Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 30 Nov 2009 16:20 Uwe Hercksen wrote: > > > Joerg schrieb: > >> Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see >> drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted >> we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. > > Hello, > > the snow falling on the glacier of Mt. Shasta to keep it growing couldnt > fall as rain somewhere else. > Precipitation hasn't dramatically increased since 1948 up there. So if more of that would fall as snow instead of rain that doesn't exactly support a warming trend. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 30 Nov 2009 16:24 On Nov 29, 3:56 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Try this! > > http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt > > John Oooo, "You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be). False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there is no central repository for WMO codes - especially made-up ones - we'll have to chance duplicating one that's present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO codes between databases - something I've studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I had to - will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully. Of course, option 3 cannot be offered for CLIMAT bulletins, there being no metadata with which to form a new station. This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."
From: Jon Kirwan on 30 Nov 2009 18:20 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >><much snipped, my apologies> >> >> In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. >> If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from >> it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of >> money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, >> then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't >> really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that >> made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that >> shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really >> doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So >> again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that >> someone else should have caught. >> >> An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal >> correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by >> Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this >> inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results >> that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all >> over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go >> back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. >> Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, >> Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with >> the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious >> time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by >> all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since >> they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any >> case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data >> sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they >> discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama >> team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months >> to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and >> republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the >> spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work >> long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's >> work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing >> their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much >> credit given for this. Just credit taken away. >> >> Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering >> questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not >> duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. >> That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is >> important. >> >> _Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs >> and interim data aren't that important. ... > >But raw input data is. That's what it was about. Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary. Mind telling me what raw data you asked for? >> ... If you are going to attempt >> replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to >> do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a >> chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of >> course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of >> course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all >> anyone really needs. >> >> If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in >> answering the questions, then you don't even need that. >> >> The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And >> they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too >> many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing >> methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at >> all. >> >> When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where >> I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually >> understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ... > >Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly. I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I didn't feel up to it. Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long ways, my experience. >That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look >at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After >finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed >off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would >have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great. > ><snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time> Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own. YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting... Jon
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 19:12 On Nov 28, 1:26 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, > >> for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. > >> We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. > > > At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal > > Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used > > to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give > > warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus. > > We are waiting for that bonus since about 8 years. When is "due course"? > Are we there yet? When are we there? I want my share of global warming. > > <stomping with feet on floor> We don't know. When the Argo buoys have collected some more data, we may be able to do better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png shows a roughly flat spot from 1940 to 1980. Some of that may have been real cooling caused by SO2 emissions, which were being cleaned up from about 1975, and we are pushing up the CO2 level rather faster now, but that's the most recent extended pause. > >> This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of > >> engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. > >> Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes > >> in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear > >> from the people. Meaning voters :-) > > > Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon > > extraction industries has been depressingly effective. > > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > > > Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and > > organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had > > used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the > > dangers of tobacco smoke. > > Yeah, your old conspiracy theory. It isn't a theory, but a collection of facts. Nobody is alleging a conspiracy. Exxon-Mobil went out and sub-contracted for some anti- anthropogenic global warming propaganda from the usual sources, and the sub-contractors go to work. Exxon-Mobil recorded the payments to these sub-contractors in their published accounts, and these accounts form part of the record. The sub-contractors don't make any boomes about what thye are doing, though some of them are a but coy about the people who are supporting them. This is like calling a historian's description of Obama's election campaign a "conspiracy theory". -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 19:36
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:23:42 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 28, 5:50�pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 23, 1:10�pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > ><snip> > >> >> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to >> >> control everyone. �Politicians (are) like that. >> >> >Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. >> >Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), >> >looks into the future. >> >> SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW >> group does. �Even others that contain any of the canonical >> presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history. > >SOL? I don't understand. The meaning I know doesn't work here. > >But, I was referring to a whim I posted wayyy back, that you can curve- >fit a polynomial that mimics history to perfection, yet has zero >predictive value. E.g. the stock market, where that gets tried and is >a temporary fad every few years, until it blows up. You can curve-fit random noise pretty well, too. The higher the order, the better the fit, and the less predictive it will be. John |