Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 9 Feb 2010 00:18 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >>Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I >>guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more >>likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However, >>tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like >>they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that >>happening on a much larger scale? > >There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface >temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which >unfortunately only goes back to 1979. > > Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started "adjusting" them.
From: Don Klipstein on 9 Feb 2010 02:10 In article <d0s1n59hgqq4tiipmaips2gr3vg9p0dvor(a)4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote: >On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >>>Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data >>>set. I guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that >>>it is more likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a >>>crank. However, tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor >>>grudges. Seems like they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this >>>scale. So, why isn't that happening on a much larger scale? >> >>There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface >>temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which >>unfortunately only goes back to 1979. > >Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started >"adjusting" them. Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of the two satellite-based records? For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic side for AGW. Dr. Roy Spencer even has a personal website with what he would say there about AGW: http://www.drroyspencer.com He reports the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly and a graph thereof in: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ The UAH index for the globe as well as several latitude zones and contiguous "48-states" USA is available at: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt The other satallite-based one, best-known as RSS, is at: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/ rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt Graph and degrees/decade trend including map of the world (at 4 different levels of the atmosphere, not only lower troposphere) are shown at: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bob Monsen on 9 Feb 2010 15:15 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:s2i1n59m2netf9i7at1v6decv1mkn3mndp(a)4ax.com... > After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said > "It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really. > > John > Actually, I've heard that the best, most reliable way to predict the weather is to ask what it was like yesterday. Assuming that today will be like yesterday is true more often than the sophisticated models... Regards, Bob Monsen
From: John Larkin on 9 Feb 2010 16:03 On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:15:55 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:s2i1n59m2netf9i7at1v6decv1mkn3mndp(a)4ax.com... >> After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said >> "It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really. >> >> John >> > >Actually, I've heard that the best, most reliable way to predict the weather >is to ask what it was like yesterday. Assuming that today will be like >yesterday is true more often than the sophisticated models... > >Regards, > Bob Monsen > If I predict that it will be cool and foggy in San Francisco on the next 4th of July, I'll probably be right. Or if I see a cold front marching into western Wisconsin, I can probably predict that it will hit Madison soon. But past obvious stuff like that, the computer simluations are terrible. The warmingists say that nobody can model weather very well, but they can model climate. The distinction between "weather" and "climate" is one of timebase: if the timebase is short enough that the models can be checked against reality, it's weather. If the timebase is so long that the models can't be validated, that's climate. John
From: Raveninghorde on 9 Feb 2010 16:50
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:08:44 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case, >belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new to >science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few uncensored >emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. > >When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors. >The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of >scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable, >and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated >Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. > >The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See >http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the politics >behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries to >'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been >to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific community >where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working >tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming danger, >think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was >clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize >with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road >isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political >effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced the >scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies as >new data to explain. > >Regards, > Bob Monsen > http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html /quote While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen's at GISS. Lacis's is not a name I've come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC's report is simply breathtaking. Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report - it's the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made. Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter: There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. I'm speechless. The chapter authors, however weren't. This was their reply (all of it): Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature. Simply astonishing. This is a consensus? /end quote |