September air cools.
The lakes in Wisconsin call.
Time for a road trip!
Every September Jim and his two brothers (aka “the twins”) head north to fish in Wisconsin. They stay a week. I drive up midweek, bring extra provisions, and stay one night. I can only take so much fishing: None in fact.
The directions to the campground take me over some windy Wisconsin roads. The roads I travel have names like “S”, “SS” and “SSS”. These will intersect with roads like “G”, “GG” and “GGG”, some of which I also travel. I think there is also an “R”. Often to stay on a road with a name like “SS”, you must take the turn. If you go straight, you end up on “S” or “SS”. (See for example, photos 184 and 185 below.)
The first time I drove up, I missed the turn near the end of the frame in photo 185. Fortunately, I had a map illustrating the vast interconnections between the various “S/SS/SSS”, “Q/QQ/QQQ” and “R” roads. Still, I wandered around an extra half hour driving the long way around the lake before finding the campground. I also wondered if I might never find the correct way!
The second time I drove up, I took photos as I drove. I know print them out each time I drive. Should you ever visit Mauthe Lake, these might help you too. Sadly, I don’t have a photo of the “chainsaw sharpening” sign which confirms the turn soon after the church, nor do I have a photo of the cute “Piggly Wiggly” store several miles south of the turn onto 28.
I’m always happy to see the Piggly Wiggly because it confirms I did not mis-read directions to a different camp ground just to the west of the one I intend to visit. Wisconsin prints directions to 6 campgrounds on 1 sheet. Driving, eating donuts and sipping coffee, while signing to the music, I once misread the final turn before my photos begin. I ended up on a parallel route 10 miles to the west.
About 20 minutes later, I realized the surroundings looked wrong, didn’t see the Piggly Wiggly, stopped and asked a farm woman directions.
I think I had to take “K” then turn onto “KKK” to cut between fields of corn to get to the correct road. Since I plan to continue the coffee drinking, munching and singing as I drive, I now draw a big X through the directions to the 5 other parks.
Anyway, I’ll be gone ‘fishing’ for a little while. Have fun while I’m gone. I’ll catch up discussing last month’s weather. Wish me good luck catching all turns!
lake tomahawk.
musky at dawn and dusk.
brats and kraut
peace
Hope you enjoy your visit — know the area well! It’s great for cross country skiing, also.
Tim — from America’s Dairyland
In Texas, the September air is a bit different:
Summer lingers tired
Heat, trees, leaves worn
Seasons change, but when?
A Cooler Kentucky
C02 levels must
Have gone down
Andrew
Wait, are you saying you DON’T have Piggly Wiggly stores in Illinois? Shop the Pig!
Actually I know full well that there aren’t PW stores in Illinois; I grew up in Joliet. When I moved to Wisconsin 25 years ago, things like Piggly Wiggly stores, Chainsaw Sharpening signs, and of course the town of Dickeyville made me grin too.
Caught me a walleye
Was reeling it in slowly
A muskie ate it.
Grey clouds and drizzle
Linger through September
England’s still a cool place
Lucia, Interesting that your hubby n bros go fishing in the same area that I do at the same time of this year… but Pike at the river near St Paul are way better… and if we weren’t having so much fun we’d be setting up a kegger at your house… by the way, get a wireless card so you can blog and thus ignore fishing but still enjoy the great outdoors.
Hi Lucia,
Forget maps and photos…the solution is GPS! Good to 2 meters.
If you get lost again Lucia call me and I’ll guide you in from Australia via Google Earth 🙂
Stunning looking country! but I hate the cold 🙂
Lucia, just be grateful that you’re a woman and can ask someone for those directions that us guys are deign to ask.
I have two adult sons who love to fish and when I go along I do not care if I catch fish I just love being outdoors and enjoying the scenery. Of course, I have been told by my serious fishing friends that if I enjoy the scenery more than catching fish, I am surely not a fisherman (fisherperson?) My golfing friends say the same about my golfing experiences.
For Illinoisans, nothing beats being on a lake in WI, MN or MI this time of year.
“Forget maps and photos…the solution is GPS! Good to 2 meters”
… odd, my GPS takes me to within 2 meters of too many proposed or closed roads, roadblocks… hmmm… maybe that kegger at Lucias isn’t such a bad idea
… I’m wondering if she thought to leave some munchies in the fridg
Boston September:
Green yields to rust and yellow,
As the trees slumber.
Kenneth – it’s you are not a fisher.
Summer dryness past
River levels rise again
The trout are calling
Back. Didn’t get lost!
We ate my home made fettucini and pesto and drank two bottles of wine (split between 4.) This morning, the guys got up and caught Northern. Later, we ate too many eggs, with bacon, veggies and basil. We took a walk, and drove back. I stopped to visit Popsie Wopsie on the way home–I just got back.
MikeC did not seem to find my house and raid the fridge.
