Slashdot Mirror
Noctilucent Clouds Spread and Mystify
Wired has a feature on noctilucent clouds, once seen only at high latitudes but increasingly visible now lower down the globe. The clouds result from ice crystals at altitudes of 50 miles, higher than five 9s of the atmosphere. What water ice is doing up there, in a region 100 million times drier than the Sahara desert, is only one of the mysteries associated with the clouds. They are a recent phenomenon: the first scientific description of noctilucent clouds was penned in 1885. For a time it was believed that the clouds were an effect resulting from the eruption of the Krakatoa volcano two years before. Since 2002, the clouds have been sighted — and photographed — as far south as Oregon, Colorado, and Utah. Some scientists believe that human-caused climate change is playing a role, but others doubt this. Two satellites are in orbit to study the clouds; NASA's AIM generated this day-by-day movie of clouds in the vicinity of the North Pole during 2008.
Something else to handle the load of serving the movie:
http://drop.io/noctilucent
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
"What water ice is doing up there, in a region 100 million times drier than the Sahara desert"
Bloody well isn't dryer than Mars and Mars has clouds and precipitation.
Before the chemtrail conspiracists show up. Somebody break out the Orgone generators!
OH DEAR GOD! They're almost everywhere! I'm moving to Arizona... it's the only safe place left!
So stop messing around!
Global warming is supposed to make it hotter and wetter, not hotter and drier.
Or maybe its just natures way of countering global warming..... you know like how evaporation helps cool....
If the hot water vapor left the planet, then the planet would be cooler and we'd have a water shortage to deal with. Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This could be the missing phenomenon behind the ice age cycle. If so, we can forget about global warming -- we're on our way to reglaciation. It had to happen sooner or later.
Kinda disappointing that the first thing nowadays when people see something new it's that "Wow, humans really stuffed up the planet" instead of "Wow, that's an interesting natural phenomenon"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Doubtless this new phenomena creates a positive warming feedback as well (trapping MORE heat, reflecting cold, whatever.) Planet due to Venus itself in 10 years.
Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
You know, except for that whole sun thing.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
This is merely an ice crystal delivery system, to cool down the earth, for when global warming gets too, err, global?
Or, this is one giant meth lab?
Aren't comets and asteroids sometimes supposed to be made of ice?
Either that, or the anti-Global Warming agenda is going to be shown as a farce instituted by dogmatic opposition to anything that gets in the way of profits.
Jury's still out.
APOD story
I blame gays.
Aren't they caused by the space shuttle? I could swear there was an article a couple weeks ago on slashdot about it. Basically they found that they tend to form hours after the shuttle launch, particularly around Antarctica. The shuttle's boosters release X tons of water into the high atmosphere, at altitudes water can't regularly attain, which gets caught by high moving winds that drive it south, where they crystallize.
Interestingly enough we just had a shuttle launch just a couple days ago.
The clouds are caused by water condensing on space dust which has suddenly increased because it's the harbinger of the huge mountain of an asteroid that's aimed at us. Send royalties to... oh, right. I'll never get to spend it, even if I saw any.
Looks more like someone causing image-based words or letters to form in our upper atmosphere.
First they told me to fear the AIDS.
Then they told be to fear the hole in the ozone.
Now I have to fear the clouds?
Actually tracer clouds are the more rational explanation. Rahl's hand is in everything lately.
The striped nature of the cloud features is probably because the data was gathered by the DMSP Weather Satellites using their low light detection sensors. These do not take a full-earth view of the world as the sun-synchronous GOES satellites do. DMSP vehicles operate in a lower orbit but a high angle and circular orbit. This brings them near the poles, and they cross the equator at roughly 9AM or 3PM locally to take advantage of the sun angle and shadows on clouds. They scan a wide path beneath them in visible and infrared channels, and have been used for years to do night light intensity mapping, such as for light pollution surveys.
The stripes are the paths from the several vehicles in orbit assembled over time when they passed near the poles.
