Well, playing devil's advocate, because it could insert malicious backdoor code into your program. Obviously, this is not a concern with a BSD license, but I'm just looking at worst-case scenario. A good reverse compiler would probably make that obvious, but ideally at least that would be open-source.
I took it to mean that it compiles code 5-10 times faster, but that compiled code itself is usually slower. Not having many optimizations explains both of those "features".
Not only did I not call him a right-winger, I took pains to point out that I wasn't.
Now I would admit that the left and right would cling to different pieces of information, but that says nothing about the information or it's integrity.
Which is exactly what I was saying.
The bottom line is that Antarctica is growing faster then it is losing ice.
It is gaining in area, but not in mass/volume, hence the results from the NASA study.
Seeing as how the first attempt was made well prior to this, why do you think we wouldn't have the ability to detect a large Northwest Passage if we were looking for it?
Since I'm expecting that you're still going to be credulous, try this one on: do you think we would have noticed if it were ice-free? If so, will you change your story if/when the Arctic is ice-free during the summer?
Well, much of our sub fleet's operations in the arctic circle is classified.
Ah, so you're postulating that we found the ridge, didn't report that, but did manage to report that we were exploring that "exact area" — is that right? (What's that expression you like so much? Oh, yeah — lol.)
No, despite the fact that you'll hear this reported on many right-wing blog sites, it's not. Antarctica is losing ice mass -- unless you think that the NASA satellite people are in cahoots with Hansen..
Maybe they should update their pages., What.. that is what I have been saying. It seems that David Bromwich who has been studying the situation has something different to say about it.
Did you read that article? Here's the only thing it said about ice:
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
How does that disagree with the NASA study? I was talking about your misinformation about Antarctica losing ice mass, not temperature changes. It is interesting to note that Antarctica is currently at its maximum for sea ice, however. (Someone else posted a link in this thread with that information.) Again, not the same thing as ice mass, but it is interesting. You accuse me of trusting information from scientists (although you imply that information is coming from somewhere else) too much — I think you trust information (or rather the interpretation of that information) coming from right-wing sources too much. (And no, I'm not referring to Bromwich as being right-wing.)
Then what did NASA post on their web-site when they claimed to be posting the corrected numbers?
Obviously, it was incorrect numbers. But they thought it was correct because the formula they used was borked.
Are you saying that when NASA posted the numbers that they stated were corrected due to the anomaly reported by McIntyre, they got it wrong a second time? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that.
The russians recently placed a flag in the sea floor of the north pole. It took them several attempts because the ice was so thick and blocked them on numerous occasions. In the 50's our subs were navigating that exact area with little problem.
That exact same area? Then why didn't we know about the ridge that was recently discovered there? Top secret?
Antarctica is gaining hight faster then it is losing diameter.
No, despite the fact that you'll hear this reported on many right-wing blog sites, it's not. Antarctica is losing ice mass — unless you think that the NASA satellite people are in cahoots with Hansen...
There are times when it's good to zoom in on detail, but I always feel that absolute scales should be shown first, so that you realize what you're zooming in on.
Someone else, however, suggested that this was done by sailing around Cape Horn. Sans finding evidence in the Great White North, it'd be very difficult to separate these two conjectures. Still, fascinating stuff.
I do see some reasonable skepticism, and there's nothing wrong with that. (To me, "denier-talk" is when there's willful misrepresentation, etc.)
Having a satellite photoraphic record fo the last 30 years is the only positive we have of talking about it one way or another.
Depends on how you're defining "positive". If you mean "very strong evidence", then I agree. If you mean "supporting evidence", then I disagree.
What bothers me about this news article is the way people are letting their pre-conceived ideas fit into a simple story.
Sure, but when your pre-conceived ideas are that the arctic sea-ice will melt more during the summer, you have to admit it's a pretty easy thing to do. Also note the story behind the story. The arctic summer sea-ice has been decreasing by about 100,000 km^2 per year (averaged over the last 30+ years). This year, it decreased by more than 1 million km^2 (which is undoubtedly a fluctuation on top of the trend) to about 4 million km^2. If it resumes at 100,000 km^2 per year, it will be completely gone in 40 years (during the summer). If it increases to 200,000 km^2 per year (which some scientists think is possible), it will be completely gone in 20 years. (Presumably at that point, most people won't think this is just something we've observed because we have satellites in space.)