Douggerell (Comment#52322) September 14th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
You call him Walleye
I know him as Pickerel
I’m Canadian
Lucia,
Next to Perch, Pickerel (walleye) is one of the best tasting fresh water fishes (Northern is too bony). As a condition of your supply replenishment role, insist upon a shore lunch on your day at the lake and make sure hubby does the cooking. 😉
The cheeks are the best part of the fish. Think filet mignon, except with fish.
SteveE–
I think you can only keep Northern if they are 26″ or longer. Robert claimed he caught one 25″ fish, but threw it back. I saw shorter ones– that got thrown back.
The guys have a menu pre-prepared and take tons of food up. Lasagna, Eggs benedict (Jim makes the Hollandaise sauce), fillet mignons wrapped in bacon, etc. They’ve had people at other camp sites marvel at their camp ground cooking.
I’m not sure what they’d do if they caught a Northern large enough to keep! Jim was wondering about that when the fish Robert caught was 1″ shy of the limit.
It was all that diet food!!!
MikeC– All you found was diet food? You mean you missed the left over lasagna? That was made with full fat ricotta and full fat mozzarella! Jim made 2, huge ones and left me one. I froze 1/2 the one he left and the invited his parents over so they would eat most of the one Jim left me. But there was a piece right there in the fridge!
Yeah, but it had Jim’s name written all over it… I can’t starve the poor guy while the Pike is being prepped for the scarfing process!
… speaking wo which, we have full stringers… any good recipies?
MIkeC–
Sorry, no. I have no recipes for freshly caught fish. I don’t fish and the guys always throw back. For that matter, in my family, Jim cooks fish more often than I do. I tend to cook chicken, pork and beef.
Thinking back, I can’t remember my mother ever cooking fish. She served pancakes, french toast on meatless spaghetti of
Fridays during Lent.
Lucia,
If the weather is right you can repeat a famous experiment, itself a repeat of a more ancient one:
quote
In 1762, Benjamin Franklin repeated an experiment first performed by Pliny, which he reported in A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, 1773:
“At length being at Clapham, where there is on the common a large pond which I observed one day to be very rough with the wind, I fetched out a cruet of oil and dropped a little of it on the water. I saw it spread itself with surprising swiftness upon the surface; but the effect of smoothing the waves was not produced; for I had applied it first on the leeward side of the pond where the waves were greatest; and the wind drove my oil back upon the shore. I then went to the windward side where they began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square which spread amazingly and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.”
unquote
I have guessed that the required amount is about 5 ml per hectare — which means, incidentally, that we throw enough light oil and surfactant down the sewers every fortnight to smooth the entire ocean surface.
Olive oil should be good, or, to be absolutely ecofriendly, render down a few trout. Take note, however, that there is a patch of smoothing shown in your first picture — biological smoothing (unless the local cabins haven’t got their drains perfectly sorted.
JF
(second try: I got directed to the error page the first time and second attempt gave me a duplicate error message.)
Lucia,
If the weather is right you can repeat a famous experiment, itself a repeat of a more ancient one:
quote
In 1762, Benjamin Franklin repeated an experiment first performed by Pliny, which he reported in A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, 1773:
“At length being at Clapham, where there is on the common a large pond which I observed one day to be very rough with the wind, I fetched out a cruet of oil and dropped a little of it on the water. I saw it spread itself with surprising swiftness upon the surface; but the effect of smoothing the waves was not produced; for I had applied it first on the leeward side of the pond where the waves were greatest; and the wind drove my oil back upon the shore. I then went to the windward side where they began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square which spread amazingly and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.”
unquote
I have guessed that the required amount is about 5 ml per hectare — which means, incidentally, that we throw enough light oil and surfactant down the sewers every fortnight to smooth the entire ocean surface.
Olive oil should be good, or, to be absolutely ecofriendly, render down a few trout. Take note, however, that there is a patch of smoothing shown in your first picture — biological smoothing (unless the local cabins haven’t got their drains perfectly sorted.
JF
There is a large cognitive dissonance required to be a true AGW believer, hence the comparison to religious beliefs. Take, for instance, the ability to simultaneously acknowledge that CO2 levels have been 10 to 20 times higher than the present during multiple periods of Earth’s history without causing a ‘tipping point’ of no return, while retaining the belief that CO2 levels 10 to 20 times less are causing a ‘tipping point’ now. In fact, an entire ice age came and went with CO2 levels about 11 times higher than the present throughout the Ordovician period shown in the graphic below. The latest eco-scare-alert notes that Antarctica abruptly transitioned from a warm, subtropical hothouse to the present solid ice sheet during a period when CO2 levels exceeded those of today by 10 times.
So this is why I don’t understand why people complain about the ice caps melting. Sod has basis for crying about the stupid ice.
You are the one with the cognitive dissonance. Most climate scienctists aren’t claiming an end to ice ages. They are referring to events that will happen to our climate before that arrives, which, according to this link factoidz dot com/when-will-the-next-ice-age-occur/ will be in about 50,000 years or so. We may or may not be able to do much about that, but that is for later generations to worry about. What we can do is change our behaviour that is creating the current warming.