Your tax dollars at work!
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
When is this hoax going to end?
When the per capita GDP of the U.S. is forced down to about $1000.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It will end when it stops being profitable to those promoting it, and not one second sooner.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Try my journal entry which connects noctilucent clouds to Space Shuttle launches and the Tunguska explosion.
Lets face it, if its getting hotter and dryer down here
Uh... it's not. Hotter, on average, yes (and, again, that's only on average, globally). But dryer or wetter depends a great deal on weather patterns and how they change. For example, Africa has seen a decades-long drought due to the rain belt moving. Meanwhile, the poles are predicted to see more precipitation due to higher levels of H2O present in the atmosphere.
If the hot water vapor left the planet, then the planet would be cooler and we'd have a water shortage to deal with. Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
Water vapor sheds itself of heat through infrared radiation like everything else. It's radiated in all directions and the rays/photons/however you want to model them have a chance to strike something else and be absorbed on their way out of the atmosphere. Hot air rises and takes with it water vapor, which when it radiates its IR at high altitudes is less likely to heat other air.
Convection... it's not just for cooking on the cheap
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, not all mankind anyway. We know because of an incontrovertible nice looking graph that pirates keep global temperatures down. As pirates have declined, temperatures have gone up.
Meanwhile, most people don't have ships, so they do the best they can pirating music. Without the ships, parrots, and peg legs, they can't be as effective as sea pirates, so they have to pirate a lot of music (latest RIAA figure: 240% of all music is pirated). The number one hindrance to their diligent efforts to cool the planet before it's too late is the RIAA. So, the RIAA is responsible for global warming, QED.
Oh clouds show up... Climate change is the answer... Do we know? NO! But since climate change is happening it must be the reason... YEAH WHATEVER!!! This is an example of fooled by randomness. Might it be climate change? Sure, and then again it might not be. How about we get more facts...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
This fits in with recent Somali pirate episodes resulting in a decrease in global temperatures this year despite lower rates of music piracy in the UK.
I'm blaming Somali pirates for the wet weather this summer. Bastards.
Or if it stops being true. This graph shows the data from 1880. While it does look like the last 8 or so years have been a down-tick, that's only relative to the local maxima. Not saying this proves global warming as man made, but it certainly makes the argument that we are cooling look a little obtuse.
I like how you've picked a single datapoint to compare against.
Has it not risen since 1898? 1948? Why 1998? Oh, wait, is it because that was a very hot year, an outlier?
Well, as long as you personally pay for the costs incurred when/if global warming's effects come about, it's all fine. Better start saving now - $100b a year should do it.
Get a clue.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
-- Cerebus
Shoot, I've been reading this with a strange tickling of memory, and now it comes back.
Forty or more years ago, when I was a kid in west Texas, I would see clouds that glowed at night, and the explanation was light picked up from the sun which was below the horizon.
Low storm clouds.
I think this is just something no one has noticed before. Or, perhaps, no one has written an article about the phenomenae in a "scholarly journal" for several years.
"20 degrees Kelvin" - FTFA
Wetter, yes. More evaporation at higher temperatures.
But wetter where?
And since more evaporation everywhere. Where dryer?
Global warming is a big freaking question mark, except for the warming, and even that isn't writ in stone. Which is warming planet until what? Tropic like temps in Michigan? Or some global tipping point pushing us into an ice age.
Stay tuned kiddies.
cat sig >
Go jump off a cliff. I'm sick of global warming idiots.
One of the theories behind the correlation between the sunspot cycle and climate change is that the solar wind tends to deflect cosmic rays from the inner system, and that when sunspots are rare, the solar wind isn't as strong, which allows more cosmic rays to strike the upper atmosphere, generating clouds which deflect sunlight from the Earth. Since up until very recently there's been a sunspot drought, this might indicate a cause.