We've seen something that we haven't seen before -- something that we consider to be unusual from the standpoint of recent history (400 years). Color me stupid, but I'm thinking with more and more sensors pointing at earth, we're going to see a lot of things that don't fit into received wisdom. Now we can either a) extrapolate that received wisdom tells us how the earth looked from space for 400 years (doubtful), or b) get used to seeing a lot of unusual stuff. In fact, seeing unusual stuff should be considered normal. That's why we have the satellites up there in the first place.
No, I think that's a very reasonable point. However, keep in mind that there's a difference between post hoc analysis and detecting patterns that were expected a priori.
Yes, yes I do. I made a lot of posts on a topic that I care about and know a bit about. That they might be disproportionately directed to you could be because you meet the criteria of being (a) wrong about quite a bit, but (b) not loony wrong. (I tend not to waste my time with true crazies.)
But since I would have to Google for "global warming y2k bug" to find the articles, I will just leave it up to you to do so.
Well, since it wasn't a y2k bug, I would think such a search technique would bias one towards inaccurate articles. You probably consider a site run by climatologists to be "left-wing", but in case I'm wrong, read what Real Climate has to say about it. I really don't want to read a bunch of misinformed blogs, but if you can find something from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, I'd be happy to read it. Ah, here's something from junkscience, which is much less accurate than realclimate, but at least you can't accuse of having a left-wing bias:
Canadian and amateur climate researcher Stephen McIntyre discovered that NASA made a technical error in standardizing the weather air temperature data post-2000. These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-2006 by 0.15C.
Or do you mean since many left wing think tanks decided they could push their rejected agendas by placing fear into the lives or people based around something that without errors would never have been plausible in the first place.
Do you consider the journals Science, Antarctic Science, Climate Dynamics, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Annals of Glaciology, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics to be left-wing?
And if you think Fox news is right wing, then I guess you are more left then I originally thought.Fox news isn't right wing. The shows they have might be but the station, news, and channel itself isn't. But how would you know that, your probably just parroting what other agenda pushing liberals have told you.
Actually, I know this from original research. See, I have many right-wing relatives, and when I stay with them I'm often subjected to copious amounts of Fox "News". It's not only right-wing — it's frequently wrong (even when compared to more accurate, openly right-wing news sources).
In the US, we still don't have corrected numbers...
Then what did NASA post on their web-site when they claimed to be posting the corrected numbers?
As many people know, cycles in earth often take longer then 40 years.
Sure, and on top of those cycles is man-made contributions to global warming. Keep in mind that the same people who were saying that 20 years ago were predicting that it'd be cooler now than it was then. So, unless you think that the 25% sea-ice loss is part of some conspiracy just to back up some fraudulent numbers for global means (which themselves are backed up by satellite data)...
It says very specifically it's been noted in 30 years.
It does say that, and then it also talks about history. Specifically:
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level this week since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago, opening up the Northwest Passage - a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable.
The "long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable" is not referring to the last 30 years.
No assertion is made that the Northwest Passage has been closed for the entirety of the last 4,000 years.
The assertion is that, every time someone has checked in the last 400+ years, it's been closed. Sure, it hasn't been monitored continuously, but you'd think that during unusually warm summers someone would have thought to check it out since it would save so much time (and money) off of certain trips. Money can be a very strong motivator.
Tell me do you get paid to troll around and counter everything? I remember another guy who did it also. You aren't him with another name are you? I think you have followed me and replied to almost ever post in this thread.
Paranoia isn't a pretty thing, I have to tell you.
Anyways, The same error that made the US's temp different also made the rest of the worlds different.
(a) Any evidence of that?
(b) That error wasn't very large.
And since when it this a right wing thing?
Since many right-wing "think" tanks have taken upon themselves to distort the science and misrepresent the evidence. Do you have any idea how many right-wing sites reported on the NASA data adjustments? What fraction of these do you suppose misrepresented those adjustments as making the 1930s the hottest in the world? It seemed like a large fraction to me. It's not all right-wing sites, of course. Fox News, for example, is finally coming around — although a little slowly.
Like how the sea waters haven't risen near as much as originally projected, or how the total temperature isn't a high as it was said to be by now? Or would it be using faulty math to make you think that the 90's were the hottest years on record in the last century that conveniently skips over the 30's.
IIRC, the sea waters have risen more than originally projected (which, ironically, has been used by skeptics to poke holes in the theories) as have the temperatures. And faulty math would be arguing that the 30s were the hottest years — or more specifically, faulty geography. That claim is only true for the US and 5 of the 10 hottest years happened during the dust bowl even before the numbers were adjusted to accommodate the errors that were found.
As a matter of fact, I believe you and I discused some of this previously then the faulty math story was on the front page of slashdot. Did you forget that you were wrong or are you doing this on purpose?
