is trying to sell such non sense at large scale: how a 2100 prediction could be anything than useless when at the same time model near and mid term predictions are regarded as unreliable by modellers themselves. It defies common sense and can not be accepted without heavy scientific arguments: there are none in scientific literature. Quite the contrary in fact.

Quote:

The certainities in the predictions are high, if I recall correctly about 90%.

I agree the certainty this claim is funny but ridiculous is nearing absoluteness: it is not prediction, it is divination art towered as scientific truth by some self proclaimed computer wizards. The certainty scale invented by IPCC is just bare assumption and is not related to statistical calculations in any way. It recalls me of Mann's claim about the 95 or 99% certainty of year 1998 being the hottest year in record (another gross failure of the HS affair).

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:

Another study indicates GHG change 2000 Arctic cooling trend Already reported by Fuller here and replied to here.

Replied? ahem . . .

One of the advantages of living underground, prefered by goblins, and Australians at Opal Ridge, is a trendless thermal existence. it takes very little to maintain a comfortable 20°C year round despite the worst the weather and climate can do above ground. Climate adaptation hint to aussies surrounded by eucalyptus trees. Californians, Italians and Greeks take note as well.

Of couse, as you were aware, underground living can result in some confusion of days and years for instance, and I add, a righteous incomprehension of temperature data . They do so love to tap away at the rocks in their data mines, carefully removing global warming trends.

I was somewhat bemused at the way the goblin who launched the thread you linked, slayed the 30 participants in the investigation with all the slander typically reserved for Michael Mann, finding so much error in the study the day before it was actually published. Of course a properly refereed paper in reply will be necessary. He seems to believe that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present, 1940 was as warm as now (a black lie) and the rise in arctic temperatures reported by so many research teams is purely the product of models - forget observations. Why don't I believe him?

Of course these beliefs are articles of faith. They must be true so everything else must follow - a foolish consistency - "the hobgoblin of small minds" according to Emmerson. So let's imagine they are true, choke!

. . . then the vikings poured through the Bering Strait during the MWP, no doubt on their way to New Zealand - see Patupaiarehe

. . . and the Arctic continental shelf bubbled away a sufficient portion of methane from its methane hydrates to leave us with a mere 2500 GT , bubbling now, and ensure that the little ice age never happened - see WWF report on Arctic Climate Feedbacks, last chapter.

Oh! and the iceman decomposed and was never discovered in our time. Of course the MWP CO2 record shows nothing like current levels, so necessarily the goblins conclude CO2 to be irrelevant . What bliss to live in the caves of ignorance!

No, I don't believe any goblins.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Do you mean

I think I made it quite clear what I meant, but apparently not. So maybe a bit blunter:

Anyone who attributes any significance to the fact that the temperature of melting snow has not changed over the last thirty years is either a charlatan, or an idiot. Take your pick.

What do *you* think the temperature of melting snow was during that Medieval Warm Period you are so excited about? Think it might havebeen, uh, 273.15 Kelvin, roughly?

@umisef

My question was rhetorical only and to be understood as an helping response to you, relative to your off topic verbiage (who care about melting point, really). You don't seem too bright to have miss it at first and continuing here. Even a sophomore knows how to extract useful information from a plot (animated or not).

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:

(who care about melting point, really).

Uh, maybe someone who suggests that looking at the surface temperature of a large mass of frozen water during the melting season would be well advised to consider the melting point.

You didn't answer my question, I notice --- do *you* believe that "the top of the line, above the melting line" would have looked different during that treasured MWP?

Oh, and I find your claim to have satellite temperature data for N80+ starting in 1958 somewhat, uhm, less than credible (Sputnik went up in 1957, and all it did was beep).
Turns out your graphs are from the Danish Centre for Ocean and Ice. Don't you love the idea that this data comes out of models --- and not even the same models for the whole range of years?

On their "Arctic" page, those people have the following to say (translation courtesy of Google):
Quote:

Since the 1970s, have proven satellites that can measure the distribution of sea ice. Therefore, we know with certainty that today is considerably less sea ice in the northern hemisphere than 35 years ago. Over the past approx. 10 years is melting accelerated, especially below the minimum spread in September, one can observe large changes. Overall, the ice in the Arctic Ocean has never been thinner and more vulnerable than now.

So when the very source of your supposedly "no change" data states that "the ice in the Arctic Ocean has never been thinner and more vulnerable than now", then you must forgive me for putting more trust in the scientists' interpretation than in that of one self-styled "former scientist".

(Oh, and Chicago Manual of Style 7.56 quite explicitly says “Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. ibid, et al., ca., passim.”)

Last edited by umisef on 06-Sep-2009 at 05:24 PM.

@NoelFuller

Your art of prose is appreciated but in no way excuses the various 'problems' discovered at first sight in this AHS (Artic Hockey Stick) paper (for a reminder, it follows a Mann's 2009 HHS [Hurricanes Hockey Stick] paper, a Mann's 2008 'reworked' HS paper and the original Mann's 1998 HS paper). Methodologies have not been corrected much despite pointed statistical malpractices and errors and data were as carefully chosen as they have to be to support the preconceived conclusion the author projected.

Quote:

"Scientific work, unless accurately done, had better not be done at all."