The hoax I was referring to wasn't the claim that it's getting warmer, it's that the change is man made. Yes, the climate is changing, but so what? It's always changing. 200 years ago, it was much cooler; 1000 years ago it was somewhat warmer than it is now. It may have been about this warm between about 200 BCE and 100 CE, fueling the rise of the Roman Empire (A warmer climate brings bigger harvests, providing more food to feed the legions.) and then gotten cooler again, causing its decline. I doubt even the most fanatic AGW evangelist would claim those changes were mostly man-made, and I don't personally believe that what's happening now is, either. However, as long as there's a way to extract money from people by preaching AGW, there will be people doing it, and the moment it stops bringing in cash is when they'll stop.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
in north-America it's going to get a whole lot colder over the next 10 to 20 years. the new north pole (North-America). time to move away from that hell-hole!
their clever cloud-disguised warships...
When anything unusual and weather related happens, legions of idiots will say it is because of global warming.
Sure, why let cold, hard numbers get in the way of your irrational anti-intellectual ideology? By those numbers, the average increase relative to the base value over 2000-2008 was about one and a half times the amount of 1999. And 2009 is shaping up to be yet another fine top 10 year (just like 2008 was, despite the decent-sized drop).
I didn't, but that was the beyond laughing kind of funny. Thanks.
Just this afternoon I was driving my family to see the Harry Potter movie, and talk turned toward which Harry Potter characters we'd choose to be friends with. Everybody in my family agreed they'd like to be friends with Luna Lovegood. Then I dropped my bombshell: When I was a teenager, I was friends with somebody who was just like Luna.
"He believed anything he heard, as long as it was weird," I said.
"Like what?" they wanted to know.
"Oh, pyramid power, alien abductions, elves, ghosts and fairies, anything like that. No, seriously. He was really into cryptobiology. You know, Yeti, sea monsters, tribes of strange little people who live in the woods."
"You mean, like in South America?"
"No, near Boston, down toward Plymouth I think. Oh, yes, he believed in clouds."
"Clouds?"
"Oh, I mean sentient clouds. Intelligent ones. They supposedly have a civilization but they're so different from us we don't understand it. He had plans to build some electronic gizmo so he could listen to them. Or that might have been the ghosts. Probably both. Funny, I hadn't thought of him in years."
"What happened to him?"
"I lost touch with him, then I ran into him some years later. He told me he'd joined a satanist cult, but they'd messed his head up really bad."
Which was true. You could tell: he still believed anything weird he heard, but now that made him miserable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Water doesn't just radiate in the IR frequency range. It radiates (and absorbs) in nearly every frequency range except for visible light and UV.
However, as long as there's a way to extract money from people by preaching AGW, there will be people doing it, and the moment it stops bringing in cash is when they'll stop.
I'm just curious as to how this money making scheme works. I mean is it just money for speeches? Is it money for research into better energy efficiency? If the latter is the case, higher energy prices regardless of global warming will accomplish that. Is raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes? As bad as politicians are they don't really get to keep the money from taxes. I'm just curious about who these rich greedy global warming activist are?
Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
You know, except for that whole sun thing.
What I'm sure you know I meant was that it's a closed system with respect to the evaporation.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Historically speaking, global warming generally means wetter just about everywhere. Global cooling generally means dryer just about everywhere.
That's a good question. From where I sit, there are several ways. There's the people who get money for making speeches promoting it, there's people writing books proclaiming Doom And Gloom if we don't Do Something and there are people sponging off of grants by running "studies" designed not to find out what's happening but to "prove" that AGW is TRUE. And, of course, there are the grifters selling carbon credits and running other money making schemes predicated on the claim that AGW is a fact. One obvious example is Al Gore. How much of his income over the last several years has come from promoting AGW?
I won't say that everybody involved is just in it for the money; I'm sure there are a number of True Believers out there, but I do think that the main motive behind all the frenzy has been money.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Hot and Wet. That's good when you're with a women, it sucks when you are in the jungle.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
politicians who get donations from companies who... ...
greenwash products to sell them for higher prices and
the military industrial complex which needs future demons to fight...
thats who.