In an effort to aid understanding of the debates that rage here on the Blackboard I think we could use Mike Reed’s definitions
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
Could you fix the meter in line 2? The word “are” is redundant, both syntactically and numerically.
Andrew K, I hadn’t seen that… that’s hilarious.
He’s missing crusty old scientist tough… 😉
BTW, here’s the turn at Kewaskum.
Carrick– Google is amazing, isn’t it?
I never missed the turn at Kewaskum. It was the turn to stay on “S” that hung me up. I’d end up on “G”. That takes you the long way around the lake, and you end up at the front entrance (I think you also have to catch “SSS”. I’m not making it up about the roads being variously repeated values of “S” and “G”. )
The lake is pretty small. There is a nice hiking path around the lake which we sometimes walk. It was too wet this weekened, so we took a different path.
I should try to see if google has a picture of the Piggly Wiggly.
Lucia:
I like this game!
One Piggly Wiggly coming up!
If you hadn’t noticed you can now double click on main roads in map.google.com to quickly hop into the streetview image… after first searching e.g. for Kewaskum Piggly Wiggly. It’s also pretty cool that you can embed the street view into a GoogleEarth Placemark.
sorry, but i ll highjack this topic to continue the UAH discussion.
lucia said:
Fuss? I only note what ever it happens to be. If it were the warmest, I’d say that. If someone claims a record was broken, but it’s not, I say it wasn’t. I don’t see how this is making a “huge fussâ€.
.
i remember a discussion from the february UAH topic. Spencer had just corrected the UAH data down from 0.74 (very close to the 1998 result of 0.75) to 0.63.
.
lucia did insist that it was only the second warmest, even though (the 5.2) was basically indistinguishable from the 1998 record. (0.74 vs 0.75)
.
It’s the second hottest Feb. (I was going to tell sod he might get to start saying it’s breaking “record after record†now, but he can’t yet!)
.
i found that very “fussy”.
.
—————-
.
lucia also was still hoping for a change to 1998, which didn t materialise:
.
Do we know that yet? Maybe it will knock down 1998 too. If you have a link to the full V5.3, I’d love to get that data, plot it and show the difference. Spencer posted the long term trend– seems about the same.
.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/uah-betting-results-based-on-v-5-2/
For things of beauty,
of waves and sunsets,
do skyward look.
http://exposureroom.com/members/seemoo/8d13ea8361dc41c3a5dd629de3e9624e/
An amazing time-lapse video of the San Francisco bay area fog.
While we’re making OT posts, JAXA Arctic sea ice extent reached a new low yesterday. It’s dropped 108,000 km2 in the last two days to reach 4.891 Mm2 compared to 4.708 Mm2 on 9/9/2008. Area (Cryosphere Today) may have bottomed at 3.072 Mm2 on 9/8/2010, but it’s looking a lot like 2008 and 2008 tested it’s low of 3.003 Mm2 on 9/8/2008 again on 9/17/2008 at 3.036 Mm2.
DeWitt #53468
And another 50+K day – now down to 4832813 Mm2. Two more such days gets below 2008.
In the meantime; people and all kinds animals have been freezing to death in the Southern Hemisphere with record breaking low temps on land and water. …global warming is supposed to be the whole globe remember! Can you say NH bias?
Apparently your concern for life as we know it is selective. (I know I know…it is a “climate disruption” you’ll say when temps are colder then normal!!! (word has it that’s the new PC term the alarmists are going to use for this farce formally known as GLOBAL WARMING. I am up on these things…;))
#52473 “NH bias?”
Who, me? Nope. I’m down here in the SH, and not freezing. OK, it’s still early spring, and not hot in Melbourne. But nothing unusual, nor elsewhere in Australia.
Re: Nick Stokes (Sep 18 02:37),
Needless to say that I saw that. It would be ironic if it did go below 2008 and the NSIDC proved to be prescient rather than wrong about their statement earlier this month that 2010 was the second lowest extent in the satellite record.
The AMO index for August came out yesterday: 0.575. That’s the highest since 1878. There must have been one heck of an El Nino in 1878.
Nick Stokes (Comment#52474) September 18th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Liar liar, pants not on fire. Maybe not right this second for where you are but lower then average temps throughout Australia and New Zealand June, July, August. Besides I’m talking about the NH bias in the surface stations supposedly representing the “whole globe” to a tenth of a degree and the people and animals dying from the cold are in South America. Remember that continent don’t you? There is bias after all! Thousands of animals died of hypothermia; snow was seen for the first time in living memory in many areas. And the ice watchers yawn.
a comment on WUWT from yesterday:
“This week in our spring in australia has been real special 16c below normal in tropic climes, rain and snow and cold in temperate zones. Tasmania our southern island state just had their coldest days EVER, 140 kph wind, rain and snow all over, 18.4 Metre waves, for us no problem. How ever the largest storm noted in the southern ocean is descending with plunging temperatures on the poor old Kiwis, some what like the day after tomorrow. Either CO2 needs a minus sign in front of it or it is the sun playing its normal game and those sucked in to the AGW nonsense are the pawns.”
