NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quick Question
Next: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jan 2010 17:44 On 1/18/10 3:36 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 18, 3:24 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] >> Mike, you have no credible scientific evidence that the >> graph is based on corrupt or bogus data. When one challenges, >> one should be able to document exactly why they are challenging. > But I do have creditable scientific evidence that the graph is based > on corrupt and bogus data. Please read the original link. > >> >> The global climate change is taking place. There is so much >> data from so many sources contributing to an overall global >> picture, that I find it really interesting that nay-sayers are >> so passionate... like creationists and anti-relativists! > Name calling will get you nowhere, as you well know. I reject the > comparison. > > >> >> Probably about two years ago for me, and upon hearing the name >> calling for and against global warming... I started really >> taking a look at what was credible and what was not. I started >> looking at the pioneering papers on greenhouse gasses, >> atmospheric modeling, solar and solar system measurements, >> chemistry at the ocean-atmosphere interface, polyatomic gases >> with vibrational energies in the infrared region, and so on. As >> far as I can tell, the climatologist are right! > I have also spent about two years analyzing the data and have come to > the opposite conclusion. > >> >> What I want, is for each and every poster in these newsgroup to >> individually dig into the chemistry and physics of global climate >> change! > That I have dug into the chemistry and physics of global climate > change. > >> >> It appears to me, that like bodies of deniers of relativity, >> quantum mechanics, Darwinian evolution and even Newtonian >> classical mechanics, we have a new collection of folks who think >> global climate change and the contributions to it by humans is >> somehow a big conspiracy! > > It didn't start out a big conspiracy. But all kinds of organizations > have attached their agendas to the AGW wagon. When the earth stopped > cooperating in the early 21th century, panic set in and that is when > the fraud began in earnest. > >> >> I'll challenge anybody who denies the physics involved. I really >> doubt that more than a century of surface temperature data is >> corrupted intentionally or otherwise. If there have been a century >> of systematic error, corrections will be applied. > > I have been investigating what it would take to correct the fraud. > The raw data is only available as PDF of the original turned in > sheets. NOAA has not made the data available in any other format. > How open and inviting of duplication of their results by other > scientist.~ > > It would take a substantial effort to transcribe these numbers into > machine readable form. PDFs are easily converted to plain text. I am investigating how this might be done > using a large pool of volunteers requiring double entry by independent > sources of each sheet. Audits would be performed to insure data > quality. > > It is a real mess. READ THE LINKS. > > Sorry, I am getting tired of repeating myself. You can't refute it if > you refuse to read it, so read it already. Then tell me how wrong I > am. :-) > >> >> Mike, look at, not just the changes in CO2, surface temperature, >> sea level rise, etc., but look at the recent rates of change. >> >> Actually I thank you for your postings, as the help further >> scientific understanding--and probably not to your liking. > > I am unhappy with the fraud in surface temperatures that has been > uncovered but I am rather happy with the other facts that I have > uncovered. > > Mike Jr.
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 17:57 On Jan 18, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] *> PDFs are easily converted to plain text. [snip] Some advanced OCR applications can handle handwritten printed characters. I am thinking that it might be possible to read a (hopefully) large percentage of the data this way. Some of the data, being carbon copies, might need either the human touch, or software best known to NRO. A trial run on a subset is needed. I have been looking into OCR apps as well as thinking how best to mobilize a large volunteer force. If people only have to spend a couple of Saturdays they might be more willing to help. I still think that for quality control, each sheet should be entered twice by independent people and then compared. --Mike Jr.