These clouds have always been there, but no-one bothered to look at them since they don't affect rainfall. In Calgary, the nighttime sky is almost always white at night - city lights bouncing off these high altitude clouds.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I do hope their crapper is going to get fixed though...
Another video of the clouds: http://www.youtube.com/v/nqFlgXi207M
That's a nice story in Wired, but we here on Slashdot discussed this topic back in 2007.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Or maybe, since temps have flatlined since '99
Temperatures have not flatlined since '99. That's simply a selective interpretation of the trend. The average temperature anomaly for '95-'99 was 0.468 degrees. For '00-'04 it was 0.572 degrees. For '05-'08 it was 0.665 degrees. How is that flatlined?
It's pretty clear on this graph.
Having never heard of this and living above 60 degrees in latitude, I have something new to look for in the dark skies of a 10 month winter. Cool.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Grow a brain. Here's the conclusion from the link you posted:
What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing â" and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.
"[N]o guarantees to how the climate may respond".
Again:
"[N]o guarantees to how the climate may respond".
Again:
"[N]o guarantees to how the climate may respond".
Again:
"[N]o guarantees to how the climate may respond".
Has it sunk in yet? Even the scientists you think support your BELIEF in AGW say there are "no guarantees to how the climate may respond".
Yet we're supposed to spend literally trillions of dollars that could be better spend on myriads of other useful things like feeding starving people, providing health care, or simply making people more comfortable on taking massive resources to change how the entire world uses energy?
When we KNOW that at least one of the biggest names in climate science has literally taken millions of dollars from highly political sources AND was caught cooking his numbers?
How many of the climate models used to predict global warming have been open sourced?
"Right now, during the northern hemisphere's summer, the atmosphere is heating up and expanding. At the outside edge of the atmosphere, that actually means that it's getting colder because it's pushed farther out into space."
Can someone explain to me how our atmosphere can be getting "colder" at the edges? I don't think space is getting any "colder" (at least not on a scale relevant to "global warming"). And I would imagine that while the altitude that our atmosphere may change, and the temperature gradient in that atmosphere my change, I can't see how the "outside edge of the atmosphere" can get "colder".
--
If it radiates in "nearly every frequency range except for visible light and UV", there isn't anything left that isn't infra-red.
http://aim.hamptonu.edu/outreach/song/Noctilucent_Cloud.mp3
"However, as long as there's a way to extract money from people by preaching AGW"
How much has it cost you personally?
"A warmer climate brings bigger harvests, providing more food to feed the legions"
Here in Australia the warmer climate has forced us into water rationing and cut our harvest in half compared to pre-1995 harvests.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Water can also absorb and emit microwaves, radio waves and x-rays; but in the context of earth meteorology, you're probably right that water is going to be in temperature ranges where it is going to be emitting mostly IR.
OOC, is it confirmed that Australia's issues are actually due to GW? Because, as I'm sure you already know, AU is supposed to have regular drought cycles as a consequence of the ENSO, as well... 'course, the one may very well be exacerbating the other.
They are a recent phenomenon: the first recorded observation of a neutron star was in 1965.
Really, sometimes you just want to scream. Noctilucent clouds are inherently hard to observe. They can be seen only between 50 and 65 degrees of latitude, when the Sun is below the horizon, during summer -- and at that resemble cirrus clouds. Given that clouds in general were not classified prior to 1801, that this specific type of cloud wasn't noticed as being distinct from cirrus until 1885 doesn't tell us anything about their existence or non-existence prior to then.
