[BartSimpson]

If you 'walk the tree' you can find a lot of images from this site.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/

[ASLplease]

what does an average of collected temperatures represent?

If I put 12 thermometers in my house and start taking averages from them.....sure, they will represent something, and they certaining wont represent other things.

Does anyone out there really think that Toronto's temperature averaged with San Francisco and Rome is really going to produce a meaningful number? adding another 6000 locations miraculously makes it mean something?

Furthermore, if we continue to trend a useless number, then wouldn't we be analysing an inaccurate trend?

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Interesting. These two pictures that are supposedly forming the same data set (for June) don't match.

I doubt you are qualified to make that statement. Needless to say one isn't an overlay of the other. You said you couldn't find NASA photos yet on the very site I posted they have just that.

You seem to be making the classical 3 arguments of AGW skeptics.

1) There is no warming.
2) OK, there is warming but its natural and not human caused.
3) OK, there is warming and we are causing it by it will just mean more summer days.

Your position has always been one of "hey its all going to be OK". That you are working so hard to prove there has been little warming over the past century seems to suggest you don't want to admit your position is in error.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

what does an average of collected temperatures represent?

If I put 12 thermometers in my house and start taking averages from them.....sure, they will represent something, and they certaining wont represent other things.

Does anyone out there really think that Toronto's temperature averaged with San Francisco and Rome is really going to produce a meaningful number? adding another 6000 locations miraculously makes it mean something?

Furthermore, if we continue to trend a useless number, then wouldn't we be analysing an inaccurate trend?

You do realize what "global temperature means" means right? Why is it that you guys simultaneously claim the data is flawed yet continue to believe it simply will not show an earth getting hotter? What theory and/or data are you basing that claim on? Wishful thinking?

[ASLplease]

I never said anything about NASA photos. geez!!! stop sipping from the cup of liberal disillusions .

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

I never said anything about NASA photos. geez!!! stop sipping from the cup of liberal disillusions .

Was talking to Bart. I hoped to get the post in before another post but then you showed up. I've fixed my post for proper reference. Sorry for the confusion.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You do realize what "global temperature means" means right?

Nothing.

Because the so-called averages are biased to however the scientists wish them to be.

Let's say they have 10,000 weather stations and those are concentrated (as they are) around the populated areas where people care about local weather. That means you're getting mostly urbanized temperature readings. And that makes a big damn difference.

Downtown Sacramento, for instance, has a bunch of stations (including one across the street from my office) and it's hot downtown right now. The temp is 102F.

At my house, about seven miles away, it's currently about 94F. This is typical that it's cooler at my house than here at the job...in an urban heat sink.

So if you get an 'average' of the weather stations for Sacramento it'll show that it's ridiculously hot today. And that often gets pushed as a regional thing.

Yet it'll be even hotter in Folsom by 1-2 degrees and cooler where I live by a typical 7-8 degrees.

Extrapolate that to a global level.

Weather stations are clustered around urban areas that have become MORE urban over the past century and, logically, those weather stations should show an increase in temp. But does that mean regional temps have gone up?

Nope.

And what's the deal with the Russian weather stations being excluded? It's because the vast majority of them show no marked change over the past century and bear in mind that the Russians (Soviets) were the first to maintain national weather data, long before the West got any good at it.

Sorry. AGW is not science.

[DerbyX]

HST1 HST1:

I remember reading a story released by the alarmist how the sea ice disappearance was going to eclipse all previous years . That was a week ago, as usual the alarmist ring the bell before the proof is in the pudding.

See the red line, the the day the story was released it crossed back over the green line.

Well there sunshine. Lets get a few things straight. Nothing alarmist about posting the facts. Hottest june on record - fact.

Next up, the 2007 data: The Arctic dipole anomaly

The record low ice extent of September 2007 was influenced by a persistent atmospheric pressure pattern called the summer Arctic dipole anomaly (DA). The DA features unusually high pressure centered over the northern Beaufort Sea and unusually low pressure centered over the Kara Sea, along the Eurasian coast. In accord with Buys Ballot's Law, this pattern causes winds to blow from the south along the Siberian coast, helping to push ice away from the coast and favoring strong melt. The DA pattern also promotes northerly winds in the Fram Strait region, helping to flush ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic. The DA pattern may also favor the import of warm ocean waters from the North Pacific that hastens ice melt.

