"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Richard on 27 Nov 2009 17:00 On Nov 28, 9:48 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: > > >> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming > >> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's > >> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die. > > > I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-) > > > I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA ( > >http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te...) > > Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of > measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..." > > They just don't understand. Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself before imagining that you are equipped to comment. > The 'internationally accepted techniques' > include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable > in a civilized society, much less a scientific one. > > The ONLY example they gave in their rebuttal is a correction to temperature > data for ONE station as it was moved inland (and upland) to account for > height (0.8°C). Why didn't they simply discontinue the use of the old > station and start a new data point for the new station? Because that > wouldn't give them an opportunity to add a 'fudge factor' to the new > readings, perhaps? > > Conversely, there are temperature reading stations in the U.S. there were > originally in the middle of a cornfield. Now the station is in the middle of > a shopping center parking lot and surrounded, for miles in every direction, > by concrete and asphalt. Common sense would tell you that the temperature > readings should be fudged DOWNWARD to account for the urban heat-reservoir. > Is this the case? What do you think? > > > NiWa adjusted this and to me, it seems like a fair adjustment. > > "Adjusting" data is almost NEVER fair. The data are what they are. > > > > > I don't think we're any more immune from people havng a personal > > agenda than anywhere else in the world, but this seems to be a storm > > in a teacup to me. I don't need NiWA to tell me things are warming > > up; all I have to do is open a window... > > It's not. 2009 is shaping up to be the coldest year since 1995. > > > If the program was written here then I respect it. Certainly the > > data may have been fudged but I doubt that the code has been. > > Agreed. Some think it was the data that were massaged - no one has commented > on the code. The programs used for climate predition at East Anglia, > however, are seemingly a mess and cannot be deciphered. Apparently as long > as the programs in East Anglia generated the expected graphs they were > deemed to be working okay.
From: HeyBub on 28 Nov 2009 08:27 Richard wrote: > On Nov 28, 9:48 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming >>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's >>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die. >> >>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-) >> >>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA ( >>> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te...) >> >> Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis >> of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..." >> > > >> They just don't understand. > > Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The > adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself > before imagining that you are equipped to comment. > > *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station and opened another some distance away. They then gave the new monitoring station the same name as the old station and set the calibration point 0.8�C different. Suppose I had a highway speed-monitoring system in the valley and opened a new one on the road up the nearby mountain. By their logic, I should add some value to the new station's readings because cars go slower climbing than they do on the flat? I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic adjustments (although I do know what they are). But I AM familiar with some methods of distorting data. Perhaps more revelations are yet to come. As things stand right now, we "skeptics": * Cannot trust the raw data or the proxy data, * Cannot trust the interpreters of the data, * Cannot understand or trust the programs doing the projections based on these data. Consider: If the earth's atmosphere were represented by a [U.S.] football field, the amount of CO2 in this atmosphere could be represented by the amount of ground taken up by a prostrate official stabbed by an irate fan for making three bad calls against the home team. The alarmists would have us believe the expanding pool of blood represents a threat of catastrophic proportions to the remaining officials. No, wait. Bad example...
From: SkippyPB on 28 Nov 2009 11:35 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:48:06 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming >>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's >>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die. >> >> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-) >> >> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA ( >> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise) > > >Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of >measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..." > >They just don't understand. The 'internationally accepted techniques' >include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable >in a civilized society, much less a scientific one. > I bet you believe Elvis is still alive also. Seen Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny lately? Because if you believe that fossil fuel financed website and other like it, you must also believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy et. al. >The ONLY example they gave in their rebuttal is a correction to temperature >data for ONE station as it was moved inland (and upland) to account for >height (0.8�C). Why didn't they simply discontinue the use of the old >station and start a new data point for the new station? Because that >wouldn't give them an opportunity to add a 'fudge factor' to the new >readings, perhaps? > >Conversely, there are temperature reading stations in the U.S. there were >originally in the middle of a cornfield. Now the station is in the middle of >a shopping center parking lot and surrounded, for miles in every direction, >by concrete and asphalt. Common sense would tell you that the temperature >readings should be fudged DOWNWARD to account for the urban heat-reservoir. >Is this the case? What do you think? > >> NiWa adjusted this and to me, it seems like a fair adjustment. > >"Adjusting" data is almost NEVER fair. The data are what they are. > >> >> I don't think we're any more immune from people havng a personal >> agenda than anywhere else in the world, but this seems to be a storm >> in a teacup to me. I don't need NiWA to tell me things are warming >> up; all I have to do is open a window... > >It's not. 2009 is shaping up to be the coldest year since 1995. > >> If the program was written here then I respect it. Certainly the >> data may have been fudged but I doubt that the code has been. > >Agreed. Some think it was the data that were massaged - no one has commented >on the code. The programs used for climate predition at East Anglia, >however, are seemingly a mess and cannot be deciphered. Apparently as long >as the programs in East Anglia generated the expected graphs they were >deemed to be working okay. > Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I never liked you, and I always will." -- Samuel Goldwyn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Bill Gunshannon on 28 Nov 2009 11:50 In article <iqj2h5loi4b7fiuqlalceq4dc16gav9jt8(a)4ax.com>, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:48:06 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> > wrote: > >>Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> >>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming >>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's >>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die. >>> >>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-) >>> >>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA ( >>> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise) >> >> >>Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of >>measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..." >> >>They just don't understand. The 'internationally accepted techniques' >>include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable >>in a civilized society, much less a scientific one. >> > > I bet you believe Elvis is still alive also. > > Seen Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny lately? > > Because if you believe that fossil fuel financed website and other > like it, you must also believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy et. > al. I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone (primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation." Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money (primarily the government) to send it in their direction. All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value. Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to go back to the moon. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Richard on 28 Nov 2009 12:41
On Nov 29, 2:27 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > On Nov 28, 9:48 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> Pete Dashwood wrote: > > >>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming > >>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's > >>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die. > > >>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-) > > >>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA ( > >>>http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te....) > > >> Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis > >> of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..." > > >> They just don't understand. > > > Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The > > adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself > > before imagining that you are equipped to comment. > > *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station and > opened another some distance away. At a different altitude. > They then gave the new monitoring station > the same name as the old station and set the calibration point 0.8°C > different. > > Suppose I had a highway speed-monitoring system in the valley and opened a > new one on the road up the nearby mountain. By their logic, I should add > some value to the new station's readings because cars go slower climbing > than they do on the flat? Interestingly as the altitude increases, or specifically as the air pressure decreases, the speed of sound changes. If the 'speed- monitoring system' was using sound reflection to detect the speed of the cars then it would need to be recalibrated. It has nothing to do with whether cars are slower or faster on hills than they are on the flat. > I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic adjustments > (although I do know what they are). If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'. If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of heat. Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book. But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so do not want to understand, only to claim support. > But I AM familiar with some methods of > distorting data. Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done through ignorance. > Perhaps more revelations are yet to come. As things stand right now, we > "skeptics": > > * Cannot trust the raw data or the proxy data, > * Cannot trust the interpreters of the data, > * Cannot understand or trust the programs doing the projections based on > these data. Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the results they provide don't agree with your agenda. > Consider: If the earth's atmosphere were represented by a [U.S.] football > field, the amount of CO2 in this atmosphere could be represented by the > amount of ground taken up by a prostrate official stabbed by an irate fan > for making three bad calls against the home team. The alarmists would have > us believe the expanding pool of blood represents a threat of catastrophic > proportions to the remaining officials. > > No, wait. Bad example... |