"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Alistair on 4 Dec 2009 11:04 On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > >> 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. > > > And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly showed > > global warming in progress before anyone had invented the term. > > > I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you > > started posting your nonsense to > > alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays? > > I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, unless it > came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average Global temperature > dropped by 2.7°F. > > The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice > age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article from June of that > year. > > http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf > > This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible code used > by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One experienced programmer > spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the programs and his journal was part > of the leaked documents. The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming). The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and graphed, again by hand, by the same student.
From: HeyBub on 4 Dec 2009 20:39 Alistair wrote: > On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Alistair wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >>> And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly >>> showed global warming in progress before anyone had invented the >>> term. >> >>> I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you >>> started posting your nonsense to >>> alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays? >> >> I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, >> unless it came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average >> Global temperature dropped by 2.7�F. >> >> The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the >> coming ice age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article >> from June of that year. >> >> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf >> >> This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible >> code used by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One >> experienced programmer spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the >> programs and his journal was part of the leaked documents. > > The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the > Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of > increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to > BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the > previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global > warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming). > The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and > graphed, again by hand, by the same student. Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores - neither of which is human." Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded. That may account for your readings. But when coupled with the more cold-blooded types (i.e. the English), the average will drop considerably.
From: Alistair on 5 Dec 2009 07:51 On Dec 5, 1:39 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> Alistair wrote: > > >>>> 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. > > >>> And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly > >>> showed global warming in progress before anyone had invented the > >>> term. > > >>> I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you > >>> started posting your nonsense to > >>> alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays? > > >> I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, > >> unless it came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average > >> Global temperature dropped by 2.7°F. > > >> The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the > >> coming ice age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article > >> from June of that year. > > >>http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf > > >> This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible > >> code used by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One > >> experienced programmer spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the > >> programs and his journal was part of the leaked documents. > > > The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the > > Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of > > increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to > > BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the > > previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global > > warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming). > > The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and > > graphed, again by hand, by the same student. > > Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about > human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores - > neither of which is human." > > Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded. > That may account for your readings. But when coupled with the more > cold-blooded types (i.e. the English), the average will drop considerably..- Hide quoted text - > The Med locals may be hot blooded but they don't move around much. Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun. So, any local temperature increases could only be the result of colonialism.
From: Anonymous on 5 Dec 2009 09:02 In article <7budnYlqPup0JITWnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [snip] >Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about >human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores - >neither of which is human." That sounds to be almost as valid as a much more time-honored psychological paradigm of 'All's crazy but me 'n thee... and sometimes I doubts thee, a'well.' > >Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded. Everybody knows that any sentence which makes a statement about what 'everybody knows' is wrong, including this one. DD
From: Clark F Morris on 6 Dec 2009 18:04
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >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. On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period where observations were available from both sites to validate the adjustment factor used? > >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. |