"Climategate" code
HeyBub
East Anglia climate research center and published on the web.
The documents demonstrate the perfidy and hubris of the scientists leading
the global-warming sect.
But that's only part of the story behind climate data being fudged:
"One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if
it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever
occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a
calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly
generating a negative one. A third concluded: 'I feel for this guy. He's
obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely
messy sources.' "
Comments inserted into the source code include such wowsers as: "APPLY
ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION."
[Pardon the all-caps - the original code is in FORTRAN]
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
They should have done the whole business in COBOL.
e p chandler
>
> They should have done the whole business in COBOL.
And in Superman's bizarro universe, the headline reads
"Global Warming Debunked. Climate Database Code Written by California
State Payroll Deparment. Film at 11."
--- e
Pete Dashwood
Had they done so, would the planet be any less warm? :-)
(It is a glorious 28 degrees as I write this; Summer is definitely coming in
at last...)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
HeyBub
No, the planet wouldn't be less warm, unless you count the excitability of
the "Global Warming" alarmists.
You may be interested in a report from just this week about how the Kiwi
meteorological crew (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research)
has been fudging, tweaking, manipulating, massaging, adjusting, and
otherwise goosing the data.
After feeding the raw temperature data into the abyss of their computer
programs, a clear warming trend of horrific proportions emerges, encouraging
everyone to move inland.
On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings (going back
to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends.
In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming (or
cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's magnificent
computer program, we're all gonna die.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
SkippyPB
wrote:
It is incredulous people like you that keep the term "Clean Coal" in
our lexicon.
Regards,
--
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I never liked you, and I always will."
-- Samuel Goldwyn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Richard
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > HeyBub wrote:
> >> As you may know, thousands of sooper-secret documents were copied
> >> from the East Anglia climate research center and published on the
> >> web. The documents demonstrate the perfidy and hubris of the scientists
> >> leading the global-warming sect.
>
> >> But that's only part of the story behind climate data being fudged:
>
> >> "One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code
> >> that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing
> >> untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why
> >> the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive
> >> number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded:
> >> 'I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data
> >> from undocumented and completely messy sources.' "
>
> >> Comments inserted into the source code include such wowsers as:
> >> "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION."
>
> >> [Pardon the all-caps - the original code is in FORTRAN]
>
>
> >> They should have done the whole business in COBOL.
>
> > Had they done so, would the planet be any less warm? :-)
>
> > (It is a glorious 28 degrees as I write this; Summer is definitely
> > coming in at last...)
>
> No, the planet wouldn't be less warm, unless you count the excitability of
> the "Global Warming" alarmists.
>
> You may be interested in a report from just this week about how the Kiwi
> meteorological crew (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research)
> has been fudging, tweaking, manipulating, massaging, adjusting, and
> otherwise goosing the data.
>
> After feeding the raw temperature data into the abyss of their computer
> programs, a clear warming trend of horrific proportions emerges, encouraging
> everyone to move inland.
>
> On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings (going back
> to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends.
>
> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming (or
> cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's magnificent
> computer program, we're all gonna die.
>
Did you actually read that article ? or even the title ?
HeyBub
>
> It is incredulous people like you that keep the term "Clean Coal" in
> our lexicon.
>
> Regards,
Huh? I never said anything about coal, clean or otherwise.
Still, coal is cheap, abundant, and using it is a lot cleaner than it was
during the industrial revolution era in England. Over half the electricity
generated in the U.S. comes from coal and the benefits from so doing far
outweigh any downside.
And, as long as we're casting aspersions, it's the twits from places like
NiWA who think we can run this planet off of sunbeams. If you doubt their
Luddite tendencies, why is it we've NEVER heard alternative arguments
regarding Global Warming (tm)?
* Global Warming is good (more people die from cold than heat, longer
growing seasons, etc.)
* No reference to treating the symptom rather than the cause (i.e., dumping
SO2 into the atmosphere to cool it).
But, as it turns out, there IS NO global warming - or at least not enough to
be measurable - so the exercise is moot.
Pete Dashwood
Yeah, that sounds like us; people here are pretty sensitive to Environmental
issues. I can imagine some of our Scientists getting a bit carried away...
Personally, I'm on the fence with Global Warming. I enjoy the sunshine...but
I realise it is dangerous now. When I was a kid we ran around semi or fully
naked most of the Sumer and looked like Maoris at the end of it. Now our
kids can't do that and there are intensive campaigns to ensure that everyone
uses suitable sunblock and covers up...
I don't know whether we are causing Global Warming or not, but I do know we
have knocked a hole in the ozone layer that used to protect us.
At the moment there are some huge ice floes heading our way from Antarctica
and this is a worry. Not because they represent a danger, (maybe to small
boats... but people are already chartering vessels to go and
sightsee...),but because they are SO huge as to be exceptional and the worry
is that the Antartic ice shelf may be getting seriously destroyed just like
its Northern counterpart...
