Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 17:55 On Nov 29, 12:02 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote in part: > > >Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- > >year cooling trend. > > HadCRUT-3 by year for the most recent 10 full years, from Hadley Centre: > > 1999: .339 > 2000: .360 > 2001: .381 > 2002: .401 > 2003: .418 > 2004: .424 > 2005: .420 > 2006: .404 > 2007: .383 > 2008: .360 > > UAH TLT V. 5.2, average of 12 monthly figures: > > 1999: .041 > 2000: .036 > 2001: .201 > 2002: .289 > 2003: .277 > 2004: .195 > 2005: .314 > 2006: .263 > 2007: .284 > 2008: .050 > > I would not go so far as to call this a 10 year cooling trend. > > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) Thanks Don. I'd heard there was a decade-long cooling trend, but hadn't checked, not realizing that was controversial. Hopefully none of that Had-CRUT data came from Phil Jones' outfit. Otherwise we have to worry about stuff like this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/ Idiots. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Jon Kirwan on 1 Dec 2009 18:07 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >But I would not brush them off. Yes, you would, I think. I've posted _here_ in this group, perhaps some years back, very specific sources. Others (in particular, Rich), simply ignored them and still kicked sand at me. At some point, you just stop wasting your time, Joerg. One does have a life. And if others can't even be bothered to act on generously offered time and effort _and_ references to go look for themselves, I'm pretty sure that it becomes _reasonable_ to just stop wasting your breath until the other side shows you they are willing to work. I've stopped posting here on the subject for that very reason. I have a life, you know? And if others can't be bothered, then neither can I. It's rational behavior, taken in context. Jon
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 18:15 On Nov 29, 7:49 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 1:27 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Malcolm Moore wrote: > > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > > > >But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very > > > >infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. > > Since Jan's claim - that the infrastructure we now use was built with > energy derived by burning fossil carbon - has zero relevance to the > question of whether we should continue to generate the bulk of our > energy by burning fossil fuel - I was not all that interested in > addressing Jan's claim. > > > > There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct > > > claim in response to Jan's correct claim. > > > And there we have it. > > > Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past > > someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was > > wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non- > > responsive. > > > Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I > > treated it. > > > Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of > > France's independence from fossil fuels. > > Which is totally irrelevant to the important question, which is where > we can and should get our energy in the future. It is relevant in showing that even France, despite its advanced use of nuclear power, is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. IOW, ditching carbon ain't all that easy. > > I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil > > fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. <snip> > Your own approach is less extravagant - you don't actively deny > anthropogenic global warming, but claim that its progression is too > unpredictable to justify any serious investment in cutting down our > CO2 emissions. I don't think fossil fuels is the right boogeyman. I'm more concerned about mankind and the earth as a whole. Energy improves peoples' lives. I'd rather Amazonian natives trying to improve their lot burn oil than rainforest, wouldn't you? And since oil is so much more efficient than burning wood, burning oil saves CO2 too, if that matters. > You don't actually specify how precise a prediction would be needed to > justify such an investment, but since you seem to think that the past > ten years of relatively limited warming should have been predicted > back in the 1990's, you do seem to think that a precison of a tenth of > a degree or so is necessary, which isn't actually a rational > requirement. No, I just point to the current anomaly as evidence the models don't reflect reality. Current models, if accurate, would've shown the dip. Extrapolating bad results ad infinitum into the future is just plain wacky. I do think we should conserve because it's good for the planet, good for the economy, and it plain makes sense on its own merits. Zero technical risk, for the most part, easily and quickly deployed. I used 166KWHr (9 milliGores) last month. How about you? -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 18:35 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>> 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? >>>> Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed. >>> That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several >>> methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways >>> from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique >>> characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a >>> sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements >>> and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant >>> to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data." >>> >>> It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking >>> for. >> I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request >> I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did >> not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data. >> To be able to understand where their conclusions came from. > > By 'local water level' were you talking about a specific area? Or > everywhere in the world? There are many instrumentation differences, > methodology of measurement differences, and so on, if you are talking > global. On the other hand, if you were talking about the SF bay area > and some specific team and time frame, I think you'd probably get the > data. > Don't remember exactly. IIRC I asked for Asian stations where I couldn't get at the data. > Here in Portland, we have a NOAA weather office, for example. They do > things like read temperatures, monitor rain precipitation, snow > precipitation, wind speed and direction, and the usual lot of your > basic measurements. Some of the data is intermittent -- snow fall has > ceased to be measured, about 10 years ago, and monitoring wasn't begun > until perhaps the 1950's. Some of it is continuous, like temperature, > going back a ways. However, the locations of the measurement, the > type of measuring instrument, the frequency and timing of those > measurements, and the calibration methods used have changed over the > years. Even though there is some digesting of the data before it > makes it into their SF6 preliminary product, it's still not reliable > and certainly not usable as a continuous dataset without a lot of > specific information to help. > > Much of that information isn't even available on the web. Even the > more recent data only goes back 5 years -- by policy, after this late > Bush took office and had key staff in Washington DC _order_ (I've read > the order, personally) the datasets curtailed on the web. They do > have data going back further and, upon request, sent me much of it. > However, to make use of that data as well as other data that still > remained only in paper records, I has to personally visit the office > and take days of time going through stacks of old papers and copy out > calibration standards and references and methodology. > > And that is just one process variable for one site. > > So what exactly were you asking for? > Jon, it doesn't matter anymore :-) >>> Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of >>> subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 >>> discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't >>> "raw data" without my saying so. >>> >>> Here, take a look at this one from this year: >>> >>> http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf >> 1.12mm/year, or 0.77mm per the other guys. Whew, we won't drown then :-)) > > Mostly, I wanted to point out the effort required to fuse even just a > couple of data sets. My above comments give you even more about it. > > By the way, 1.12mm/year represents perhaps (in my opinion) the single > largest source of rise, right now, except perhaps thermal expansion. > In other words, mountain glacier loss is pronounced and not to be set > aside or laughed at. Broadly speaking, it's important and widespread. > I know it is. But is also has been a few thousand years ago. Back then many people were smarter than today. For example, I read about a French architect who loudly said that building at the place where New Orleans now is was a bad idea. And he gave the reasons. Nobody listened ... >>> Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me >>> a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues >>> involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved >>> understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means. >>> >>> Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to >>> some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They >>> wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw >>> data. Which raw data? >> I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never >> assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying >> data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read >> those but they are still provided. >> >> If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open. >> Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken. > > Well, the report I cited provides all you need to know. From there, > you can realize the assumptions and know at least some of what else > may need to be examined further. You know the data sets, broadly > speaking, and can track those down (or ask for more details.) You > know the results and methods and probably could get very close to > replication, if you put in the work he did. What else should have > been included? > The report you cited is fine. However, since you said glacier melt is the single largest contributor then why are some other estimates so way off? Like this: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ >>> Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" >>> You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, >>> exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? >>> What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder >>> if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that. >> But I would not brush them off. > > Depends. If the subject were far, far more complex and the question > illustrating much, much further to go in terms of education... you > might. I think I definitely would brush them off, because I frankly > care about my time, unless they somehow showed me the were serious > enough to work hard for their own opinion. If someone is serious and > can show it, I usually agree with you. I love it when people want to > know things and are willing to put in the sweat to get there. But > there are so many people out there who aren't. > > And in climate science, it's is _so_ politicized and there is _so_ > much money there for those willing to do little other than confuse and > waste others' time, that you really _do_ need to be a little careful. > Even the late Bush administration actively worked hard to "make this > political." I only wish the world were different. But it isn't. > Still, many scientists are generous people and a lot of them will give > away their time even when the questioners msy only be asking to be > annoying and will never do anything with the effort granted them. > > Best foot forward is to show you have put in some time, first, and > know just a little bit about what they've done and are currently > interested in. Just as that would be a best foot forward with you. > For example, I know that you look for other than boutique parts and > often have a cost/space issue and sometimes deal with controlling RF > power levels fewer have to. If I were writing to you for information, > it might go just a little further perhaps that I was at least aware of > some of your own concerns and could couch my request in a way that > presents well. > > It's just good practice. > >>> I would. >>> >>> This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing >>> some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the >>> issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine >>> your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it >>> into a context they understand. >>> >>> I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about >>> electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it >>> patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even >>> thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it >>> worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How >>> can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know >>> they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a >>> short, directed answer that helps, either. >> Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the >> sound of your radio?" > > I think you know what I mean, though. They might be asking also for a > lot of work on your part in the request. (Presumed here, because when > you ask a scientist for 'sea level data' you probably are asking for > an hour or two of their time, if for no other reason than to explain > to you the caveats of it.) > No, I was just asking for pointers. Not hours of his time. A pointer, in the sense of your example above, would be suggesting a certain web link or book for further studies. I have done that numerous times when I had the impression the requester was really not of to snuff yet. There have been cases where I thought I'd never hear anything back until half a year later someone thanked me and that he'd now understood how forward power converters really work (using my pointer). > And yes, taking your point it would be nice if scientists would ask > you for more about what you plan to do or what problem you are trying > to solve, so they can better advise you even if they don't plan > themselves to provide everything. Often, they can refer you to > someone else, or a good book on the subject. > Exactly. >>> It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going >>> around asking questions. >>> >>> I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind >>> of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think >>> about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of >>> someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider >>> how you might have to respond in similar circumstances. >>> >>> The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.' >> It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for >> brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be >> that hard. > > Yes, it can. Which stations? How long of a period? Did the > instrumentation change? If so, when and when and when? Did the > locations change, too? If so, what are the calibration differences? > How were they determined and with what precision and variances, based > on methods used? What methods were used? Have there also been > changes in the land mass, itself, based upon satellite observation or > other geologic information that confounds the measurements in the > interim? Etc. I'm only just getting started. > Again, all I wanted was a pointer. Like "If you want to know more about the stations in Taiwan start with this link". That's all. [...] >>> Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results >>> by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work >>> for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have >>> to do it, yourself, too. >>> >>>> It doesn't have to be >>>> exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most >>>> of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other >>>> countries' agencies). >>> May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from >>> some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees >>> at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that >>> tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees >>> from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone >>> else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data >>> set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is >>> the explicit OUTPUT of a paper. >>> >>> Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, >>> conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to >>> know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. >>> Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on >>> your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not >>> entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think >>> and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. >>> But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access >>> the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of >>> someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't >>> have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you >>> really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot >>> more about you and what you intend to do with it. >> All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements, >> averages, from the stations. > > Read my above comments. It's not 'that easy,' except to someone who > hasn't ever done this. But of course, to those ignorant of the > details everything seems 'easy.' Boy did I learn that digging my own > foundations and perimeter wall cement forms! Just the very idea of > 'digging a level base' seems easy enough to conceive. Until you go > there and dig it out. Not the work, but what you find. I found > biotic material here going twice as deep as I wanted to dig, in one > corner of the area. And NONE of the books told me how to deal with it > -- except to say that the foundation needs to based upon inert ground. > So I knew I had a problem. It took me days to work out the answers > and remove all of the 'bad' material leaving cavities, develop > engineered fill on my own, learn how to tamp it down properly and > bring the cavities back up, and move earth around the area to bring a > more uniform appearance. Damn! I just wanted a level foundation. > > Reality impinges. > > Nothing is easy. Especially this stuff. > My comeuppance was when my wife asked for some irrigation "over yonder". I looked, ah, 10 feet tops, I'll do that Saturday. Big deal. Then I hit one rock after the other, big ones where you think the other end of it comes out in China. >>> I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years >>> of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else >>> have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have >>> all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally >>> misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know >>> stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact. >> Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to >> teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the >> league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to >> web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an >> abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering >> requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all, >> lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from >> publications). > > I think I have every right to control _my_ time. Sometimes, I think > the effort is worth it and, since I generally agree with your > approach, I often try. But in the end, _I_ decide when and where I am > willing. Sometimes, I've got other things going on (like my daughter) > that require my time and it's just a bad time that the request comes > in. So I brush them off. I usually try and send them somewhere > slightly useful and spend _some_ time, even then. But if the number > of requests were high, perhaps, and my personal circumstances very > demanding at the time... I might not respond at all. If the > questioner is serious, they will either write in a few months or else > they will find someone else. I don't owe anyone my time, though. > No, neither do I. I don't owe but can volunteer it. With a group of scientists working for and paid by our tax Dollars that can be different. There are some where I wouldn't want my tax Dollars to go to but they do anyhow. What can ya do? >>>>> 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 what I always do. In requests as in replies. >>> It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do. >>> >>>>>> 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... >>>> I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data >>>> might be. I don't think that's asking too much. >>> Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it >>> unless you are more specific. >> Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly >> what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from >> areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not >> interested in that particular data anymore. > > Show me what you know about getting 'sea level data.' What > instrumentation is used, Joerg? Where and over what periods of time? > What areas are markedly different in their methods? How have methods > changed over time? How are they calibrated? How do you calibrate the > differences in means and methods against each other (how do you match > up measurements from one method with another, even in the same area?) > How have positions of instrumentation changed and why? How does land > level changes affect results? Which satellites and instruments aboard > are also used in all this? How are they used? What processing is > required merely to get a measurement out of satellite based equipment > that can be used, in the first place? How long have they been in > space? Etc. > > What work have you really done, here? Seriously. What puts you in > the position of being able to come to your own opinion on any of it? > > Where are your callouses? Show me. > All I did was ask a simple question. True, my only work was reading publications which sort of didn't jibe with their numbers. And I wanted to know or find out why. But let's leave it at that now. It doesn't matter anymore. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 18:41
Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> But I would not brush them off. > > Yes, you would, I think. > After an initial request? Never. > I've posted _here_ in this group, perhaps some years back, very > specific sources. Others (in particular, Rich), simply ignored them > and still kicked sand at me. > VERY different. I haven't kicked sand at them in my requests. Just politely asked. Just like the guy who asked me about a publication of mine, stating that he didn't understand the math behind it. I swallowed hard and wrote a letter back (no email back then), explaining it. Nowadays I could have sent him a link. He sent me a thank you note back and that he'd shared it with his group, and that now the others also understood. All guys in the first semester ... > At some point, you just stop wasting your time, Joerg. One does have > a life. And if others can't even be bothered to act on generously > offered time and effort _and_ references to go look for themselves, > I'm pretty sure that it becomes _reasonable_ to just stop wasting your > breath until the other side shows you they are willing to work. > > I've stopped posting here on the subject for that very reason. I have > a life, you know? And if others can't be bothered, then neither can > I. > > It's rational behavior, taken in context. > True. However, you and I are just regular engineers. When it's someone working on the taxpayer nickel it is slightly different. And that's exactly why I think FOIA is an excellent tool. We needed that. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |