The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Paul Clark
(woodfortrees) - F
Decimal years on 10/06/2008 06:51:50 MDT Print View

Rog,

The time axis is labelled in decimal years, not month numbers.
Hence it goes up to 2008.58, which is August (September should be out any day now).

See

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:2007

for the raw data.

Slightly confusing, I agree...

Cheers

Paul

Edited by woodfortrees on 10/06/2008 06:53:21 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Decimal years on 10/06/2008 14:02:20 MDT Print View

Doh!

Thanks for that Paul

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Woodfortrees funding and "number changing" on 10/07/2008 06:18:22 MDT Print View

Good morning, Paul,

Associating a graph from your website, which was clearly referenced by Rog in one of his posts just above, with the host of undocumented graphs that Rog has placed on this thread, was inappropriate, and I apologize.

Thanks for reminding me that these casual, conversational, communications that we engage in on the web, are public, and require a standard higher than conversational banter.

I look forward to referencing your site, and thanks for dropping in. Welcome to the forums!

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: climate wager - time to put up or ... on 10/07/2008 06:41:14 MDT Print View

Hi, Rog,

With preparations for a canoe trip, followed by a week long float around the wilderness, and now grinding back into the grind, I haven't taken the time for gambling. Later.

Incidentally, rather than reminding you above, of your habit of "playing fast and loose" with unreferenced graphic evidence, I could have commended you for bringing your supporting graphics out of the shadowy world of the undocumented, to the scrutiny of the clear light of day! I hope you can acclimate! :-)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: climate wager - time to put up or ... on 10/07/2008 13:12:14 MDT Print View

Hi Skots

Thanks for your apologies to Paul and myself, graiciously accepted.

I notice you haven't commented in similar vein ragarding the graphics Dean has used throughout this thread.

The gambling streak of the warmista seems to have cooled somewhat. I'm not surprised, winter is arriving, and the southern oceans aren't going to provide the warming trend of the earlier part of the decade.

Welcome to the cooling world.giss 2002 present

Edited by tallbloke on 10/07/2008 14:54:12 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 10/27/2008 04:52:27 MDT Print View

Despite the doomsayers predictions of an ice free arctic sea this year, ice extent is up on 2007 and is now rapidly approaching the standard deviation band for the average extent over the last 30 years.

Good news for polar bears. ;-)

arctic sea ice 2008

In other news, 6 US states report record low temperatures for the onset of fall.

Oct 23rd

Rome, OR Breaks old record of 20 set in 1980

Caribou, ME Breaks old record of 21 set in 1982

Traverse City, MI Breaks old record of 24 set in 1976

Grand Junction, CO Breaks old record of 26 set in 1996

Idaho Falls, ID Breaks old record of 18 set in 1958

Union, OR Breaks previous record of 20 set in 1980

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 10/27/2008 07:47:28 MDT Print View

Welcome back, Rog,

It sounds like you had a great trip.

The image below, from the NSIDC will add a context to the news that you are reporting about seasonal sea ice extent.

Sea Ice Extent March Sept.

The text around the graph indicates a 2.8% decadal decrease in March Arctic ice, and a 11.1% decadal decrease in Sept. Arctic ice. And as you know, all seasonal sea ice extent recoveries are not the same. One difference is the recovered ice thickness. Like in the last years, more of this year's recovered extent will be new, thinner ice, which will be more likely to melt next year.

For a "scientific" view of Arctic sea ice, provided by scientists who study Arctic sea ice, it might be worth checking out the NSIDC website. The site has helped me with a basic understanding that is often helpful in contextualizing bits of misinformation that we casually encounter.

The graph above came from that hotbed of doomsayers, NOAA.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

Understanding can be gained at

http://nsidc.org/news/

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 10/27/2008 10:26:34 MDT Print View

Hi Skots,
Both the graphs are correct, but emphasize the different way we view the data. I'm optomistic for a recovery in arctic ice because I also see many other signs of a cooling trend beginning. You present data for the worst points of the year where we see the maximum effect of the warming trend we experienced up to a couple of years ago.

First october snow in London for 70 years falls as politicians debate CO2 reduction law.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/29/snow-blankets-london-for-global-warming-debate-first-october-snow-in-over-70-years/

Oh the irony.

A correspondent from the sunshine state writes:

" I don't know if you are familiar with Florida, but it is typically a warm state. The weather channel stated that there were 22 record highs this week, and 176 record lows, with more record lows coming after they gathered in yesterday and today's reports. This is in stark contrast to the data they displayed from 2000-2007 where The # of record highs easily outnumbered the # of record lows 2 to 1.