>
> After feeding the raw temperature data into the abyss of their
> computer programs, a clear warming trend of horrific proportions
> emerges, encouraging everyone to move inland.
Not me. I love the coast. I don't know any of my neighbours who are
considering moving either, so perhaps "everyone" is not persuaded?
>
> On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings
> (going back to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends.
>
Maybe they get a more complete picture nowadays?
> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming (or
> cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's magnificent
> computer program, we're all gonna die.
I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise)
I was born and grew up in Wellington (until age 13) and am very familiar
with the difference between Thorndon (right at the waterside) and Kelburn
(on an exposed hill above the city and accessible by a delightful cable car
which we thoroughly enjoyed riding when kids.) NiWA claim that there is a
difference of .8C between the two sites (I thought it would be more;
Wellington, like Chicago, is famous as a "windy city" and Kelburn is very
exposed...) NiWa adjusted this and to me, it seems like a fair adjustment.
I don't think we're any more immune from people havng a personal agenda than
anywhere else in the world, but this seems to be a storm in a teacup to me.
I don't need NiWA to tell me things are warming up; all I have to do is open
a window...
It's 27 degrees and glorious... hang on a minute... it's early Summer
(usually peaks around Jan-Feb)... Gee, I guess it's normal....:-)
If the program was written here then I respect it. Certainly the data may
have been fudged but I doubt that the code has been.
Kiwis are pretty serious about technology, as well as the environment.
Knowledge and skill are a rising export industry.
I reckon it's time for a caipirinho... :-)
Richard
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >> HeyBub wrote:
> >>> As you may know, thousands of sooper-secret documents were copied
> >>> from the East Anglia climate research center and published on the
> >>> web. The documents demonstrate the perfidy and hubris of the
> >>> scientists leading the global-warming sect.
>
> >>> But that's only part of the story behind climate data being fudged:
>
> >>> "One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code
> >>> that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing
> >>> untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out
> >>> why the output of a calculation that should always generate a
> >>> positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third
> >>> concluded: 'I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying
> >>> to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.' "
>
> >>> Comments inserted into the source code include such wowsers as:
> >>> "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION."
>
> >>> [Pardon the all-caps - the original code is in FORTRAN]
>
No, but it will affect Florida, Louisiana and several others.
> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te...)
>
> I was born and grew up in Wellington (until age 13) and am very familiar
> with the difference between Thorndon (right at the waterside) and Kelburn
> (on an exposed hill above the city and accessible by a delightful cable car
> which we thoroughly enjoyed riding when kids.) NiWA claim that there is a
> difference of .8C between the two sites (I thought it would be more;
> Wellington, like Chicago, is famous as a "windy city" and Kelburn is very
> exposed...) NiWa adjusted this and to me, it seems like a fair adjustment.
It is nothing to do with whether it is more or less 'warmer' or
'windier' but simply that the difference in height causes an adiabatic
difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_lapse_rate
Those that 'graphed the raw rates' and did not take into account the
change of location were clueless about how weather measurements work,
picked only readings (in this case unadjusted raw ones) which
supported their manifesto and ignore everything which does not support
that.
>
> I don't think we're any more immune from people havng a personal agenda than
> anywhere else in the world, but this seems to be a storm in a teacup to me.
> I don't need NiWA to tell me things are warming up; all I have to do is open
> a window...
>
> It's 27 degrees and glorious... hang on a minute... it's early Summer
> (usually peaks around Jan-Feb)... Gee, I guess it's normal....:-)
>
'Global Warming' is not just the temperatures get slightly warmer but
that there is more energy in the weather systems. For example the
recent floods in England exceed all previous records in that area.
Similarly in NZ we have been getting "100 year floods" far more
frequently.
> If the program was written here then I respect it. Certainly the data may
> have been fudged but I doubt that the code has been.
The data was not 'fudged' the adjustments are required by the change
of location, specifically height above sea level.
HeyBub
>
>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>
> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>
> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise)
Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of
measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
They just don't understand. The 'internationally accepted techniques'
include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable
in a civilized society, much less a scientific one.
The ONLY example they gave in their rebuttal is a correction to temperature
data for ONE station as it was moved inland (and upland) to account for
height (0.8�C). Why didn't they simply discontinue the use of the old
station and start a new data point for the new station? Because that
wouldn't give them an opportunity to add a 'fudge factor' to the new
readings, perhaps?
Conversely, there are temperature reading stations in the U.S. there were
originally in the middle of a cornfield. Now the station is in the middle of
a shopping center parking lot and surrounded, for miles in every direction,
by concrete and asphalt. Common sense would tell you that the temperature
readings should be fudged DOWNWARD to account for the urban heat-reservoir.
