"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Clark F Morris on 6 Dec 2009 18:36 On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:14:26 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> much snipped > >The locations in Wellington are just a minute or two apart. Any wind >could well pass the same air by both, but as the air has had to travel >'up the hill' or 'down the hill' the it will obey Boyle's Law and will >change temperature without losing or gaining heat. > >If you cannot understand such basic science then you should remove >yourself until you do. > As asked by me in another posting, is there a consistent correlation of the temperature difference between the two point? Another interesting question about temperature observations over time is whether human activity is affecting the temperature at the observation point. While I am on the fence about climate change, the glacier changes seem more convincing in many ways and more solidly measurable. If the measurement of acidification of the oceans is solid, that also is of great concern. Assuming there is global warming, it also would be interesting to figure out what effect, if any hydroelectric facilities in the north and in mountainous areas have by displacing snow with water that absorbs rather than reflects heat. > >> Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception, >> obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal >> fraud. > >Given that this message of yours that I am replying to could be >described as "deception and obfuscation" and that nothing you have >said could be described as 'science' then you are entire disengenuous, >amongst other failings. > > >> The people involved shoud be cremated (even if it contributes to 'global >> warming'), and their ashes scattered. Take no chances.
From: Richard on 6 Dec 2009 18:47 On Dec 7, 12:04 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> > wrote: > > >On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> Richard wrote: > > > >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? The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude. As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level). You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in temperature differences. As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature) caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened out. What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims.
From: Pete Dashwood on 6 Dec 2009 19:12 Clark F Morris wrote: > 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? Those are all very good questions, Clark. I think the .8 of a degree is a "mean" variation that would be based mainly on adiabatic compensation, and local weather conditions, but I don't KNOW that. My own feeling is that it is a "fair" adjustment and I don't think it has been done as part of a conspiracy to fudge weather data in support of Global Warming. Again, I don't KNOW that, either. I guess it depends on how passionately you feel about GW (I'm on the fence) and how important the weather is in your life. :-) For me, for now, I'm not observing anything untoward in the weather here. Today is 24 and pleasant. Id rather be enjoying it than worrying about it... :-) (Yes, I know that it is better to prevent problems than to deal with them once they've arrived, but it seems to me enough people are doing the worrying without actually needing my help...) <unreferenced remainder snipped> Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 6 Dec 2009 19:14 Richard wrote: > On Dec 7, 12:04 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard >> <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >> >>> On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>>> Richard wrote: >> >> >>> 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? > > The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the > adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when > there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude. > > As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and > relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not > vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base > atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level). > > You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in > temperature differences. > > As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in > the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature) > caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened > out. A clear and simple explanation. Thanks Richard. > > What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw > unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims. I guess political motivations work on both camps... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Clark F Morris on 7 Dec 2009 11:19
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:47:30 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Dec 7, 12:04�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> >> wrote: > >> >> >On Dec 1, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> >> Richard wrote: >> >> >> >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? > >The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the >adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when >there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude. > >As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and >relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not >vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base >atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level). That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. I live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the coast. I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an altitude correction is the only one that is needed. > >You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in >temperature differences. > >As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in >the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature) >caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened >out. > >What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw >unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims. |