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp
much sound and fury, indicating nothing. In steady cliamte, the number of high extremes should match the number of low extremes. But research indicates that is not what is happening.
AGW does not mean nothing ever gets cold again.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp
I’m not particularly surprised the value is still dropping. Looking at the image , there is a salient in the East Siberian Sea that has been looking very vulnerable to erosion by wind and sea currents and by the relatively low ice concentration…
I’m not an expert on arctic ice, of course, but I’d expect it to continue eroding for several weeks, which could cause further total ice loss, depending on the concentration level that you’re tracking.
bugs (Comment#52479) September 18th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Yeah and the whole state of California had temperatures 10 to 20 degrees below normal all summer. Maybe the FRACTION of one degree “warming” isn’t real? LOL
Did you go to Mars yet? 95% C02 concentrations, temps so cold it freezes…you are supposed to do the “physics of C02” and “tease” out half of a degree of warming and tell me how you did it remember?
bugs (Comment#52479) September 18th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Yeah “felt”. How nice. Big deal. Dying is worse. The whole state of California had temperatures 10 to 20 degrees below normal all summer. Maybe the FRACTION of one degree “warming” for the planet isn’t real and the planet, bulging, spinning, wobbling ; hurling through space is just doing what it does is.
That reminds me. Did you go to Mars yet? 95% C02 concentrations, temps so cold CO2 freezes…you are supposed to do the “physics of C02” and “tease” out half of a degree of warming and tell me how you did it remember?
bugs:
Be careful of which metrics you think are important.
In terms of extremes, the 1930s still beat the last 10 years in terms of new high temperature records for much of the US. Many of them still persist till today…this illustrates the problems with data mining.
So in a nutshell:
Rising C02 concentrations (continuous, as we speak, not getting any lower, up up up) raises the temperature on Earth!!!!, except when it doesn’t. (I really would love to know what you tell yourselves when you hear people and animals are dying of cold in places where that hardly ever happens!!)
Hi liza,
“Rising C02 concentrations (continuous, as we speak, not getting any lower, up up up) raises the temperature on Earth!!!!, except when it doesn’t.”
Yes the temperature in Kentucky has inexplicably gone down recently, which is impossible because C02 is making the temperature go up.
How can this be? 😉
Andrew
Re: Carrick (Sep 18 09:34),
I’ve been watching that too. It’s shrunk a lot during the last week while the concentration and area, but not extent, in the central Arctic Basin was increasing.
Liza, #52476/7, you shouldn’t believe everything you read on WUWT. Here’s the Oz temp map for August. Most within a degree of average, warmer in the north, cooler in some arid regions. Same for winter as a whole – quite warm in the North.
As for Tassie in spring, here’s the story for Hobart in September. Average max 14.3, where the climate max
average is 14.9. It gets warmer as the month goes on, so that’s probably actually warmer than average for the first half.
Liza, #52476/7, you shouldn’t believe everything you read on WUWT. Here’s the Oz temp map for August. Most within a degree of average, warmer in the north, cooler in some arid regions. Same for winter as a whole – quite warm in the North.
As for Tassie in spring, here’s the story for Hobart in September. Average max 14.3C, where the climate max
average is 14.9. It gets warmer as the month goes on, so that’s probably actually warmer than average for the first half.
“you shouldn’t believe everything you read on WUWT”
This wise council brought to you by the Department of Comical Understatements. Also:
* “That Shakespeare guy was a pretty fair writer.”
* “Afghanistan is not as secure as we would like.”
* “Stephen Hawking’s not much of an athlete.”
I suggest we respectfully leave Liza and Andrew_KY to their mutual wooing and avoid bothering them with our boring facts.
toto (Comment#52501) September 19th, 2010 at 5:35 am
I am sure the 4,000 people who without power in Tasmania will be comforted by Nick’s charts. Coldest weather in decades all the news articles say about that storm. Facts are stubborn things. People who believe in little charts are too.
Nick, it was possible to see all kinds of maps from your link. I like how you say “quite warm in the North” when everyone knows most people live in the south there. Yes, never mind the people and animals dying in South America and the snow in places never seen before in human memory. You obviously won’t or can’t handle that information.
Hey Andrew! 🙂 Woo woo woo!
“toto (Comment#52501)
September 19th, 2010 at 5:35 am
I suggest we respectfully leave Liza and Andrew_KY to their mutual wooing and avoid bothering them with our boring facts.”
toto,
I thought you warmers were providing us with alarming facts.