It might be coincidental, but the altitude of this phenomenon is the same altitude as the outer edge of the ozone layer. The northern latitudes are also the areas where the earth's magnetic field allows some solar wind particles to a interact with our atmosphere.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/magnetic-field/earth.jpg
A portion of the charged particles in the solar winds are protons - aka hydrogen ions. I think it's possible, but maybe not all that likely, that the water present at these altitudes is due to the interaction between the protons in the solar winds and the oxygen in the ozone layer. While much of the oxygen present is in the form of ozone, atomized and O2 forms are produced and destroyed in the normal processes of the ozone layer. Since water is much more stable, it is possible that water molecules may accumulate simply from the interaction of solar winds and the ozone present at that altitude and latitude.
Er, convection would do wonders for getting the heat up towards the top of the atmosphere, but since convection is a transfer of heat from a solid to a liquid or gas, I think it might have trouble having any effect in cooling the Earth. Perhaps you meant to say...
Radiation... it's not just for ensuring your neighbours don't have kids.
?
It's still WAAAY early to ask, probably...but I keep hearing about the VanAllen belts changing- the magnetic north moving faster than before.
Could it be some of the huge volume of H3 is hitting the outer atmosphere, and the heat is causing the resulting H20? (And probably some spare electrons, etc...)?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
"100 million times drier than the Sahara desert"
Thats right- its so dry just thinking about them leeches juice from your brain. Ouch!
Personally? Well, that's hard to say, because I don't know how much (if any) of my tax money has been poured down that particular rat hole, but I'll bet it's affected the price of gasolene, and not to lower it.
As far as the warmer climate giving you water problems, I live near Los Angeles, and we've got similar problems, although probably not as bad as yours. Of course, LA usually does have a limited water supply, being that the area is naturally a semi-desert. Be that as it may, it might have been more accurate to have written that "a warmer climate brings a longer growing season, which can (other factors permitting) lead to bigger harvests, providing more fuel for the legions." It's the same basic idea, just amplified a little.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Jury decided on that verdict a long time ago, but the bailiff is keeping the room locked for some reason. Global warming is a farce. And those clouds are pretty :)
The Real reason for these Noctilucent Clouds appearing in the mid lattitudes is because of the violent wobble of Earth due to the presence of Nibiru in the Solar system. Earth is wobbling at least twice daily now, sliding under the atmosphere. This is changing the weather patterns. Look for much more of this kind of thing and many other symptoms of Earth under great stress to come as we approach the passing of the this planet, Nibiru. Nibiru will cause a poleshift and a restructuring of the geology of the surface of Earth. Don't be near the water when this happens. I figure about summer 2010. Crow.
I am often somewhat stupefied at the fiercely stubborn refusal to at least look at factual evidence, such as glaciers melting (and yes, they truly are, worldwide, where I live here in Switzerland, but also in Alaska for example). I understand that there should be healthy scepticism at any scientific claim, but the climate is almost certainly changing, enough so that I can personally see it. When I came to Switzerland 20 years ago, the summers were not as hot or humid as they now are and winters were longer and colder. There used to be snow on the ground for around two months in January and February, and often into April, but if you have snow on the ground for more than two weeks in a row these days, it's a lot.
I originally come from South Africa and the part I come from over there, which is 1500 meters above sea level, used to have warm, pleasant summers. These days, the summers are often about 5 degrees hotter and much dryer.
All of this is just my anecdotal evidence, but I think you have to be pretty stubborn to ignore what's happening around you.
Is rain from these clouds what downed the airbus?
Try that again, now with real data instead of Hansen's pet project (closed source, closed algorithm) temperature data modifications.
I'd suggest using UAH. Surface stations are a joke due to no one (until now) checking their surroundings and thus the induced UHI effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
it's in my head
I think the "believers" aren't scientists at all, but politicians and paid shills disguised as scientists.
Why should the idiots be the ones to not jump off a cliff?
I've watched these clouds last week on the island of Juist, Germany. It was quite amazing and mysterious, something like Aurora Borealis. You do not overlook a phenomen like this. If they had been around all through history, many cultures would have believed them to be spirits or gods and worshipped them.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Your source thinks evolution is science and gives interviews to Rush Limbaugh. He also participated in a movie that:
And is in general laden with half-truths and outright lies.