Refresh my memory, because it seems you've forgotten that the US isn't the world.
Going back to failed predictions and all, Do you think there is a reason they are attempting to change it from global warming to climate change?
Yes, because it is more than just global warming. It does, however, still include global warming, so don't try to pretend that the predictions are changing.
Could it be because after things didn't start panning out, they could keep it going and keep the investments into the third world countries going?
Wow, conspiracy theory much? The predictions have panned out fairly well, actually.
But make no mistake, you are a pawn in it.
I think you're confusing me with the person in the mirror.
We can also talk about how H2O which is the most abundant GHG has been increasing almost as long as the "recorded global warming" has but is considered a feedback instead of a forcing in most of the models.
No, it is both a feedback and forcing. If it wasn't forcing, it wouldn't be a (positive) feedback. You see, water saturates in our atmosphere, and then it rains. As it gets hotter, our atmosphere can hold more water. We're looking at changes in temperature, so we're interested in changes in greenhouse gases.
How people are getting their life threatened, how they are threatened with getting credentials removed and how they are having careers destroyed and losing their jobs if they question global warming.
Interestingly enough, there appear to be more (documented) cases of this on the other side, although I realize that politics are involved in all professions.
The lack of creditable opposition doesn't prove much when people are fearing for their lives and lively hood if they come forward with something against the popular theory of the day.
That must be why Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen never walk anywhere without their personal bodyguards. Do you really believe this stuff?
What if it opens up on an annual basis? Will you then acknowledge that this is at least unprecedented in the last 400+ years?
Only if the historical data is sufficient to say that, over the last 400 years, there have not been 2 consecutive years that it's been open. I don't think a few [dozen] explorers proves that, either.
I wasn't talking about just 2 consecutive years, I'm talking about repeatedly over, say, the next 10 years. Would you find that convincing? Will you begin to think it possible that maybe this isn't just Sturm and Drang after a few years? (I hate the idea that we'll have to wait until it's completely gone before some people will accept that this is not just "normal fluctuations".)
If you have a fairly good sampling of carbon-dated ice cores from areas that are likely to be the first to melt, I'd accept that as good data.
I thought this had come up recently in a discussion I was having with someone else (on a different site), but I can't find it now, so perhaps I was mistaken. All I can find is ice-core data taken from glaciers (and the more common Greenland/Antarctic cores). In hindsight, perhaps this wasn't tenable as melting from below might destroy any ability to core. Anyways, I'm guessing I was completely wrong about that one.
It's known about and compensated for. If you look at the correction that you're talking about, it was quite small. 1938 was already the second hottest year, and even before the correction the difference between it and 1998 was considered statistically insignificant, and the same thing was true after the correction. Prior to the correction, 5 of the hottest years in the US happened during the dust bowl, and after the correction, 5 of the hottest years in the US happened during the dust bowl.
Except for those who pick and choose their data to match their theories. Are you in that category, seriously?
No, I look at all of the data that comes my way, and that data is heavily slanted towards the skeptics as they're often pushing various interpretations. When I have doubts, I go to the journal articles and don't trust the news outlets. I do not accept that there is any kind of conspiracy (deliberate or otherwise) involving climatologists (not that I'm claiming that you do).
He didn't sail it in 1905, he traversed it (through various means) between 1903 and 1905. It was not an open passage, however.
And that the Vikings were sailing it sometime between 1200 and 1500 A.D.
Now that's a new one! Do you mean they reached Newfoundland (not news, I think most historians believe this) or that there's "evidence" that they traversed the NW Passage to Asia? If the latter, I'd suggest you use your skeptics eye with respect to that "evidence".
Did you happen to notice that one of those attempts was successful in 1903?
And I've commented on it elsewhere on this thread. That trip took 3 years — there was no passage for him to travel through.
My point is that when people see a headline about the first time "in history," they aren't thinking 30 years, they are thinking 3000 years. But 30 years is all we have any good data about at all.
No, we have good data for 400 years. We have outstanding data for 30 years. And of course, whenever you say "for at least the last 400 years", some smart-alec will infer that it was open 401 years ago.
The fact that previous attempts failed does not mean that the passage did not exist previously, there are many plausible explanations, such as:
(1) they went at the wrong time of year
Do you think they thought that winter would be better?
(2) they went the wrong year
Possibly. I'll bet you good money this passage will be open again several times in the next decade. I'd actually wager 2:1 odds that it'll be open next year.
(3) they couldn't find/navigate the route
It'd be hard to miss the current route, though.