Anyway, we are supposed to warm up next week to temperatures slightly above average (upper 60s for highs, mid 40s for low), but there looks to be another cold front coming late next week. Either way, it's been cold lately, with our average January temperatures occuring in late October, very unusual. "

And goes on to say:

"Last year in the USA, the NOAA predicted a much warmer winter, it of course didn't happen as it was downright cold and snowy over most of the country.

But it didn't matter to the NOAA because they just adjusted their numbers up to show it much warmer than it was (remember these guys actually claimed March 2008 had the hottest land temps ever!!!!)

So
If it's warm: The NOAA will claim it's global warming
If it's cold: The NOAA will adjust their numbers to show it's warm and claim it's global warming""

Edited by tallbloke on 10/30/2008 08:27:54 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Cold U.S. breaks records by the 100. on 10/31/2008 05:38:11 MDT Print View

NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records.

So far, no mention of this broadly distributed U.S. record event in the mainstream media.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/

It's interesting to see how a compliant media in the US, UK, and Australia/New Zealand are quick to print stories about high temperature events, but seem to ignore low temperature events...

Official: Alaska's glaciers are growing:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5851

"“In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,” says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).”

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10–12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That’s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven’t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles."

On a more sobering note, this from CNN founder Ted Turner:

"Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."

Nice to see America's media safe in the hands of well balanced individuals with their finger on the pulse.

:-)

Edited by tallbloke on 10/31/2008 06:23:44 MDT.

Rick Dreher
(halfturbo) - MLife

Locale: Northernish California
Re: Cold U.S. breaks records by the 100. on 10/31/2008 10:24:32 MDT Print View

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081015_ncdcglobaltemps.html

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Cold U.S. breaks records by the 100. on 10/31/2008 13:56:23 MDT Print View

From Rick's link:

"The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for September 2008 tied with September 2001 as the ninth warmest since records began in 1880"

I wonder if they'll be making special mention of the record breaking cold in October next month. :-)

Place bets now!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Free energy cooking technique on 11/01/2008 07:03:11 MDT Print View

IPCC oven

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 11/02/2008 21:18:42 MST Print View

Hi, Rog,

I trust things are going well?

> Both the graphs are correct, but emphasize the different way we view the data. I'm optimistic for a recovery in arctic ice because I also see many other signs of a cooling trend beginning. You present data for the worst points of the year where we see the maximum effect of the warming trend we experienced up to a couple of years ago.



>BOTH GRAPHS CORRECT? The graph that I presented is from the NSIDC, and found on the NOAA site listed in my post. I may have missed a reference for the graph that you presented. Did you reference? Are you asking me to trust that the graph you presented is credible?

>THE WAY WE VIEW THE DATA? I attempt to view the data as it is presented by the science based organizations that observe it, collect it, analyze it, compare it, and report it. In this regard, I find sites like NSIDC and NOAA informative and helpful in developing an analytic context.

>I"M OPTIMISTIC BECAUSE I? Forgive me if I'm not comforted by your optimism. Far back in this thread ( P. 4, 4/23/08, 9:51 MDT )you "acknowledged" that the importance that you afford current annual temps in climate science, would demand a “make over” of the disciplines of climate study and statistical analysis. I suspect that you are willing to do the same with Arctic Sea ice. I think I'll stick with the scientists, and the presentations that leave "optimisims" out of the analytical product!

>YOU PRESENT DATA FOR THE WORST POINTS OF THE YEAR Let's see ROG, I present annual max freeze and thaw dates over a thirty year period and you contend that I'm cherry picking the worst points of the year? Do you know some secret about mid-October ice recovery and its "bestness" as a point of importance that you want to share with the scientific community?

>WE SEE THE MAXIMUM EFFECT OF THE WARMING TREND WE EXPERIENCED UP TO A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO When did the climate (30 year units) stop warming, Rog? The other side of your family over at Hadley in East Anglia, say that the warming hasn't stopped. Oh, that's right! The science of climate and statical analysis are different in the constructs that Rog has erected around his reality.

Just out of curiosity, can you be more specific about the "couple year" lag time between the imaginary end of the warming trend and its maximum effect on Arctic Sea ice? Two years? Three? I'd love to hear the curved logic associated with this spin. Anything like Southern Ocean out gassing? That one was certainly a gas to read about!