Are you now stating that Global Warming is boring? If you are, we are in total agreement. 😉
Andrew
ouch, looks like ice keeps dropping:
.
The latest value : 4,813,594 km2 (September 18, 2010)
.
here are some numbers:
.
09,01,2010,5332344
09,02,2010,5304219
09,03,2010,5245625
09,04,2010,5192188
09,05,2010,5136094
09,06,2010,5093281
09,07,2010,5027188
09,08,2010,4989375
09,09,2010,4972656
09,10,2010,4952813
09,11,2010,4986406
09,12,2010,5005000
09,13,2010,5008750
09,14,2010,4998594
09,15,2010,4948438
09,16,2010,4890938
09,17,2010,4842031
09,18,2010,4813594
.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
.
ouch. we ll see what will happen.
Sod, you must be forgetting the UHI effect. And I believe the siting of the ice caps is not good either, nor the paint used on them.
liza (Comment#52484) September 18th, 2010 at 10:22 am
You just answered your own question, you are comparing the long term global average to short term, local variations.
Re: sod (Sep 19 15:15),
I don’t expect it to go much lower. It looks like area hit it’s minimum on 9/8/2010 at 3.0721 Mm2. It stayed near there for 3 days, but since 9/11/2010 it’s been increasing and was 3.3118 Mm2 on 9/17/2010. Extent usually hits its minimum not long after area.
bugs (Comment#52513) September 19th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Actually you just told me you would let animals and people freeze (or you don’t care). You know, because your mission in life is “stop the warming” !
I don’t know why anybody else here doesn’t say anything when there are doosies like this one said by you. And I am waiting for the explanation AndrewKy asked for too ” Milankovitch cycles aren’t doing anything right now” statement you made in the other topic as well. While you are at it; explain a “steady climate” and what that looks like, how much C02 and other GHGs (down to each ppm) should there be in the atmosphere for this “steady climate” and for how long should it last.
I don’t expect it to go much lower.
.
neither do i. and Neven also called the end yesterday.
.
2010 now was extremely close to 2008. looks like the 2 year recovery has been wiped out.
sod:
I don’t know I would even use the word “recovery”.
I’m not sure we’re on a trajectory for rapid melting so much in a new metastable state, with long-term continued ice decline resting atop an ice cap that exhibits more vulnerability to ocean currents and atmospheric winds.
The excess loss of ice this summer is probably due to the salient in the Eastern Siberian Sea, which continued to shed ice after the rest of the sheet began to rebound (as DeWitt also pointed out above). I’m suggesting this may be more typical for individual years than it had been in the previous satellite record.
Andrew_KY: I thought you warmers were providing us with alarming facts.
Yeah, but I’m the kind of guy who could make the Apocalypse boring. Negative charisma FTLose!
(That, and there’s only so many times you can repeat that “local weather is not global climate” before falling into catatonic stupor.)
liza (Comment#52518) September 19th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
You know, I didn’t actually say anything of the sort.
I don’t what the doosie is. IANAS, but as I understand it, the earth is an energy balance equation. What goes in, must come out, it’s just a matter of where that balance sits. (The wording of your demand for an explanation, however, is just one more appeal to the absurd.) What changes it from that current balance is the forcing. It doesn’t just change from that state for no reason, that reason is the forcing, whatever it may be at that point in time. Cycles and day to day weather are not forcings.
Bugs, you’ve got to be kidding me!
I’d like to think you were kidding me, but I know you weren’t.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
liza,
The answer is, neither bugs nor any other warmer has any personal knowledge or scientific understanding of Global Warming. They are just repeating things they’ve heard.
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#52533) September 20th, 2010 at 7:17 am
That’s an understatement! Unbelievable.
Andrew_KY (Comment#52533) September 20th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Did you just get here? I don’t have any personal understanding in depth of any field of science, and I’m betting you don’t either, nor of any other field of knowledge beyond the one I am employed in. This is the age of the specialist. Face up to it. Pretending that you do know as much as the specialists is just self delusion. That goes for most knowledge outside the field of science as well. That’s how we advance knowledge now. We are no smarter now than we were 100,000 years ago, but we divide up the knowledge between ourselves so we can advance it as a group. I am quite content to admit my limitations, but an amazing number of so called ‘skeptics’ seem to have fanciful ideas about how they know so much more than the specialists.
The AR4 is an excellent document, and it explains AGW. Most ‘skeptics’ questions are answered in the FAQ.
Thanks for answering, bugs. The problem is that I don’t go around repeating things that I have no idea whether they are true or not, like you and all other warmers do.
You pretend that you are repeating facts, when the fact is you don’t know what you are repeating.
Andrew
What you just said “bugs” was “I don’t know anything at all about any of this but I know this is an excellent document.”
Are you kidding me again?? LOL!! Hi AndrewK!