Forgive me if I'm a tad bit skeptical.
When you can't respond to data - attack the messenger.
Sorry, but that says something about you, not my link :)
PS: The sun being the largest influenser of earth's climate isn't "well-debunked" at all. On the contrary actually.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207&org=OLPA&from=news
it's in my head
Of course, all of this revenue dwarfs the money that can be made by serving the agenda of oil companies.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Um.
You can download the source to NASA's "closed source, closed algorithm" right here.
And yeah, switching to the UAH time series doesn't make global warming go away either (and this while you're at it).
Maybe you should try reading something about the climate other than what skeptic blogs tell you to believe.
So far, just lots of research dollars thrown at anyone who telegraphs a desire to produce results that blame human activity. And various minor amounts squandered by corporations looking to appear green-friendly. These are net social losses that I am not sensitive enough to feel, so far.
Going forward, carbon cap-and-trade is going to make everything expensive. People who love to control others, will be given authority to control all consumption of energy... and every act of control causes all downstream products to cost more. It's a bureaucrat's wet dream.
Cognitive dissonance prevents you from appropriately dreading the coming Carbon Czar . . .
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Funny how every climate change incident is siezed upon by the AGW crowd. I've seen big storms, droughts, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes, etc. all ascribed to global warming. I think it's just the latest scapegoat by scientists who don't have a good enough understanding of how nature works to make the AGW statements with certainty.
Let me know when you've got that code up and running ;)
I never claimed the regular solar driven cycles of warming and cold disappears when we look at satellite measurements (we've only got such data from the latest positive PDO+AMO phase) - I said it's different to the tainted GISS temperature series.
Please read my original reply again if you've forgotten the contents. 2009 is not a warm year according to UAH.
it's in my head
I think your definition of convection is a bit off.
You can't joke your way out lying about GISTEMP being closed source. Or ignoring the fact that the CRN123 stations don't look different than the full time series. Or the simple observation that GISTEMP and UAH aren't all that different, even for 2009.
I think us humans generally have an inability to perceive natural cycles in the climate. The current drought is the worst since the decade-long one in the 1890's. We only have weather data going back a couple of hundred years in Australia, so I think it's pretty arrogant to think that we understand the climate here fully.
Between settlement in 1836 and 1865 when Goyder's Line was surveyed, cropping in South Australia reached hundreds of kilometres into the north - far beyond the line - because the belief at the time was "the rain follows the plough", but really it was just an exceptionally wet period of time. Then Goyder's Line was drawn and has held true ever since.
Plus I'd argue the real reason behind the water rationing in capital cities has been a failure of successive governments all over Australia for a generation to plan in advance for population growth by building infrastructure before it's needed.
I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?
1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.
http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/
Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.
2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?
3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.
it's in my head
GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm.
You're lying, as my first response pointed out. "Doesn't compile out of the box on my computer" != "closed source". I've had headaches compiling plenty of open source software in the past, especially code developed for non-GNU compilers and non-Linux OSes. That doesn't mean that the code is closed.
CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite
I already cited a study, which you ignored. As you're ignoring the fact that the CRN123 stations don't look different.
GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different"
You ignored that data too, which shows little difference in their global temperature. Which is what is relevant to your claims about global temperature. (Remember those?) So you shift the goalposts and go fishing for some location where the two disagree. Well guess what, they're going to disagree somewhere; they're not the same data set. That doesn't change the fact that they give very similar answers to questions like "How hot is 2009 globally compared to other years"? (Remember that question?)
The radiation doesn't help until convection occurs, because the radiated IR is just absorbed by another water molecule.
I thought I made this pretty clear in my comment, but I guess there is always someone who wants to twist my dick about whatever I said.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but first, wait for me to be wrong. And be damned sure. Given your record, you might want to triple-check next time. Nobody around here thinks it's cool when you contradict things people didn't say, or accuse people of not knowing things they clearly alluded to, except some incompetent trolls who are relegated to AC status because it's better than attaching their own names to their comments.