The fact is that the graph you presented was designed to mislead the reader regarding the climatic state of Arctic Sea ice. Assuming the graph is accurate, it makes the singular point, as you wrote, that ice extent, (mid October 08), is rapidly approaching the standard deviation band for the average extent over the last 30 years. The graph,if accurate, and your description, take a moment of data and imply that that moment means something to Arctic climate. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Arctic Sea ice trends are downward. They are downward at the rates indicated by the graph that I posted above. Arctic Sea ice is trending downward at unexpectedly fast rates. Nothing regarding the future of Arctic Sea ice can be inferred from the graph that you presented, despite its accuracy.

Arctic Sea ice trends are downward absent judgment, absent prejudice, absent optimism, absent pessimism, absent worstness, absent bestness, absent what you or I think. The presentation of misleading information will not change the trend, but it will contribute to the confusion around Arctic Sea ice and its climatic context. As indicated above context is available at NSIDC.

Rog, the rest of your post that I'm responding to and the one immediately below read like a tabloid. What is the point?

And I still can't figure out what you have against those magnificent polar bears. :)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 11/03/2008 01:39:44 MST Print View

Hi Skots.

I don't know why you seem to think theNSIDC/NOAA has the monopoly on good data, but mine comes from here: http://arctic-roos.org/observations

The last time you impugned the data I use, you ended up having to make an apology to the guy who collates it. Have a care.

>you contend that I'm cherry picking the worst points of the year?

Yes. Your graph shows two time points in the annual cycle of ice recession and regrowth. The september point being the minima before regrowth commences. My graph covers the whole year and gives a better picture of the overall situation.

>When did the climate (30 year units) stop warming, Rog?

The global average temperature has got a lot colder in the last two years Skots. Fact. Even Jim Hansen recognises this.

> can you be more specific about the "couple year" lag time between the imaginary end of the warming trend and its maximum effect on Arctic Sea ice? Two years? Three? I'd love to hear the curved logic associated with this spin.

The causal linkages between arctic sea ice extent, global average temperature, wind patterns, shifting warmer ocean currents and polar bear diet is complex, and poorly understood by the jokers who think they know what the future holds based on computer models Skots. One thing for sure is that I don't want their dumb assed politician friends cockamany policies imposed for 30 years until they are forced to admit they got it wrong.

> The fact is that the graph you presented was designed to mislead the reader regarding the climatic state of Arctic Sea ice.

Rubbish. It is an accurate graph produced by a reputable scientific institution which correctly shows an upturn in the freezing rate and a return to 30 year averages. To emphasize the point, here's the latest one.

arctic sea ice 2008-11

> Arctic Sea ice trends are downward.

Rubbish. This years arctic sea ice area is significantly greater than last years, as shown by the graph above. The current trend is upwards.

> Like in the last years, more of this year's recovered extent will be new, thinner ice, which will be more likely to melt next year.

Yet more rubbish, the ice is thickening quickly, this just in from Steven Goddard:
"There is a major difference in Arctic ice behavior this year compared to 2007. This military buoy shows ice thickness of 1.6 meters and increasing rapidly. In 2007 the minimum summer ice thickness was the same (1.1m,) but thickness didn’t reach 1.6 meters until the end of January."
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/buoy_plots/ice2006C.gif

Location is here:
Lat: 85.652 N
Long: 111.676 W

Would you be interested in taking my bet that next years meltoff will be significantly slower/later/less extensive than the last 2 years?
After all, you should be confident in what you're saying since you believe you have the backing of 'the scientific community'.

> I still can't figure out what you have against those magnificent polar bears.

I have nothing against the magnificent polar bears. on the contrary I strongly object to them being used as a political football by an agenda driven, biased, minority interest group bent on misrepresenting the facts. The tabloids show pictures of polar bears perched on shrinking ice floes taken in summer when the ice melts *as it always has* and use the images to convince the public that it's mankind's doing when nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, explain to me how it can be that global temperatures have been plummeting for the last two years while man made co2 output has been soaring as the chinese open a new coal fired power plant every month (with the technical help of the governments which are taxing us for our carbon emissions).

I'd love to hear the curved logic associated with that.

Edited by tallbloke on 11/03/2008 03:30:35 MST.

s k
(skots) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 11/03/2008 07:00:44 MST Print View

Good Morning, Rog,


>I don't know why you seem to think the NSIDC/NOAA has the monopoly on good data, but mine comes from here: http://arctic-roos.org/observations

I don't think that they have a data monopoly. Nor do I think that they are unethical or biased. Thanks for referencing the site of and the source of your graphs data. I didn't see the actual graph. Can you post its address?