From: Androcles on 18 Jan 2010 18:56 "Mike Jr" <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:cf57d9e8-591b-46e7-9cd1-bcbb959bf27a(a)19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... On Jan 18, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] *> PDFs are easily converted to plain text. [snip] Some advanced OCR applications can handle handwritten printed characters. I am thinking that it might be possible to read a (hopefully) large percentage of the data this way. Some of the data, being carbon copies, might need either the human touch, or software best known to NRO. A trial run on a subset is needed. I have been looking into OCR apps as well as thinking how best to mobilize a large volunteer force. If people only have to spend a couple of Saturdays they might be more willing to help. I still think that for quality control, each sheet should be entered twice by independent people and then compared. --Mike Jr. =========================================== Not trying to educate Wormley, are you? OCR is good enough for characters, the next step is OWR. After that, OSR. Ayonne can renoigcse wrdos if the fsirt and lsat ltteres are pneesrt, the ltteers esixt and in the creocrt piistoon. After that, handwriting. After that, speech. This egg is a grade "A". The sky is overcast, it is a grey day. Speech merges words, context sensitivity makes it clear that grade "A" and grey day sound the same but are completely different. After that, translation. Depending on the language, adjectives and nouns are reversed. croix rouge = red cross. Nveer try to run bfroee you can wlak. Remember that many people say "you know" or "what I mean is" or "it's like" or simply "err..." because they need time to think and don't want to leave a pregnant pause where you can interrupt them. Speak slowly, choose your words carefully, engage brain before opening mouth, never knee-jerk react; you'll command attention.
From: Marvin the Martian on 24 Jan 2010 18:48
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:36:11 -0800, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 18, 3:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] >> Mike, you have no credible scientific evidence that the graph is >> based on corrupt or bogus data. When one challenges, one should be >> able to document exactly why they are challenging. > But I do have creditable scientific evidence that the graph is based on > corrupt and bogus data. Please read the original link. > > >> The global climate change is taking place. There is so much data >> from so many sources contributing to an overall global picture, >> that I find it really interesting that nay-sayers are so >> passionate... like creationists and anti-relativists! > Name calling will get you nowhere, as you well know. I reject the > comparison. > > > >> Probably about two years ago for me, and upon hearing the name >> calling for and against global warming... I started really taking >> a look at what was credible and what was not. I started looking at >> the pioneering papers on greenhouse gasses, atmospheric modeling, >> solar and solar system measurements, chemistry at the >> ocean-atmosphere interface, polyatomic gases with vibrational >> energies in the infrared region, and so on. As far as I can tell, >> the climatologist are right! > I have also spent about two years analyzing the data and have come to > the opposite conclusion. > > >> What I want, is for each and every poster in these newsgroup to >> individually dig into the chemistry and physics of global climate >> change! > That I have dug into the chemistry and physics of global climate change. > > >> It appears to me, that like bodies of deniers of relativity, >> quantum mechanics, Darwinian evolution and even Newtonian >> classical mechanics, we have a new collection of folks who think >> global climate change and the contributions to it by humans is >> somehow a big conspiracy! > > It didn't start out a big conspiracy. But all kinds of organizations > have attached their agendas to the AGW wagon. When the earth stopped > cooperating in the early 21th century, panic set in and that is when the > fraud began in earnest. What's funny is that the Danish Climate Center (DKC) and Danish Meteorological Institute PREDICTED the recent cooling trend at the peak of the warming cycle in 1998. At the same time the AGW frauds were screaming we were all going to be cooked by now. Then another Dane, Svensmark, explained why solar cycle and global climate are related. So, AGWers are totally debunked. The AGW reply? They say they need more time for Svensmark's theory to be proved. How stupid is that? Svensmark can explain the last 4.5 BILLION years of climate change including the last decade, while the AGW idiots can't even explain the last decade and cling to their idiot and worthless predictions. >> I'll challenge anybody who denies the physics involved. I really >> doubt that more than a century of surface temperature data is >> corrupted intentionally or otherwise. If there have been a century >> of systematic error, corrections will be applied. > > I have been investigating what it would take to correct the fraud. The > raw data is only available as PDF of the original turned in sheets. > NOAA has not made the data available in any other format. How open and > inviting of duplication of their results by other scientist.~ > > It would take a substantial effort to transcribe these numbers into > machine readable form. I am investigating how this might be done using > a large pool of volunteers requiring double entry by independent sources > of each sheet. Audits would be performed to insure data quality. I would use Adobe Acrobat to save the data in a machine readable format like XML and then write a TCL script to put it in whatever format you want, if I was you. I've done it before. |