[ivox3]

Uhhhhhm ... Your fence climbing tutorial was a good one ???

[ivox3]

I had a husky. That is one wild breed. They need lots of room to run and work. Ours learned how to climb the chain link fence. He learned by watching me do it once. Smart dog. After he learned there was no stopping him. He ran away.

Uhhhhhm ... Your fence climbing tutorial was a good one ???

[Bubbaloo]

I should post it?

[ivox3]

Absolutely ... quite a few would also like to run away.

[tokiop]

Thanks for all these info Micha ! This make me dream...
Varo mite looks like the word, I found more docs about it and french translation, thanks ! Didn't know about Warre hives either, I think i'll start looking/learning more about it..

JDHill nice project! what language are you using? It's a shame their is no data for europe and north pole..

[JDHill]

Hi tokiop, I used C# for this. The newer data sets generally have better coverage for the poles, but there do look to be some fairly persistent holes around the UK, N Europe, Madagascar, S Siberia/Mongolia, and Alaska/Western Canada.

Feel free to let me know if there are any particular analyses you think would be interesting - I think I will start with data coverage, anomaly per month (max. negative, max. positive, mean, avg), and accumulated anomaly for all loaded months. So you know, the raw data sets are 2x2 degree grids (i.e. 90x180 - lat/lon) and don't contain absolute numbers; temperature is given in 'anomaly relative to the base period of 1951-1980.' You can read more about it here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (you can download the NASA data sets from there as well - this program will read the .txt versions of the files).

[tokiop]

Hello Jeremy ! C# ok, maybe I could help making a mac build but not for coding ! It looks like good idea to start with anomaly and anomaly accumulation, seeing the result can make new questions appear..

The fact the data is relative to part of itself make it more difficult to interpret at first look. Thanks for the link i will read it further to understand..

keep us updated !

[glebe digital]

My mum has waded into the debate.....I thought her take would be of interest [she's a geologist]



Geologists believe that the past is the key to the present and vice versa. It is clear that over the last 500 million years the regulatory carbon cycle has operated to balance the relative CO2 levels between the atmosphere, ocean and deposits of carbonate rocks. Somewhere between 5 and 10% of the CO2 that enters the earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, comes from human activity. Most comes from biologic activity in the earth’s oceans or from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. When CO2 reaches a certain level, the carbon cycle will remove excess CO2 by depositing limestones and increased plant growth. After all, the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere is not new but recycled. Why should not the carbon cycle react to the increasing levels as it has in the past? I really do not see why it would not. It may also be possible that the rise in temperature has triggered the increase in CO2 rather than the other way round. Just think of the early Carboniferous when CO2 levels were much higher than today. Huge amounts of Limestone were deposited to remove the excess CO2 and large deposits of coal removed carbon from the atmosphere. Rather than the greenhouse effect taking over, an Ice Age started in the late Carboniferous! In fact compared to other geologic times, the earth’s current atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. Just think of the methane and CO2 levels in the Precambrian. The earth did not heat up and destroy itself, plant activity was stimulated, extracting CO2 and pumping oxygen into the atmosphere.

[JDHill]

It may also be possible that the rise in temperature has triggered the increase in CO2 rather than the other way round.

Or, they may both be driven by an entirely different phenomenon; what hard evidence exists, and I mean that in the strictest sense, to indicate any causal relationship whatsoever between the two? In order to establish such for present purposes requires very precise data, on the order of:

1. 0.5° C
2. x-ppm CO2
3. +/- 50 years

#3 would not necessarily be the case, were we not being asked to believe that the current state of affairs is entirely due to human factors arising from the advent of the industrial revolution. Meaning, were we simply trying to establish a rough correlation between temp & CO2 on a millenium scale, we would not require such fine resolution in the time component; but that is not the case here, so we do.

In the case of #1, it is clear, if you research this much at all, that esablishing an authoritative global temperature is not an easy thing to do, even in the here and now. To do so going back into history becomes a stretch, to put it lightly. Again, this difficulty ONLY arises from the need to be so precise, but that is what we need if we are to determine which, if either, is the leading trend.

In the case of #2, I think that the time-scale accuracy is probably the only real sticking point. I should think it quite simple to evaporate frozen ice and get a very good reading on the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere at the time of freezing. As I say though, timing is the main issue here, and your mum, as you say, could probably shed some light on this; what are the standard margins of error for dating various classes of artifact? Ironically, I might think that using Carbon-14 here would tend to put is into a bit of a chicken vs. egg scenario. She being a geologist, I would be curious to hear her thoughts on this.

In the end, I think that wisdom should lead us to err on the side of caution and to therefore remember that we haven't always got these types of things right; it was three-hundred odd years ago that Redi first questioned the idea of spontaneous generation, and Pasteur was still working on proving him right two-hundred years later. Most of what we regard as common knowledge now, we should remember, was anything but, in the not-so-distant past.

[yolk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 88701.html

[Bubbaloo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 88701.html

Haha, perfect!!

[glebe digital]

Thanks for that link Yolk.

[glebe digital]

And lastly, mum's back on the debate:

"This video is quite good for answering some of the points you sent.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1002785-the-gre ... topwarming

The theory that temperature rises with increasing CO2 doesn’t seem to be correct or indeed vice versa. If it was a simple relationship why would the temperature fall after 1940 when CO2 is rising with increased industrialisation?

Temperature changes (from ice cores) match changes in solar activity. Changing solar activity explains the dip after 1940 and the more recent rise. Surprisingly obvious that the Sun is driving climate change and CO2 is less or largely irrelevant. The graphs produced from ice core research seem to show if anything, that C02 rises lag behind temperature rises not the other way round. Probably C02 is being released by warming of the oceans.

However it seems the recent rise in CO2 may well be partly caused by human activity. Carbon 14 levels do appear to show that. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere. (Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests distoyed this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.)However there appears to be no reason to panic as natural systems like the carbon sink have taken care of rising CO2 in the past. In the Devonian C02 was ten times what it is now and the earth didn't suffer runaway heating. After the last Ice Age the temperature rose 5 degrees in 2-3 decades which caused problems for low lying coastal regions. The climate did not run away uncontrollably.

In all the climate in the geological past seems controlled by solar activity (Milancovitch cycles and cosmic ray changes) and if there is a relationship between temperature rise and C02 rise it is certainly not a simple one. In Al Gore's graph of the recent past he shows a direct relationship but his graph must have been manipulated as I have never seen such a perfect graph anywhere in scientific literature. It is way too perfect.

I watched the video of Lord Monckton's interview and don't disagree with what he is saying. I think he is relying on information given to him rather than having made a scientific study himself. If climate scientists can't agree which data is correct how can we lay people be sure. In any case man is too selfish to think of long term consequences (especially the Chinese and Americans) so the earth will have to take care of itself as it has done for millions of years before us puny humans appeared."

[glebe digital]

Gore must be the Stanley, surely? LMFAO ...... then I erm, sorry but I LMFAO again.

An Inconvenient Turn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILgxymujGKE

[Sheik]

In case anyone didn’t notice, there was a leak of e-mails (hacked) some time ago, that sheds some light on the methodology the “global warming scientists” have been using. Rather upsetting reading to say the least.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 88354.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 94482.html

It is a shame Lord Monkton is making this into a Right/Left issue and not a Right/Wrong one. He is making it too easy for people to dismiss what he is saying.