>The last time you impugned the data I use, you ended up having to make an apology to the guy who collates it. Have a care.

Not the data, Rog, and not necessarily the graph. Rather the intent of your presentation of it.

>The global average temperature has got a lot colder in the last two years Skots. Fact. Even Jim Hansen recognises this.

As I indicated, thirty years is the generally accepted typical climate unit. I was under the impression that this conversation was about climate rather than weather. Weather is not climate. You can read about the differences in many places. For example, the daily temperatures that you sometimes include in your posts are weather. Thirty years of daily temps add up to....climate.

> The causal linkages between arctic sea ice extent, global average temperature, wind patterns, shifting warmer ocean currents and polar bear diet is complex, and poorly understood by the jokers who think they know what the future holds based on computer models Skots.

So the "couple year" lag time between temps and Arctic Sea ice that you referred to in your post above is ... bogus, a product of your own world of constructs. Wind currents, ocean currents, temps; they're common terms in Arctic Sea ice climate presentations, often with attribution ratios. Certainly complex, not fully understood, but knowledge based on observations, physics, and modeling.

> One thing for sure is that I don't want their dumb assed politician friends cockamany policies imposed for 30 years until they are forced to admit they got it wrong.

Whoa! Now think science, and try to leave your emotion and political judgments away from the key board. Say "observations and analysis" over and over again. Click your heals together if that helps. Hey! The phrase 30 years has appeared in one of your posts. I see that you think of it as a political unit though. Keep trying!

>Rubbish. It is an accurate graph produced by a reputable scientific institution which correctly shows an upturn in the freezing rate and a return to 30 year averages. To emphasize the point, here's the latest one.

If I'm interpreting the graph series correctly, because of the lower downward trend in March sea ice compared to Sept. sea ice, the return toward the std. deviation band is a normal part of the long term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice. It does not indicate or infer any change in the climatic trend , which is downward. This downward trend, as you know, is clearly evidenced on the site that you reference.

> Rubbish. This years arctic sea ice area is significantly greater than last years, as shown by the graph above. The current trend is upwards.

What do you mean here? The monthly freezing trend or the 2007-2008 trend? You know perfectly well that the length of either term is incidental to long term trend of Arctic Sea ice. Why do you insist on this misrepresentation of term length?

> Yet more rubbish, the ice is thickening quickly, this just in from Steven Goddard:
"There is a major difference in Arctic ice behavior this year compared to 2007. This military buoy shows ice thickness of 1.6 meters and increasing rapidly. In 2007 the minimum summer ice thickness was the same (1.1m,) but thickness didn’t reach 1.6 meters until the end of January."

So, this year is different from the thirty year minimum observed in last year in 2007! This is considered normal annual change in the continuing thirty year downward trend. Was Goddard referring to one buoy or one system of buoys? The long term trend in thickness is downward.

>Would you be interested in taking my bet

At your request, I offered you four wagers on temperature. Despite your persistent bluster about falling temps, you quietly refused all of them. Then you expressed a willingness to take one in modified form, a form that removed the relatively cool global temps of last January from the term of the wager. During January, of course, you were blustering about the downward temp. trend in global weather, and its continuation into a maunder minimum and an 18th century like chill. I've come to think that you're more interested in bluster than betting.I suspect as well, that you're more interested in passing off weather change as climate trend and peddling it to anything with ears.

>I have nothing against the magnificent polar bears. on the contrary I strongly object to them being used as a
political football by an agenda driven, biased, minority interest group bent on misrepresenting the facts. The tabloids show pictures of polar bears perched on shrinking ice floes taken in summer when the ice melts *as it always has* and use the images to convince the public that it's mankind's doing when nothing could be further from the truth.

Interestingly, Rog, I think it was you who first brought polar bears into this thread. I'll have to check to see who first "politicized" the polar bear here. I know that it wasn't me.

> Now, explain to me how it can be that global temperatures have been plummeting for the last two years while man made co2 output has been soaring as the chinese open a new coal fired power plant every month (with the technical help of the governments which are taxing us for our carbon emissions).

I understand that you'd like to change the subject again, as is your technique, but lets stick with ice for a while, eh?

I hope that you're having a fine day, I'm looking forward to mine.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arctic sea ice extent in recovery. on 11/03/2008 07:32:40 MST Print View

Hi Skots.

> I hope that you're having a fine day, I'm looking forward to mine.

Your remarks are a minor irritant but otherwise fine thanks.
I'm away to a meeting for a couple of days so I'll keep this brief, sorry if it comes across as terse.