June 2010 saw the return of the DA, but with the pressure centers shifted slightly compared to summer 2007. As a result, winds along the Siberian coastal sector are blowing more from the east rather than from the south. Whether or not the DA pattern persists through the rest of summer will bear strongly on whether a new record low in ice extent is set in September 2010.

Now lets deal with the same tired crap of making 2007 the gold standard (before it used to be 1997). As usual you guys point to the outlier and say "see, we are getting better". Bonafide experts (as well as anybody with decent stats skills) are looking at long term trends and data sets.



Notice the trend? We are all well aware the ice refreezes in the winter. So what? Do you know what an intermittent lake is? How about a flood plain? Think what affect on the ecosystem it would have if every year there was less water during the raining season. Might we reach a point where it destroys the life cycle of some organisms?

Understand?

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Might we reach a point where it destroys the life cycle of some organisms?

Whoopee doo. That's called natural selection.

On the other side of things is the fact that warmer climates mean more biomass on the planet - meaning warmer climates are better for living things. There's also the heretical Aussies who believe that the Great Barrier Reef is actually dependent on steadily rising seas over the past 20,000 years and that it would be threatened by a global cooling event that would lower sea levels and expose the corals to the air.

Fact: without global warming 99% of Canada would be under 2km of ice.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

what does an average of collected temperatures represent?

If I put 12 thermometers in my house and start taking averages from them.....sure, they will represent something, and they certaining wont represent other things.

Does anyone out there really think that Toronto's temperature averaged with San Francisco and Rome is really going to produce a meaningful number? adding another 6000 locations miraculously makes it mean something?

Furthermore, if we continue to trend a useless number, then wouldn't we be analysing an inaccurate trend?

You do realize what "global temperature means" means right? Why is it that you guys simultaneously claim the data is flawed yet continue to believe it simply will not show an earth getting hotter? What theory and/or data are you basing that claim on? Wishful thinking?

yes, I know the difference between a mean and an average. But both these can be created from any dataset.....tell me what would be the usefullness of trending the mean and average lottery number? I'm sure it has some value to some people But it wont predict the next lottery number.

in the case of weather stations, have you ever heard of thermal pooling? It would not surprise me if Calgary's weather stations are reading 1 deg higher than they were 10 years ago for no other reason than the bulk of the city is upwind, and Calgary has doubled in size.

Now one might defend the Calgary data and insist that its acuracy has been validated and possibilities like thermal pooling have been accounted for.....and I think you would be correct.

But what abut the thousands of other weather stations, have they been validated correctly?

Frankly, a .1 degree change in a trend may merely be a transistion from analog measuring devices to digital devices of the last 20-30 years.

...and what trend are we talking about? its not a trend in 'temperatures', its a trend in 'means' and 'averages'

so Derby I want answers, have you got them?

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You do realize what "global temperature means" means right?

Nothing.

Because the so-called averages are biased to however the scientists wish them to be.

Wrong. They are easily supported and independently verified which is why the high level of confidence among the experts. There is also the nagging supporting evidence of the arctic.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Let's say they have 10,000 weather stations and those are concentrated (as they are) around the populated areas where people care about local weather. That means you're getting mostly urbanized temperature readings. And that makes a big damn difference.

And yet they have oodles and oodles of data from rural areas. They specifically pick areas where there is a minimal of human interference, place like McMurdo. Then there are satellite data. Plenty of evidence which is again why there is a high level of support.

The same argument used to be made about CO2 readings, that is until irrefutable evidence from sources like Mauna Loa were used. Then they switched to the AGW denying game.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Downtown Sacramento, for instance, has a bunch of stations (including one across the street from my office) and it's hot downtown right now. The temp is 102F.

Again so what? They don't pick a few stations.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

At my house, about seven miles away, it's currently about 94F. This is typical that it's cooler at my house than here at the job...in an urban heat sink.

So if you get an 'average' of the weather stations for Sacramento it'll show that it's ridiculously hot today. And that often gets pushed as a regional thing.

Yet it'll be even hotter in Folsom by 1-2 degrees and cooler where I live by a typical 7-8 degrees.

Extrapolate that to a global level.

In other words you don't want to accept that the data shows its warming so you attack its validity without any true understanding of how it works. That smacks just like "creationist scientists" attacking carbon and radiometric data. Its all junk unless somebody dates a wooden cross to be 200 years old then its great evidence.