You accuse me of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But it's hard to buy into this global warming hysteria (I believe some of the claims, it's just the hysteria that I don't buy) when publishers continue to sensationalize headlines.
Actually, I did not accuse you of fear. Yes, publishers sensationalize headlines. That's why it's good to go to the source.
Then you come along and pretend that a few explorers going there on a few occasions proves something about the existence over a long period of time.
We're not just talking about a few explorers, we're talking about dozens, probably hundreds. There are only a few famous ones, of course.
There is simply no good data about that general area to support the claim that it was impassible for 400 years straight until 2007; and there's certainly no good data to support the claim that it was impassible for the thousands of years straight until 2007. I know the article didn't make that claim directly, but that's what someone reading the headline is lead to believe, so it is deceptive even if it might not be technically dishonest.
Actually, there is data going back thousands of years in the form of ice cores — or there used to be. Of course, these haven't been done along the entire passage, so it's easy to manufacture uncertainty and doubt in there, but you have to be a true believer to believe that it's ever been like it is now in the last several thousand years. I know you don't believe me, but do you think it's possible you'll be a little less skeptical next year if the Northwest Passage is open again? What if it opens up on an annual basis? Will you then acknowledge that this is at least unprecedented in the last 400+ years?
My problem is that I have a good memory. I remember people 20 years ago saying wait 20 years and then we'll see. Now you have people saying, wait 20 years and then we'll see. For some reason, I suspect you'll still have some people saying that 20 years hence, when the arctic sea ice is mostly gone (in the summer).
The hottest year on record (for the Earth) was either 1998 or 2005 (they were both very close to each other, and different measuring techniques give slightly different answers). The hottest year for the US, however, was 1938. I hope you understand that the US is not the world, though.
The Northwest passage which was very difficult and took over 3 years when it was first used by an expedition in 1903 has slowly become easier with advanced technology but was still not viable enough to become a true trading route. With recent icemelt it is now possible to theoretically use a sailing vessle to cross the entire length of the route.
The thing is that recent ice melt reduced the arctic summer sea ice by nearly 25%! That's a huge difference. Up until this year you could only traverse it with a special ice-breaking ship (or by occasional over-land/over-ice routes). Advanced technology (related to traveling this passage) had nothing to do with the passage now being open, which is something that some people don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand).
I would suspect that the dust bowl had a bit to do with it, but that's just a guess. You should keep in mind that the "double checking" you're talking about had very little effect on the US temperatures as well.
If there was anyway to definitely prove it. We don't know anything about the entire passage prior to 400 years ago, but people have been interested in trying to find a way through continuously since then. If the passage in the last 400 years was ever as wide as it is now, it would have been easily spotted. Have you seen the satellite pictures? Here's a source that has a history for this summer.
The polar bear is Ursus maritimus and the grizzly bear is Ursus arctos horribilis. I think you're confusing the polar bear with the brown bear, Ursus arctos, of which the grizzly bear is a subspecies. There is one recorded instance of these two (distinct) species breeding in the wild, and that individual was shot and killed. It was considered quite the oddity, if you recall the story.
The 1930s was not the warmest decade on record, unless you're limiting yourself to the US. The warmest decade on record is the most recent one — and since we're talking about the global distribution of glaciers (and not just US glaciers) it's the global temperature that matters. Good grief, do you believe everything the right-wing media tells you?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, playing devil's advocate, because it could insert malicious backdoor code into your program. Obviously, this is not a concern with a BSD license, but I'm just looking at worst-case scenario. A good reverse compiler would probably make that obvious, but ideally at least that would be open-source.
I took it to mean that it compiles code 5-10 times faster, but that compiled code itself is usually slower. Not having many optimizations explains both of those "features".
Seeing as how the first attempt was made well prior to this, why do you think we wouldn't have the ability to detect a large Northwest Passage if we were looking for it?
Since I'm expecting that you're still going to be credulous, try this one on: do you think we would have noticed if it were ice-free? If so, will you change your story if/when the Arctic is ice-free during the summer?
That exact same area? Then why didn't we know about the ridge that was recently discovered there? Top secret?
No, despite the fact that you'll hear this reported on many right-wing blog sites, it's not. Antarctica is losing ice mass — unless you think that the NASA satellite people are in cahoots with Hansen...There are times when it's good to zoom in on detail, but I always feel that absolute scales should be shown first, so that you realize what you're zooming in on.