My husband is a “specialist” on the Milankovitch cycles among other things so I was asking YOU bugs, how you know what you claimed was true, not the handful of scientists at the IPCC. I was asking YOU about the cycles because I know through a real specialist in the field; nobody knows, not even the IPCC, what you claimed about them having no influence at this time. In fact they probably do! There is an expert here IN MY HOUSE, published one too; on the geological record, Milankovitch cycles etc etc etc; not some far away ultra political UN panel member I’ve never met that you tell me I must trust and believe.
In the other thread on physicists; you talk about the IPCC again; how wonderful they are. Looks to me like they wrote you a bible! All you have is FAITH anything contained in their documents is correct and you are thumping it. That, or you are on the payroll!!
Here’s another question for you bugs. Why do you think, a handful of scientists back in the 70’s wrote in Time magazine they were worried about a coming ice age?
Here’s part of what they said:
“Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”
liza (Comment#52565) September 21st, 2010 at 6:25 am
No, what I said was, I am not an expert but to the extent that I understand it, the IPCC report is an excellent document.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
I guess that they got paid to say that.
Paid me, lol. I’m living it up on the easy money here.
On the payroll. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, …. ha.
bugs:
I agree with bugs on this. The physical basis sections (the ones relevant to this discussion) are extremely well put together, and written to be assessable to a broad audience. There is no excuse for you or Andrew to not read these and familiarize yourself with its contents (and laziness is no excuse). Whether you agree with everything said there, it’s the de facto reference frame for AGW science.
“I agree with bugs on this. The physical basis sections (the ones relevant to this discussion) are extremely well put together, and written to be assessable to a broad audience. There is no excuse for you or Andrew to not read these and familiarize yourself with its contents (and laziness is no excuse). Whether you agree with everything said there, it’s the de facto reference frame for AGW science.”
Carrick,
Re: Agreeing
Sections of a report are assertions. What evidence can I perceive that makes those sections of the report correct or show them to be incorrect? I’m not going to agree to just assertions. If I am supposed to come to an agreement on some theory, the proponents of that theory should at least be able to tell me what specifically the evidence is supposed to be, so I can scrutinize it myself.
So… what evidence should I be looking at?
Andrew
Sheesh, I’ve read at least two of the IPCC reports myself online. We’ve got the very first one in hard copy in the the garage. My husband was given the copy in school and they went over it; and it was agreed by every one -EXPERTS- in earth sciences that to be highly skeptical of the whole AGW thing, especially the models was correct thinking! Too many mistakes in it and too many sweeping assumptions. I’ve been looking at these documents myself FOR YEARS online and going over them on various blogs including CLIMATE AUDIT I found this to be TRUE. The IPCC just got an “F” for fail from an independent review board. Holy cow.
bugs (Comment#52568) September 21st, 2010 at 7:14 am
That paragraph is BS. the Milankovitch cycles also cause INTERGLACIAL periods. Duh. Which means WARM EARTH. We are at the PEAK now. And you are arguing about A FRACTION OF A DEGREE OF TEMP rise An orbital cycle cant’ be part of that? YOU DONT KNOW. NO BODY KNOWS.
These cycles are more complicated then that paragraph. I can tell you have NO CLUE. It’s useless to argue. You don’t know what you are talking about. None of you do.
You are religious!
Andrew, the IPCC includes a referenced theoretical framework as well as experimental data. At the least it should allow you to frame the debate in your mind along the lines presented by the climate researchers, and to provide immediate access to you to the data that are associated.
I can’t answer what you would find compelling, that’s highly individualistic, since it depends on your personal biases as well as the skill set you carry with you to the problem. I’d suggest starting with the theoretical frameworks, making sure you understood the philosophical underpinnings of these, then asking yourself critically how well the data supports this and/or what further data would be needed to convince you of their truth or falsity.
For myself, I use it to mine references to help me understand a particular problem, I sometimes read the write ups in detail, usually in piecemeal fashion though, when I do. I have found it to be much more middle of the road than some of you critics suggest, certainly much more so than the advocacy sites.
The IPCC’s, a POLITICAL body, list of questionable citations:
http://climatequotes.com/scientists/the-ipccs-questionable-citations/
and how many other papers/thesis’ /reports/sources/scientists/ are buried and unknown or we are told over and over again NOT to read or listen to? Probably too many to count.
It’s the same problem different day. Not to mention how you still have to HAVE FAITH in the temperature reconstructions made with the same data over yet again where the margin for error could be greater then or equal to that FRACTION OF ONE DEGREE of “global warming” claimed to be unusual!
“I can’t answer what you would find compelling, that’s highly individualistic, since it depends on your personal biases as well as the skill set you carry with you to the problem.”
Thanks for responding, Carrick.
Well, I’d say this is a problem with the (in)ability of climate science.
Science is supposed to present something objective that potentially we both could look at an agree on what it is. In the context of Global Warming, what is climate science presenting?
Andrew
May I take issue with this claim?
I am not bugs, but I also claim some scientific understanding of Global Warming and also believe that the earth has been warming in recent decades.
