BBC News Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Evidence for Multiverses
Next: The mafia
From: Unum on 13 Feb 2010 20:32 On 2/13/2010 4:08 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > >>> >>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... >>>> >>> >>>> --Mike Jr. >>> >>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. >>> >>> Thoroughly refuted >>> here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf >>> >> >> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . > > What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do > you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the > work cited in the paper: > > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf Mike can only Laugh Out Loud. He can't put any kind of objection together on this and doesn't know a thing about Hansens's publications or his work. It is characteristic of deniers that this will not deter him from repeating things that fit into his world view but be unable to defend them. Sociologists study ground apes like Mike and write theses on this behavior. The world is a wonderful place.
From: Mike Jr on 13 Feb 2010 20:35 On Feb 13, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > >> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur.... > > >>> --Mike Jr. > > >> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. > > >> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... > > > Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . > > What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do > you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the > work cited in the paper: > > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... > [snip] Sam, The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you or you would know that. I did read your link. "Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by distance) in nearby boxes. This exhaustive study http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and urban locations." Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a clear cut case of selection bias. On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming. Case in point is Darwin zero. Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures in Northern Australia in 125 years. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG "However, the IPCC uses the adjusted data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls inhomogeneities. So, on a whim I thought Id take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN adjusts the data to remove the inhomogeneities. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first homogenized and then averaged to give the GHCN Adjusted temperature record for Darwin. To my great surprise, heres what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)." http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg "Before the adjustment by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2 Celsius per century. Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of the individual station records, starting with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions " http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat." Sam, I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero? --Mike Jr.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 21:12 On 2/13/10 7:35 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Feb 13, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... >> >>>>> --Mike Jr. >> >>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. >> >>>> Thoroughly refuted here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... >> >>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . >> >> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do >> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the >> work cited in the paper: >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... >> > [snip] > > Sam, > The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised > against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you > or you would know that. I did read your link. > > "Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid > boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the > stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by > distance) in nearby boxes. > > This exhaustive study http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ > by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were > increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and > urban locations." > > Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the > monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid > has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a > clear cut case of selection bias. What was the criteria cited by the authors? > > On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming. Tampered by whom? What are the differences of the original data and "tampered" data. What is your reference. > > Case in point is Darwin zero. > > Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations > in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures > in Northern Australia in 125 years. > http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG > > "However, the IPCC uses the �adjusted� data. Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the criteria cited by the researchers? GHCN adjusts the data to > remove what it calls �inhomogeneities�. What are the details of these �inhomogeneities�? Do these �inhomogeneities� reduce errors? Or do they change results in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What are the details. If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate here without your personal bias. So, on a whim I thought I�d > take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I > could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. > > Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN �adjusts� the data > to remove the �inhomogeneities�. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN > discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing > longer records. But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded! The three remaining records are first �homogenized� > and then averaged to give the �GHCN Adjusted� temperature record for > Darwin. Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why? > To my great surprise, here�s what I found. To explain the full effect, > I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point > (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)." > > http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg I only see the one data set. > > "Before the �adjustment� by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling > at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were > rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2 > Celsius per century. So this is "statistical tinkering"? Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality? > Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized > Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of > the individual station records, starting with the earliest record. > Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized > versions �" > > http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg > > "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We > have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all > agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, > artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. > Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the > adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat." So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why? > > Sam, > I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I > post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond > to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to > respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero? > > --Mike Jr. Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human) causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons. That's what I see.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 00:26 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:LcidnbkZfK-fwerWnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 2/13/10 7:35 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >> On Feb 13, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/10 11:53 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 13, 11:54 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/13/2010 9:13 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >>> >>>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sur... >>> >>>>>> --Mike Jr. >>> >>>>> A couple of bloggers post a paper full of lies. >>> >>>>> Thoroughly refuted >>>>> here;http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... >>> >>>> Laughing Out Loud. You have got to be kidding . >>> >>> What about Hansen do you object to scientifically, Mike? What do >>> you know about his publications? His work? and in particular the >>> work cited in the paper: >>> >>> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfSci... >>> >> [snip] >> >> Sam, >> The cited Hansen referenced doesn't address a *single* issue raised >> against GHCN. You haven't bothered to read the link that I sent you >> or you would know that. I did read your link. >> >> "Global databases all compile data into latitude/longitude-based grid >> boxes and calculate temperatures inside the boxes using data from the >> stations within them or use the closest stations (weighted by >> distance) in nearby boxes. >> >> This exhaustive study >> http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ >> by E.M. Smith has documented that (indeed) the station changes were >> increasingly biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations and >> urban locations." >> >> Hansen and company deleted the cooler weather stations from the >> monthly reporting mix but keep them in the baseline. Thus each grid >> has warmer stations determining the reported grid value. This is a >> clear cut case of selection bias. > > What was the criteria cited by the authors? > >> >> On top of that, raw data has been tampered with to add warming. > > Tampered by whom? What are the differences of the original > data and "tampered" data. What is your reference. > >> >> Case in point is Darwin zero. >> >> Here is the graph using all the raw GHCN data for 222 weather stations >> in Northern Australia and it shows virtually no trend in temperatures >> in Northern Australia in 125 years. >> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/darwin_zero4.JPG >> >> "However, the IPCC uses the �adjusted� data. > > Why was the data adjusted? Adjusted for what reason? What was the > criteria cited by the researchers? > > GHCN adjusts the data to >> remove what it calls �inhomogeneities�. > > What are the details of these �inhomogeneities�? Do these > �inhomogeneities� reduce errors? Or do they change results > in a direction you have a subjective opinion about. What > are the details. > Its very clear what they have done, because Mike charted it for Darwin airport. They just increased the temperatures recorded for no stated reason. > If you actually know -- then you should be able to articulate > here without your personal bias. > > > So, on a whim I thought I�d >> take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I >> could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. >> >> Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN �adjusts� the data >> to remove the �inhomogeneities�. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN >> discards two, probably because they are short and duplicate existing >> longer records. > > But you don't really know the reasoning why they were discarded! > That's up to GHCN to say. Mike has given a plausible and reasonable possible explanation. > > The three remaining records are first �homogenized� >> and then averaged to give the �GHCN Adjusted� temperature record for >> Darwin. > > Does this give a truer picture of reality? If not, why? > >> To my great surprise, here�s what I found. To explain the full effect, >> I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point >> (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown)." >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg > > I only see the one data set. There are two. One the actual temperatures (in blue), the other what they said they used (in red). Perhaps you aren't familiar vwith graphs. > >> >> "Before the �adjustment� by NOAA, temperatures in Darwin were falling >> at 0.7 Celsius per century, but after the homogenization they were >> rising at 1.2 Celsius per century. The gross upward adjustment was 2 >> Celsius per century. > > So this is "statistical tinkering"? > No, its fraud. > Is not the data set an accurate reflection of reality? > The data set showing temperatures increasing at Darwin airport is not correct; actually temperatures have fallen if you look at the actual recorded temperatures. > >> Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized >> Darwin records, I then went to see how NOAA had homogenized each of >> the individual station records, starting with the earliest record. >> Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized >> versions �" >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg >> >> "It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We >> have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all >> agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, >> artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. >> Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the >> adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat." > > So do climatologist agree with you Mike? If not Why? > How would he know what some unnamed climatologist would think of graph he has never seen? What a stupid question! >> >> Sam, >> I am calling you out. You ignore every piece of evidence that I >> post. You don't appear to read the references and you don't respond >> to specific pieces of evidence that are placed before you. Care to >> respond to E.M. Smith and Darwin zero? >> >> --Mike Jr. > > Mike, what I see is an overwhelming body of data that suggests the > earth is warming, that the warming in the last 150 years is being > driven by CO2 production and diminished CO2 sinks, and ice is > melting as rate that cannot be explained by natural (not human) > causes, that sea level is rising and that real impact is showing > up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons. > > That's what I see. Have you ever seen graphs of actual recorded temperatures at various locations around the world over the last 100 years, other than the graph that Mike has provided? Any of them show any evidence of warming? Which ones?
From: Chris L Peterson on 14 Feb 2010 03:55
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:01:39 +1100, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >But you also snipped the link to what Phil Jones said! Its like you don't >want people to read what the head of the CRU said about AGW ! > >So here is the link again: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm I'm astonished you keep posting the actual link to his words, and then grossly misstate them in your own words. All I can figure is some sort of brain damage. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |