"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Richard on 29 Nov 2009 13:58 On Nov 30, 2:37 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > >> for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were > >> measuring temperature at a completely different location. They > >> didn't just put the thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the > >> whole shebang to another county. > > > No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff > > does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved > > it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea > > level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill. > > I apologize for mischaracterizing your area as having counties. I am glad, > however, that you agree they moved the measuring station. > > > > >> The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and > >> Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude. > > > It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change > > of altitude of 150 metres. > > > Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5 > > kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end > > of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so > > and is 4.5 kilometers away. > > I'm glad you agree they moved the station. I think you're claiming that the > abandonment of one station and the creation of another by some distance is > insignificant, once adjusted for altitude. The whole issue was that the station was moved. The clueless sceptics claimed "There are no reasons for any large corrections" whereas, in fact, the station was relocated at a higher altitude. > The point remains, the two > locations are not the same and no amount of fiddling with the data will make > them the same. The point of the exercise is to compare readings from the 19th and 20th century and present day. The only way to compare them is adjust for the various differences. > And the distance between Thorndon and Kelburn is more like 2 km, not 500 > meters. The distance _between_ Thorndon and Kelburn is _zero_, they share a boundary. The length of the cablecar track is 0.5 km. The weather station was where the top of the cablecar track is. > >> You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data. > > > The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from > > two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to > > allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those > > clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though > > you have admitted that you do not understand. > > It is the authorities who claim the data came from the "same station." If > the people responsible call it the "same station," then why not attach the > readings. It's either the same station or it's not. Can you show any references where "the authorities" make the claim that the data "came from the same station" ? Or is this just something you (or the sceptics) made up to support your agenda ? In fact, as I understand it, it was one 'station', one set of equipment, that was moved up the hill in the 1920s. > > The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed > > claim of fraud. > > > In the case of NIWA they have good processes. > > Consider: > * The IPCC data (home of the infamous Michael Mann "Hocky Stick" fraud) is > now considered problematic. [Penn State has opened an investigation > regarding the "questions" and "concerns" of Michael Mann and everybody he > ever knew raised by the release of the CRU archives.] > * The entire corpus of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is now > considered by many as suspect. > * NIWA has been caught fudging the data. NIWA has not been 'caught', it has been accused by a bunch of clueless sceptics. > The "peer reviewed" papers from these institutions must now be reevaluated > and, until evaluated by independent researches, taken off the scale. As a > second degree, papers that used as reference any data or papers from IPCC or > East Anglia's CRU must also be viewed as suspect. > > Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the conclusions of > IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with a "consensus of the > scientific community" consisting of one WWI pensioner living in what was > once East Prussia whose arthritic knee is acting up. You need to get out of your mole hole more.
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Nov 2009 09:35 On 28 Nov 2009 21:17:59 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >> But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old >> guard to be wrong. >> >> And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so, >> even if the other money is easier to come by. >> >> (Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the >> results they want in court). > >Maybe so, but no one pays like the government. An unending trough just >there for anyone willing to sell their integrity for. Government money gets spread about a lot. Private money pays more to fewer. And neither give the glory that one gets by proving the old guard wrong. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: HeyBub on 30 Nov 2009 19:46 Richard wrote: >> >> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley >> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take >> the >> curren reading in Denver and add 100�F to get the current >> temperature in >> Death Valley. > > As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of > the world. > > The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver > is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that > produce that forecast. > You rag on me about the difference between "site" and "station" ["I was sited at Ft Polk, but now I'm a station for sore eyes"] now you go on about "forecasts" in Death Valley and Denver. I said I couldn't take the current reading one place and apply a fudge factor and expect to get the temperature somewhere else, and, presto, you start blathering on about the "Weather Bureau" making "forecasts." First, a "forecast" is about a future event and I was referring to a contemporary conditions. That said, the "Weather Bureau" doesn't make forecasts for Death Valley or anywhere else. In fact there is no such thing as the "Weather Bureau." There used to be, but its name was changed to the National Weather Service and merged into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about forty years ago. You really should keep up.
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Dec 2009 10:25 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:14:58 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver >is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that >produce that forecast. I can see the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Center (I. M. Pei designed) headquarters from my work in Boulder. Close enough to Denver - but pretty far from the ocean. I've sat on the Cray there. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Richard on 2 Dec 2009 13:04
On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > >> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley > >> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take > >> the > >> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current > >> temperature in > >> Death Valley. > > > As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of > > the world. > > > The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver > > is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that > > produce that forecast. If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming. In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using that to 'prove' world temperatures fell. > You rag on me about the difference between "site" and "station" ["I was > sited at Ft Polk, but now I'm a station for sore eyes"] now you go on about > "forecasts" in Death Valley and Denver. > > I said I couldn't take the current reading one place and apply a fudge > factor and expect to get the temperature somewhere else, and, presto, you > start blathering on about the "Weather Bureau" making "forecasts." > > First, a "forecast" is about a future event and I was referring to a > contemporary conditions. > > That said, the "Weather Bureau" doesn't make forecasts for Death Valley or > anywhere else. In fact there is no such thing as the "Weather Bureau." There > used to be, but its name was changed to the National Weather Service and > merged into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about forty > years ago. > > You really should keep up. |