Thanks for commenting, oliver.
“May I take issue with this claim?”
You may. 😉
“I am not bugs, but I also claim some scientific understanding of Global Warming and also believe that the earth has been warming in recent decades.”
I have an intellectual understanding of unicorns, but that doesn’t mean I believe in them or that they actually exist somewhere.
If someone says, “I believe in unicorns because I have experienced horses and they look an awful lot like unicorns are supposed to look (except a few minor details) and there are lots and lots of images of unicorns too, recorded throughout history.” Is that good enough evidence to compel you to believe that unicorns exist?
Andrew
Yes, but the warming part is an observational result. I’m not making a “statement of belief” in something ephemeral — I’m merely stating that I “believe” the measurements enough to make a very general statement.
Even though the statement may qualify me as a “warmer,” I also do not just “go around repeating things that I have no idea” about. At least, I try not to.
“but the warming part is an observational result”
Not observed by you, though. You are trusting/believing someone else’s analysis, not your own unfiltered observation.
Andrew
Andrew,
It’s true, I am unable to personally take all the measurements which go into the analysis. I have to rely on other people to take some of those measurements. Do you have any serious disagreement about the “admissibility” of the measurements themselves?
As for the analysis of those measurements, what makes you so certain I haven’t gone through the analysis myself?
“It’s true, I am unable to personally take all the measurements which go into the analysis. I have to rely on other people to take some of those measurements. Do you have any serious disagreement about the “admissibility†of the measurements themselves?
As for the analysis of those measurements, what makes you so certain I haven’t gone through the analysis myself?”
oliver,
It’s my understanding that the public has no way of accessing the measurements themselves, but only to numbers that have already been “processed”, so yes, I have a problem with that.
Yes, I’m not certain you have not done any analysis yourself. The value of your analysis is also unknown.
Andrew
The “raw engineering data” recorded by satellite measurements is not even in useful physical units or coordinates. They require processing, often based on other people’s processing algorithms and/or base measurements, to be intelligible. By the same token, even the marks on my thermometer depend on other people’s calibration work.
What do you consider constitute “raw, unprocessed measurements”?
On the other subject, of whether I have done any analysis myself and whether my analysis is even has any value: why make sweeping statements about “all warmers” if you simply don’t know?
oliver,
A measurement I would consider valid would be one that can be understood. The public, who is being asked to believe temperature measurements, generally understands the measurement of a thermometer. I think it is the duty of the scientists to make their science understandable. If they can’t, obviously the science isn’t very good.
On the other subject- because all warmers base their analysis/ beliefs on sets of numbers that may or may not be accurate representations of something.
If you’ve done any analysis that you feel is worth sharing, please do so.
Andrew
Andrew,
It seems your claims are essentially:
I. A “valid” measurement is one that “can be understood.”
II. “All warmers base their analysis/ beliefs on sets of numbers that may or may not be accurate representations of something”
No further “analysis” appears necessary at this point.
Andrew,
A “valid” measurement is one that “can be understood.”
If I accept your claim that the “public… generally understands the measurement of a thermometer”, then I claim by extension that the public can understand a set of many thermometer measurements over the surface of the earth over a period of decades. I submit that it’s even possible to understand various averages formed from these temperature measurements.
“All warmers base their analysis/ beliefs on sets of numbers that may or may not be accurate representations of something”
That seems to be generally true of all people when numbers of any sort are involved — it doesn’t really add anything to our understanding of “warming,” “warmers,” or anything else, really.
oliver,
“I submit that it’s even possible to understand various averages formed from these temperature measurements.”
Yes, it’s possible. But how do we know the numbers used are accurate?
“That seems to be generally true of all people when numbers of any sort are involved — it doesn’t really add anything to our understanding of “warming,†“warmers,†or anything else, really.”
Yes, it does. Warmers believe that the numbers mean something. That’s what makes them warmers. The fact is, warmers don’t know what the numbers mean. They are taking the numbers on faith.
Andrew
I think it is the duty of the scientists to make their science understandable. If they can’t, obviously the science isn’t very good.
Balderdash!
How many citizens of this or any nation have a firm grasp of quantum mechanics? Should we throw out our solid state electronics because of widespread public ignorance?
You can think that it is the duty of scientists to dumb down the science – but I don’t. I think it is the duty of citizens of advanced nations to learn science.
Robert,
I didn’t say dumb down anything.
“Should we throw out our solid state electronics because of widespread public ignorance?”
No.
“I think it is the duty of citizens of advanced nations to learn science.”
And it’s the scientists job to teach the science to the public, since scientists allege to have the knowledge, if they want the public involved.
Andrew
Sorry, Ron. 😉
Andrew
See, the public doesn’t have to believe in solid state electronics, if they don’t want to.
Do you get that, Ron?
Andrew
Any particular person doesn’t have to believe in electricity, either.
Do you get that , Ron?