P.S. Your definition of convection is closer to the definition of conduction, but it wouldn't be an accurate definition there, either. Please try again. Or, alternately, please don't try again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I suggest you look into things you want to debate, before debating them.
1) GISTEMP is closed-source and closed-algorith. You will understand that when you've looked at it - currently you simply haven't. Start with the long list of all the algorithm-corrections.
2) You didn't cite a study. When you do, I'll disprove it - since it doesn't actually compare CRN123 stations but uses modified data without disclosing that "little" fact. There's currently no study with correct data available, but one (peer-reviewed) will be shortly.
3) There's no such thing as a "global" temperature (read up on your fluid dynamics). My point was simply to prove that referencing GISTEMP isn't the best thing to do when talking about climate variability due to the many modifications being done to the data.
Remember, you used the words "cold, hard numbers"- which Hansen's GISTEMP most definitely aren't :)
it's in my head
GISTEMP is closed-source and closed-algorith.
The source is open. Pretending it's not just because you haven't gotten it to compile doesn't change this fact.
You didn't cite a study.
I linked to it (which you ignored, again). You know which one it is. Stop pretending you don't.
There's no such thing as a "global" temperature (read up on your fluid dynamics).
Neither fluid dynamics nor thermodynamics prevent you from constructing a global average surface temperature.
My point was simply to prove that referencing GISTEMP isn't the best thing to do when talking about climate variability due to the many modifications being done to the data.
You haven't proven any such thing, and as I proved (another link you ignored), when asking questions about whether 2009 is hot globally or not, which is what your whole claim was about, GISTEMP gives a virtually identical answer to UAH. You then attempted to change the subject.
Remember, you used the words "cold, hard numbers"
That was a different AC. My responses started here.
I declare Global Warming to be a new deity of some sort, it has all the hallmarks of an insanely stupid religion. For example, a thousand years ago:
Lightning: act of God! Let's pay priests to sacrifice our cattle.
Torrential rain: act of God! Let's sacrifice virgins.
Drought: act of God! Let's run around begging for forgiveness!
Today: Lightning: Global warming! Let's pay idiot politicians to make new carbon emission laws.
Torrential rain: Global warming! Let's make farting illegal to reduce methane.
Drought: Global warming! Let's stop cutting trees!
Maybe there's a God, and it's very likely that there is a human cause for the climate change. But regardless of what you happen to believe in, the moment you throw out logic, rationale and scientific reasoning you become nothing more than a religious zealot.
-- My 2 cents.
I apologise for mixing up ACs (although I can understand you, simply talking about AGW-related subjects using non-religious words causes "troll" and "flamebait" moderations). As to the rest of your post above, it does not contain anything new and you're just repeating your (sorry) lack of knowledge on the subject.
(You might want to go back and see what you've actually linked to btw)
1) GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open. Feel free to contact people tracking this if you still believe otherwise.
2) The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/05/pielk-sr-responds-to-ncdcs-talking-points-about-surfacesations-org/
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/12/comments-on-the-new-paper-the-united-states-historical-climatology-network-monthly-temperature-data-%E2%80%93-version-2-by-menne-et-al-2009/
I think we need to wait for the surfacestations.org project's paper, soon to be released, for a conclusion on this subject.
3) Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.
4) Umm no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/
Why is it important for you to disregard facts when it comes to the subject of AGW?
it's in my head
GISTEMP source and algorithms are not open.
You're simply repeating your pathetically false assertions. I'm sorry you feel dishonesty is your only way out here, but the source is de facto open. Claiming it's not "real" open source because you haven't compiled it doesn't change this fact.
The CRN123 study you believe you've cited contained factual errors.
I didn't cite the NCDC study. Go read what I did link to. I don't think you've responded to a single thing I've linked to, preferring instead to change the subject and attack some strawman.