And Quote:

"Preconceived opinion is the pretended assumption by man of godly attributes which he does not possess."

- J. L. W. Thudichum

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".

@umisef

Quote:

Uh, maybe someone who suggests that looking at the surface temperature of a large mass of frozen water during the melting season would be well advised to consider the melting point.

My 'suggestion' to look above the melting line is to follow more easily the animation because the moving data, hum, do not move much here. Of course one has to look at the entire data set and compute an annual mean and get a trend over the period.

Quote:

You didn't answer my question, I notice --- do *you* believe that "the top of the line, above the melting line" would have looked different during that treasured MWP?

What is the relevance of discussing MWP temperature when the main claim of the study is that they "found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s"?

Quote:

(BTW, Chicago Manual of Style 7.56 quite explicitly says “Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. ibid, et al., ca., passim.”)

I don't know if the international norms (specifically ISO 690:1987 for bibliography in printed documents and ISO 690-2:1997 for bibliography in de-materialized [electronic] documents by the ISO Technical Comity 46) do specify italicizing for Latin locution in bibliographic references (the norms are not free btw), but usage requires it when writing scientific papers (I have). Mileage may vary here though.

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".

@umisef

Quote:

Don't you love the idea that this data comes out of models

I don't have to: the data (direct link in English here btw) do not come from models but from data reanalysis of many real world sources: see here or here (TOC here). Satellite data began in 1972 (1979 for SST). So one can safely say the plot I provide is mostly based on satellite data (31/52 years).

Quote:

the ice in the Arctic Ocean has never been thinner and more vulnerable than now

The relevance with the problem at hand (they "found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s") is pretty clear.

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

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
by Pr Richard S. Lindzen (MIT, USA)

  The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

  For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

  It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.

  According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2°C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008). Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

  Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

  In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake. With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

References cited:
Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937- 950.
Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.
Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-172
Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.
Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288
Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.

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".

@umisef

Quote:

Uh, maybe someone who suggests that looking at the surface temperature of a large mass of frozen water during the melting season would be well advised to consider the melting point.

Laugh! It did not escape me that the particular part of the arctic refered to includes most of the remainder of the once more extensive and much thicker multi-year ice, plus the tiniest and least attractive bit of Greenland. The animation is created from graphs "extracted" by the same goblin I have previously referred to :) It inspires a DSI error every time I open that page in OWB but not in IBrowse.

Noel

@Dandy

Quote:

You mean antarctic lakes, don't you? (As there is no land below the ice at the north pole to carry lakes - just the artic ocean)

By now you have probably checked and seen a summer picture of one such lake heading up the articles at the links I gave. Arctic is here applied to the whole area within the Arctic circle so our lakes are found throughout the region.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Yet another Lindzen lullabye.
Quote:

. . . one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm . . .

For a gut wrenching experience should you dare:

Go to this address: http://www.wwf.org.nz/what_we_do/climate_change/latest_climate_science/
Download the full report (previously referred to but not linked), read from page 81 on methane, then reconsider the first chapter (P17) in the light of that information.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: So this "almost infinite solution for energy" ended before having started at all... ... This one (PDF) lists, at chapter 2.4, the nuclear technology options for the future: like it or not, ...

They have been built here in the past - so why not in the future in the US - but in the foreseeable future they won't be built here - population and politicians don't want them (aside from some unconvincible diehards).

It was just last weekend that the german public stood up against nuclear power once more:
Thousands in Berlin to Protest Nuclear Energy

_________________
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)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

y 'suggestion' to look above the melting line is to follow more easily the animation because the moving data, hum, do not move much here.

The fact that you think this is in any way remarkable still says more about you than about temperature...

Quote:

Of course one has to look at the entire data set and compute an annual mean and get a trend over the period.

If one has to do so, would I be correct in assuming that one has done so?

If so, why would one then post the animated gif and direct the viewers attention towards the (obviously) unmoving temperature of melting ice, rather than post a graph of the trend one obtained by doing so?

Or could there be some significance to the sudden use of "one"? Just a guess, here...

Quote:

italicizing for Latin locution

Oh, in general, text in a separate language is to be italicized. However, several common Latin terms and abbreviations are so much part of English that they get their own little rule overriding the general rule.
BTW, I am glad you learned something, judging by the non-italicized use of "et al." in your latest document dump :)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action by Pr Richard S. Lindzen (MIT, USA)

First paragraph is the standard ad hominem and misrepesentation of the pro-GW science.

The rest I find you can't possibly agree with. Paragraph 2 tells us how he's making predictions. You've told us the system is chaotic and unpredictable. The next few paragraphs talk about CO2's Greenhouse gases impact. Which you've told us that CO2 is not a GHG. In fact you've told us that Greenhouse Effects don't exist.

Not sure what you meant this paper to do. It clearly fails to support what you've explained your understanding of the science is.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Sep-2009 at 02:43 PM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Dandy Quote: You mean antarctic lakes, don't you? (As there is no land below the ice at the north pole to carry lakes - just the artic ocean) By now you have probably checked and seen a summer picture of one such lake heading up the articles at the links I gave. Arctic is here applied to the whole area within the Arctic circle so our lakes are found throughout the region.

Yeah - I walked into the trap.
I associated Antarctic with "South Pole" and Arctic with "North Pole" (and forgot about the rest)....

_________________
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)