An interesting web-site that has weekly updates on the Arctic sea-ice is http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
I found this graph quite interesting: http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070910_timeseries.png
Someone else, however, suggested that this was done by sailing around Cape Horn. Sans finding evidence in the Great White North, it'd be very difficult to separate these two conjectures. Still, fascinating stuff.
Sure, but when your pre-conceived ideas are that the arctic sea-ice will melt more during the summer, you have to admit it's a pretty easy thing to do. Also note the story behind the story. The arctic summer sea-ice has been decreasing by about 100,000 km^2 per year (averaged over the last 30+ years). This year, it decreased by more than 1 million km^2 (which is undoubtedly a fluctuation on top of the trend) to about 4 million km^2. If it resumes at 100,000 km^2 per year, it will be completely gone in 40 years (during the summer). If it increases to 200,000 km^2 per year (which some scientists think is possible), it will be completely gone in 20 years. (Presumably at that point, most people won't think this is just something we've observed because we have satellites in space.)
No, I think that's a very reasonable point. However, keep in mind that there's a difference between post hoc analysis and detecting patterns that were expected a priori.Yes, yes I do. I made a lot of posts on a topic that I care about and know a bit about. That they might be disproportionately directed to you could be because you meet the criteria of being (a) wrong about quite a bit, but (b) not loony wrong. (I tend not to waste my time with true crazies.)
Well, since it wasn't a y2k bug, I would think such a search technique would bias one towards inaccurate articles. You probably consider a site run by climatologists to be "left-wing", but in case I'm wrong, read what Real Climate has to say about it. I really don't want to read a bunch of misinformed blogs, but if you can find something from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, I'd be happy to read it. Ah, here's something from junkscience, which is much less accurate than realclimate, but at least you can't accuse of having a left-wing bias: Do you consider the journals Science, Antarctic Science, Climate Dynamics, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Annals of Glaciology, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics to be left-wing? Actually, I know this from original research. See, I have many right-wing relatives, and when I stay with them I'm often subjected to copious amounts of Fox "News". It's not only right-wing — it's frequently wrong (even when compared to more accurate, openly right-wing news sources). Then what did NASA post on their web-site when they claimed to be posting the corrected numbers? Sure, and on top of those cycles is man-made contributions to global warming. Keep in mind that the same people who were saying that 20 years ago were predicting that it'd be cooler now than it was then. So, unless you think that the 25% sea-ice loss is part of some conspiracy just to back up some fraudulent numbers for global means (which themselves are backed up by satellite data)...(b) That error wasn't very large. Since many right-wing "think" tanks have taken upon themselves to distort the science and misrepresent the evidence. Do you have any idea how many right-wing sites reported on the NASA data adjustments? What fraction of these do you suppose misrepresented those adjustments as making the 1930s the hottest in the world? It seemed like a large fraction to me. It's not all right-wing sites, of course. Fox News, for example, is finally coming around — although a little slowly.
Hence the disclaimer "related to traveling this passage". :P
Actually, there is data going back thousands of years in the form of ice cores — or there used to be. Of course, these haven't been done along the entire passage, so it's easy to manufacture uncertainty and doubt in there, but you have to be a true believer to believe that it's ever been like it is now in the last several thousand years. I know you don't believe me, but do you think it's possible you'll be a little less skeptical next year if the Northwest Passage is open again? What if it opens up on an annual basis? Will you then acknowledge that this is at least unprecedented in the last 400+ years?
My problem is that I have a good memory. I remember people 20 years ago saying wait 20 years and then we'll see. Now you have people saying, wait 20 years and then we'll see. For some reason, I suspect you'll still have some people saying that 20 years hence, when the arctic sea ice is mostly gone (in the summer).
The hottest year on record (for the Earth) was either 1998 or 2005 (they were both very close to each other, and different measuring techniques give slightly different answers). The hottest year for the US, however, was 1938. I hope you understand that the US is not the world, though.
I would suspect that the dust bowl had a bit to do with it, but that's just a guess. You should keep in mind that the "double checking" you're talking about had very little effect on the US temperatures as well.
If there was anyway to definitely prove it. We don't know anything about the entire passage prior to 400 years ago, but people have been interested in trying to find a way through continuously since then. If the passage in the last 400 years was ever as wide as it is now, it would have been easily spotted. Have you seen the satellite pictures? Here's a source that has a history for this summer.
The polar bear is Ursus maritimus and the grizzly bear is Ursus arctos horribilis. I think you're confusing the polar bear with the brown bear, Ursus arctos, of which the grizzly bear is a subspecies. There is one recorded instance of these two (distinct) species breeding in the wild, and that individual was shot and killed. It was considered quite the oddity, if you recall the story.