E-mails raise legitimate questions
in [Physics]
|
Prev: THE JIC SECTS - WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW with recent episodes at hand related to the unending religious wars between the JIC sects & their different infantile beliefs
Next: Quantum Field Theory's Howler
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 16:18 On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:23:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/8/2010 11:37 AM, Desertphile wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >> On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: > >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > >>> <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares > >>>> parameter" going negative here.. > >>>> > >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ > >>>> > >>>> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence > >>>> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > >>> > >>> The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > >>> never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > >>> and the scientists did nothing wrong. > >>> > >>> As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > >>> scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > >>> dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > >>> loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > >>> temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > >>> readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > >>> after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > >>> scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > >>> just cracks me up! > >> Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? > > Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. > Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with > to give a desired result. N/A > > Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for > > historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. > Only seems obvious. The thermometer accurately reports the temperature > of the thermometer. If the thermometer temperature diverges from > temperature measurements determined by other means then one doesn't > reject the other measurements One *DOES* reject proxies, idiot. That's what the CRU scientists did when they applied _Nature_ magazine's technique to hide the statistical discorrelation. Sheeeish you clowns are funny! > one finds out what has changed with the > thermometer. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: george on 8 Jun 2010 17:13 On Jun 9, 7:23 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with > to give a desired result. > Oh no ! He understands only to well. That's why he's here raising strawmen and moving goalposts. Those formulae that are currently used by the 'warmers' to jiggle the raw data to show 'warming' were invented by the Climate Gate University of East Anglia.. See the emails. For example: From: Andy Revkin <anrevk(a)nytimes.com> To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn(a)uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: mann's thoughts Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:44 -0400 again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability same as variability during period used to calibrate your method. so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well. by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing). he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take it further than that. is that right?
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jun 2010 09:53 Desertphile wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:23:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 6/8/2010 11:37 AM, Desertphile wrote: >> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" >> >>> <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares >> >>>> parameter" going negative here.. >> >>>> >> >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence >> >>>> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) >> >>> >> >>> The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it >> >>> never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, >> >>> and the scientists did nothing wrong. >> >>> >> >>> As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU >> >>> scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in >> >>> dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the >> >>> loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional >> >>> temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature >> >>> readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data >> >>> after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about >> >>> scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That >> >>> just cracks me up! > >> >> Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? > >> > Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. > >> Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with >> to give a desired result. > > N/A With your attitude, you will be fooled all the time. > >> > Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for >> > historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. > >> Only seems obvious. The thermometer accurately reports the temperature >> of the thermometer. If the thermometer temperature diverges from >> temperature measurements determined by other means then one doesn't >> reject the other measurements > > One *DOES* reject proxies, idiot. That's what the CRU scientists > did when they applied _Nature_ magazine's technique to hide the > statistical discorrelation. Sheeeish you clowns are funny! If the recorded temperatures pre-1970s were recorded using a thermometer on a farm and, if the same thermometer is used post-1970s after urban crawl surrounded and ate up all the farm land, the average temps would appear to have risen. But this happens because cities are hot and retain heat. /BAH
From: Desertphile on 9 Jun 2010 11:38 On 9 Jun 2010 13:53:18 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above(a)aol.com> wrote: > Desertphile wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:23:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >> On 6/8/2010 11:37 AM, Desertphile wrote: > >> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" > >> > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: > >> >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > >> >>> <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the > "sum-of-squares > >> >>>> parameter" going negative here.. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital > evidence > >> >>>> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > >> >>> > >> >>> The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > >> >>> never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > >> >>> and the scientists did nothing wrong. > >> >>> > >> >>> As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > >> >>> scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > >> >>> dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > >> >>> loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > >> >>> temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > >> >>> readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > >> >>> after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > >> >>> scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > >> >>> just cracks me up! > > > >> >> Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? > > > >> > Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. > > > >> Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with > >> to give a desired result. > > N/A > With your attitude, you will be fooled all the time. Nope! I accept the fact of AGW. > >> > Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for > >> > historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. > > > >> Only seems obvious. The thermometer accurately reports the temperature > >> of the thermometer. If the thermometer temperature diverges from > >> temperature measurements determined by other means then one doesn't > >> reject the other measurements > > One *DOES* reject proxies, idiot. That's what the CRU scientists > > did when they applied _Nature_ magazine's technique to hide the > > statistical discorrelation. Sheeeish you clowns are funny! > If the recorded temperatures pre-1970s were recorded using > a thermometer on a farm and, if the same thermometer is used > post-1970s after urban crawl surrounded and ate up all the farm > land, the average temps would appear to have risen. But this > happens because cities are hot and retain heat. You're being silly. Global temperature has been and is being measured by several thousand measuring devices as well as via satellite; in the oceans, on the plains, in the mountains, on the ice caps, in the canyons, in the deserts, in the meadows. What they have recorded (increased temperature anomaly) is exactly what scientists predicted over 50 years ago they would record as CO2 is added to the atmosphere. You'll just have to adjust. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jun 2010 09:23
Desertphile wrote: > On 9 Jun 2010 13:53:18 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> Desertphile wrote: >> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:23:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On 6/8/2010 11:37 AM, Desertphile wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> >> > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" >> >> >>> <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the >> "sum-of-squares >> >> >>>> parameter" going negative here.. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital >> evidence >> >> >>>> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it >> >> >>> never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, >> >> >>> and the scientists did nothing wrong. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU >> >> >>> scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in >> >> >>> dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the >> >> >>> loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional >> >> >>> temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature >> >> >>> readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data >> >> >>> after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about >> >> >>> scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That >> >> >>> just cracks me up! >> > >> >> >> Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? >> > >> >> > Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. >> > >> >> Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with >> >> to give a desired result. > >> > N/A > >> With your attitude, you will be fooled all the time. > > Nope! I accept the fact of AGW. Q.E.D. > >> >> > Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for >> >> > historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. >> > >> >> Only seems obvious. The thermometer accurately reports the temperature >> >> of the thermometer. If the thermometer temperature diverges from >> >> temperature measurements determined by other means then one doesn't >> >> reject the other measurements > >> > One *DOES* reject proxies, idiot. That's what the CRU scientists >> > did when they applied _Nature_ magazine's technique to hide the >> > statistical discorrelation. Sheeeish you clowns are funny! > >> If the recorded temperatures pre-1970s were recorded using >> a thermometer on a farm and, if the same thermometer is used >> post-1970s after urban crawl surrounded and ate up all the farm >> land, the average temps would appear to have risen. But this >> happens because cities are hot and retain heat. > > You're being silly. Global temperature has been and is being > measured by several thousand measuring devices as well as via > satellite; in the oceans, on the plains, in the mountains, on the > ice caps, in the canyons, in the deserts, in the meadows. What > they have recorded (increased temperature anomaly) is exactly what > scientists predicted over 50 years ago they would record as CO2 is > added to the atmosphere. > > You'll just have to adjust. If I have to adjust to an increase of temperature, then you, also, will have to adjust. So why are you spending time insisting that the increase be fixed? /BAH |