>Not the data, Rog, and not necessarily the graph. Rather the intent of your presentation of it.

Ah change of tune. Well of course you wouldn't like my presentation of the data. It contradicts the scenario you believe in. Lol.

>So the "couple year" lag time between temps and Arctic Sea ice that you referred to in your post above is ... bogus,

I never posited it. It's a straw man of your own construction. Quote me if you can.

>If I'm interpreting the graph series correctly, because of the lower downward trend in March sea ice compared to Sept. sea ice, the return toward the std. deviation band is a normal part of the long term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice.

No, it's indicative of an upward trend in sea ice area in the arctic compared to last year. I know you have the thirty years on your side, but I have current weather and half a clue about what's coming on mine. Unlike the CO2-warming theorists. Here's the link you requested:
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

>This is considered normal annual change in the continuing thirty year downward trend.

Haha! pull the other one. The global average temperature has been trending downwards for the last 7 years. Lol.

>At your request, I offered you four wagers on temperature. Despite your persistent bluster about falling temps, you quietly refused all of them. Then you expressed a willingness to take one in modified form, a form that removed the relatively cool global temps of last January from the term of the wager. During January, of course, you were blustering about the downward temp. trend in global weather, and its continuation into a maunder minimum and an 18th century like chill. I've come to think that you're more interested in bluster than betting.I suspect as well, that you're more interested in passing off weather change as climate trend and peddling it to anything with ears.

I'll take all that bluster as a no then. You obvious;y don't have confidence in your own pronouncements after all.

Your previous offers were all nicely crafted to favour your position but I'm not fooled by that. Now *you've* said the ice will melt faster next year than this or last year, and I'm betting you it won't. Put up or shut up.

>Interestingly, Rog, I think it was you who first brought polar bears into this thread.

Wrong (again)

>> Now, explain to me how it can be that global temperatures have been plummeting for the last two years while man made co2 output has been soaring as the chinese open a new coal fired power plant every month (with the technical help of the governments which are taxing us for our carbon emissions).

>I understand that you'd like to change the subject again, as is your technique,

And I understand why you'd want to dodge the question (again), as you don't have an answer.

And this is because the theory that man made CO2 is causing global warming is junk.

Edited by tallbloke on 11/03/2008 07:49:42 MST.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
my vote. on 11/03/2008 09:46:23 MST Print View

for the person on BPL i'd least want to drink a beer or sit around a campfire with.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
. on 11/04/2008 02:47:38 MST Print View

Dave T

Your earlier post to this thread made it obvious which side of the debate you are on, so no problem, I won't crash your campfire party. I'll leave you in peace to cry into your beer at the sad demise of the theoretical underpinning of the cult of carbon culpability. ;-)

It's a shame the warmista prefer to make personal attacks on the opposition rather than debate the actual issues, but there you go.

To reiterate:
If man made co2 warming theory is correct, how come the global average temperature has been falling sharply for the last two years while emmissions of man made co2 have been rising sharply?

Any takers?

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: . on 11/04/2008 16:35:59 MST Print View

"If man made co2 warming theory is correct, how come the global average temperature has been falling sharply for the last two years while emmissions of man made co2 have been rising sharply?

Any takers?"

Ok...
So I've been entertained by this arguement for some time (forgive me if I haven't read all 5,000 posts), but I've lost track of whether or not there's a bigger picture here.

Let us, for the sake of argument, say that man-made global warming DOES NOT EXIST. So what?

Now, let's say man-made global warming DOES EXIST and is in full effect. So what?

If this argument is being used to champion environmentalism, I'll cite 1,000 "good" reasons to "care" that have nothing to do with climate change.

If this argument is being used to bash environmentalism, I can cite 1,000 "good" reasons you don't need to "care" that have nothing to do with climate change.

Simply pick a side- I don't think climate change makes or breaks an argument.

If (as I'm suspecting) this argument is simply all about the minutiae of scientific reports and evidence, then forgive my comments and carry on folks! May your debate grow to even more legendary proportions!

****I'm seriously interested to see who drops from sheer exhaustion first.
My bet is that Rog makes it for the long haul...

Any statisticians out there wanna post some odds?

Edited by xnomanx on 11/04/2008 16:39:46 MST.

Rick Dreher
(halfturbo) - MLife

Locale: Northernish California
Re: . on 11/04/2008 16:48:30 MST Print View

Because you're erroneously conflating climate and weather.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/deniers-prove-staircases-are-level/

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.