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#52652) September 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Ironically, you yourself continue repeating what amounts to a statement of faith and presenting it as a fact.
“Ironically, you yourself continue repeating what amounts to a statement of faith and presenting it as a fact.”
This is a first. A warmer tacitly admitting they are repeating faith-based conclusions.
oliver, I appreciate your honesty, sir.
Andrew
Andrew_KY:
They do. It’s call “college”.
-2 points… trolling.
AKY: Yes, it does. Warmers believe that the numbers mean something. That’s what makes them warmers. The fact is, warmers don’t know what the numbers mean. They are taking the numbers on faith
I recall deriving a certain kernel of foundational mathematics in a Mathematical Proofs class. The rest I take on faith. Come to think of it … I take my memory of that class on faith since I don’t have any physical proof nearby that I did indeed take the course.
So Andrew_KY, do you take mathematics on faith or have you derived all the math you use from an initial set of axioms (taken on faith …?)
Andrew
once again you espouse the lunatic epistemology
‘Science is supposed to present something objective that potentially we both could look at an agree on what it is.”
it does no such thing. Science presents hypothesis. If you do X, you will see Y. Science cannot compel consent. It does not predict consent. You, for example, look at things all the time and deny the reality of what the rest of us see. Now, if you ignore these realities, as you can, I really dont care. cause reality wins. However, the denial of climate science is somewhat different, because your denial impacts others.
“once again you espouse the lunatic epistemology”
Steven Mosher,
And once again you go ad hom when you’ve on the losing side of an argument.
Andrew
“So Andrew_KY, do you take mathematics on faith or have you derived all the math you use from an initial set of axioms (taken on faith …?)”
Ron,
I only care about mathematics as far as it is useful to me. I do not have any faith in mathematics I do not understand.
Anyway, I see that since you can’t defend climate science very well, so you have switched to defending mathematics.
Andrew
And it’s the scientists job to teach the science to the public, since scientists allege to have the knowledge, if they want the public involved.
They do. It’s call “collegeâ€.
Carrick,
Lots of the public cannot afford to go to college, so you can’t say that scientists are teaching “the public” through colleges.
Andrew
Andrew:
I never knew Andrew was a marxist!
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
There’s only so much you get for free Andrew, in a free society. For the rest you have to pay, according to their worth.
Nobody works for free, not for very long anyway.
I never knew Andrew was a marxist!
Carrick,
I’m not. I’m just stating that lots of people don’t go to college. The connection to Marxism is all in your head, dude.
Andrew
Not really.
You are demanding services for free. “Its the scientists job…”
You seem to have an expectation that people who spend their lifetime training for a particular occupation should be at every doubting Thomas’s beck and call.
“You are demanding services for free.”
No, I’m not.
I’m saying people who claim to have knowledge of Global Warming have an obligation to clearly and truthfully tell the public what they know, IF THEY WANT THE PUBLIC INVOLVED.
If you warmers don’t want the public involved, just say so.
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#52676) September 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 am
Not only that. They should also tell the public what they don’t know. (and express their margins for error and assumptions CLEARLY too) (especially when playing with fractions of one degree of temperature!) My husband is THAT kind of scientist.
Hi liza,
What I have observed is that there is a strong correlation between believing in Global Warming and not wanting to be honest about Global Warming. lol 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#52667) September 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 am
“once again you espouse the lunatic epistemologyâ€
Steven Mosher,
And once again you go ad hom when you’ve on the losing side of an argument.
Andrew
##############
you get the ad hom fallacy wrong. The ad hom fallacy is this.
‘ bill clinton believes in global warming. Bill clinton is a womanizer. THEREFORE AGW is wrong. I did not attack you. I did not say I was right because you were a bad person. I said your EPISTEMOLOGY is lunatic. We’ve been over your notions a bunch of times and you just don’t get it. there is nothing more the rest of us can do except pat you on your head and wish you luck.
lets get back to your quote:
“Science is supposed to present something objective that potentially we both could look at an agree on what it is.”
on YOUR definition truth becomes a function of the observers agreement.
And you wonder were the notion of consensus comes from?
So, climate science presents a lot of stuff that many many of us agree on. We all look at it and agree. And then un educated types look at it and disagree. is that the fault of science or their own lunatic way of looking at things. do they take the word of others when they dont understand things? why no thats an appeal to authority. [ unless of course the authority is your husband.
hey, my dad was a nobel prize winning scientist ( Im a bastard dont check the names) and he said geologists were not scientists.]
If you dont understand the science. Just say so. Just stick with “I dont know”. Is climate science right? lets practice this Andrew, you should say ” I dont know”
Unless, you know its wrong.
“I did not attack you. I did not say I was right because you were a bad person. I said your EPISTEMOLOGY is lunatic.”
Steven Mosher,
Please. You centainly meant to attack me by implication.
“So, climate science presents a lot of stuff that many many of us agree on.”
Like what? Squiggly lines? And who are the many many?
Andrew