Buckets of water. Ice. Hot. Scientist, feet.
Stupid and incoherent. Your responses are not improving.
Umm no.
You're changing the subject again. Oh noes! GISTEMP and UAH don't agree everywhere in a chosen month! Like I said before, they're not going to agree everywhere at all times, they're different data sources. UAH and RSS don't agree everywhere and at all times either, and they're ostensibly based on the same data source. The real question is how well they agree for the question being asked.
Let me remind you what the question was: whether GISTEMP and UAH give significantly different answers for how hot 2009 is compared to other years. Answer: no. Didn't bother to look at the time series, did you? Go back up a few posts and look at it.
You seem to be confused as to what you've linked to (image files). Please go back, look at your links and then re-post what you apparently meant to post from the beginning (papers) :)
The rest of your post contains nothing new. You still haven't looked into the topics you're debating.
it's in my head
You seem to be confused as to what you've linked to (image files).
I'm not confused as to what I've linked to (data).
Please go back, look at your links and then re-post what you apparently meant to post from the beginning (papers)
Hilarious, coming from someone whose "rebuttals" are nothing but blog posts.
You still haven't looked into the topics you're debating.
Your pathetic attempts at condescension don't hide the fact that you have failed to respond coherently to any of my responses, preferring instead to change the subject or redefine terms. Let's review the facts, which you still haven't looked into, and show no signs of having paid attention to anywhere in this thread: (1) the GISTEMP code is open source, (2) UAH and GISTEMP's assessment of 2009 global temperatures relative to other years are in close agreement.
1) No - by any random standard of measurement neither the source nor the (continuing) algorithm modifications are open.
2) No - http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr165/magellansc24/uahvsrssvsgiss03-09.jpg
(See how fun it is to link to images! ;)
Again. Why do you want to hide actual facts from the discussion?
it's in my head
DDT ban myth bingo.
I've got a better question: if you gave all of those models data about how the climate was 20 years ago and let them run, how many of them would predict the present correctly? AFAIK, not one. If they can't predict the present, why should we believe what they say about the future?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
You're right, I didn't read and understand your comment well enough, so perhaps I should've started with your signature :-)
Sorry for my reply, but rest assured, my incompetence doesn't get hidden in AC posts, and I don't post with the intent of trolling.
Land use is definitely the major problem, I see AGW as the proverbial straw that broke the farmers back.
"Plus I'd argue the real reason behind the water rationing in capital cities has been a failure of successive governments all over Australia for a generation to plan in advance for population growth by building infrastructure before it's needed."
What kind of "infrastructure" do you suggest? More empty dams won't help, the only option the government had when the water stopped flowing into dams was to panic and commission the giant de-sal plants that will be online in a couple of years. The "drought" keeps up and the same thing will happen to the Medeterraninan, California, the overcrowded banks of the Ganges and Yellow rivers.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yeah, I hear it's a brisk 33F in the waters around Somalia.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Any discussion of the skies climate change without addressing the question "What are Chemtrails?" is not bringing all the evidence to the table.
Watch this documentary on the History Channel that shows how weather experimentation is occuring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3gKa0z7rjM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpv/vQACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmBk2wCcDvtIkCmqsLgUsZRb4gUV0lwd
QMQAmwTkj4ySFEeBx5FjyoIPWrhgx/Qj
=eAG3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
We round up to one!
Methane trapped in/under polar ice, 3000 natural levels.
Note also it's a powerful greenhouse gas and it's expansion would produce a short term cooling period (which we were warned might be a short term effect of global climate change).
Now I imagine, this been slashdot that no one read the article... but these clouds are greated by low temperatures over the north pole.
My grandfather said we could solve the oil crisis by harvesting the natural gas deposits, I guess we're too late. He's old and mysoginist so when he says something smart my mother suggests I ignore it, but he's a scientist and it looks like he was right again.