All you can really say with that opinion is you just don't know. For all you know the world is actually getting much hotter then we thought and the scientists have underestimated it because of false data.

Sorry but the data is solid. Your skepticism over it is based on emotion rather then evidence.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Weather stations are clustered around urban areas that have become MORE urban over the past century and, logically, those weather stations should show an increase in temp. But does that mean regional temps have gone up?

Nope.

Dealt with. They aren't using only the thermometers next to heating vents. Just for shits and giggles lets say the temps are up because of endogenous human heat production? Where do you think that heat is going? Would you support the theory that all our mechanical and chemical production of excess heat is causing the earth to heat up? Your own theory of the temp record supports it.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And what's the deal with the Russian weather stations being excluded? It's because the vast majority of them show no marked change over the past century and bear in mind that the Russians (Soviets) were the first to maintain national weather data, long before the West got any good at it.

Sorry. AGW is not science.

Its great science. It began with observations. Theories were produced. Evidence was collected and that evidence supported those theories. You are denying it the same way creationist deny the evidence surrounding evolution.

You don't want to believe it and don't understand the fundamental principles involved so you deny it.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Might we reach a point where it destroys the life cycle of some organisms?

Whoopee doo. That's called natural selection.

On the other side of things is the fact that warmer climates mean more biomass on the planet - meaning warmer climates are better for living things. There's also the heretical Aussies who believe that the Great Barrier Reef is actually dependent on steadily rising seas over the past 20,000 years and that it would be threatened by a global cooling event that would lower sea levels and expose the corals to the air.

Fact: without global warming 99% of Canada would be under 2km of ice.

So much is wrong with this I don't know to begin.

Its argument 3 BTW.

You have already argued 1) There is no warming.

This is 3) There is warming but it is all good warming.

You explaining ecosystems and their response to increased temperatures to me is like me explaining how to field strip an M16 to you.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Interesting. These two pictures that are supposedly forming the same data set (for June) don't match.

I doubt you are qualified to make that statement.

Sure I am. The two pictures don't match. Look at the Nares Strait on one and then the other. Are they the same? No.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

what does an average of collected temperatures represent?

If I put 12 thermometers in my house and start taking averages from them.....sure, they will represent something, and they certaining wont represent other things.

Does anyone out there really think that Toronto's temperature averaged with San Francisco and Rome is really going to produce a meaningful number? adding another 6000 locations miraculously makes it mean something?

Furthermore, if we continue to trend a useless number, then wouldn't we be analysing an inaccurate trend?

You do realize what "global temperature means" means right? Why is it that you guys simultaneously claim the data is flawed yet continue to believe it simply will not show an earth getting hotter? What theory and/or data are you basing that claim on? Wishful thinking?

yes, I know the difference between a mean and an average. But both these can be created from any dataset.....tell me what would be the usefullness of trending the mean and average lottery number? I'm sure it has some value to some people But it wont predict the next lottery number.

in the case of weather stations, have you ever heard of thermal pooling? It would not surprise me if Calgary's weather stations are reading 1 deg higher than they were 10 years ago for no other reason than the bulk of the city is upwind, and Calgary has doubled in size.

Now one might defend the Calgary data and insist that its acuracy has been validated and possibilities like thermal pooling have been accounted for.....and I think you would be correct.

But what abut the thousands of other weather stations, have they been validated correctly?

Frankly, a .1 degree change in a trend may merely be a transistion from analog measuring devices to digital devices of the last 20-30 years.

...and what trend are we talking about? its not a trend in 'temperatures', its a trend in 'means' and 'averages'

so Derby I want answers, have you got them?

Plenty. I'll again point out that bonafide experts have already dealt with this. They have the data showing that each decade has been hotter then the last for over 60 years. They have shown with statistics (and had their analysis verified by statisticians) that there is a clear upward trend in average temperatures. That means that over the period of a year places are getting hotter. Some might be cooler then last year but over all its getting hotter.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't want to believe it and don't understand the fundamental principles involved so you deny it.

For AGW to be 'science' the original data sets need to be made publicly available so sceptical computer geeks can embarrass NASA and James Hansen by proving how their 'adjustments' are BS...which happened once so now none of the AGW crowd releases raw data so other people can replicate their results.