Is this the case? What do you think?
> NiWa adjusted this and to me, it seems like a fair adjustment.
"Adjusting" data is almost NEVER fair. The data are what they are.
>
> I don't think we're any more immune from people havng a personal
> agenda than anywhere else in the world, but this seems to be a storm
> in a teacup to me. I don't need NiWA to tell me things are warming
> up; all I have to do is open a window...
It's not. 2009 is shaping up to be the coldest year since 1995.
> If the program was written here then I respect it. Certainly the
> data may have been fudged but I doubt that the code has been.
Agreed. Some think it was the data that were massaged - no one has commented
on the code. The programs used for climate predition at East Anglia,
however, are seemingly a mess and cannot be deciphered. Apparently as long
as the programs in East Anglia generated the expected graphs they were
deemed to be working okay.
Richard
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> >> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
> >> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
> >> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>
> > I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>
> > I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
>
> Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of
> measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
>
> They just don't understand.
Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The
adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself
before imagining that you are equipped to comment.
HeyBub
> On Nov 28, 9:48 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
>>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
>>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>>
>>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>>
>>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
>>> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te...)
>>
>> Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis
>> of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
>>
>
>
>> They just don't understand.
>
> Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The
> adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself
> before imagining that you are equipped to comment.
>
>
*I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station and
opened another some distance away. They then gave the new monitoring station
the same name as the old station and set the calibration point 0.8�C
different.
Suppose I had a highway speed-monitoring system in the valley and opened a
new one on the road up the nearby mountain. By their logic, I should add
some value to the new station's readings because cars go slower climbing
than they do on the flat?
I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic adjustments
(although I do know what they are). But I AM familiar with some methods of
distorting data.
Perhaps more revelations are yet to come. As things stand right now, we
"skeptics":
* Cannot trust the raw data or the proxy data,
* Cannot trust the interpreters of the data,
* Cannot understand or trust the programs doing the projections based on
these data.
Consider: If the earth's atmosphere were represented by a [U.S.] football
field, the amount of CO2 in this atmosphere could be represented by the
amount of ground taken up by a prostrate official stabbed by an irate fan
for making three bad calls against the home team. The alarmists would have
us believe the expanding pool of blood represents a threat of catastrophic
proportions to the remaining officials.
No, wait. Bad example...
SkippyPB
wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>>
>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>>
>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
>> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise)
>
>
>Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of
>measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
>
>They just don't understand. The 'internationally accepted techniques'
>include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable
>in a civilized society, much less a scientific one.
>
I bet you believe Elvis is still alive also.
Seen Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny lately?
Because if you believe that fossil fuel financed website and other
like it, you must also believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy et.
al.
Regards,
Bill Gunshannon
SkippyPB <swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> writes:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:48:06 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>
>>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
>>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
>>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>>>
>>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>>>
>>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
>>> http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise)
>>
>>
>>Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis of
>>measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
>>
>>They just don't understand. The 'internationally accepted techniques'
>>include fraud, repression, and other modalities that are simply unacceptable
>>in a civilized society, much less a scientific one.
>>
>
> I bet you believe Elvis is still alive also.
>
> Seen Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny lately?
>
> Because if you believe that fossil fuel financed website and other
> like it, you must also believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy et.
> al.
I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the
scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side
of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone
(primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist
who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation."
Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money
(primarily the government) to send it in their direction.
All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn
for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value.
Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to
go back to the moon.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Richard
> Richard wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 9:48 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> >>>> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming
> >>>> (or cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's
> >>>> magnificent computer program, we're all gonna die.
>
> >>> I shouldn't think it will affect Texas, Jerry... :-)
>
> >>> I read the link you posted and I also read the response ferom NiWA (
> >>>http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-te...)
>
> >> Giggle. The first sentence of their rebuttal reads: "NIWA's analysis
> >> of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques..."
>
> >> They just don't understand.
>
> > Actually it is you and the bogus sceptics that do not understand. The
> > adjustment is for the adiabatic difference. Please educate yourself
> > before imagining that you are equipped to comment.
>
> *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station and
> opened another some distance away.
At a different altitude.
> They then gave the new monitoring station
> the same name as the old station and set the calibration point 0.8°C
> different.
>
> Suppose I had a highway speed-monitoring system in the valley and opened a
> new one on the road up the nearby mountain. By their logic, I should add
> some value to the new station's readings because cars go slower climbing
> than they do on the flat?
Interestingly as the altitude increases, or specifically as the air
pressure decreases, the speed of sound changes. If the 'speed-
monitoring system' was using sound reflection to detect the speed of
the cars then it would need to be recalibrated.
It has nothing to do with whether cars are slower or faster on hills
than they are on the flat.
> I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic adjustments
> (although I do know what they are).
If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the
adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'.
If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled
it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill
the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of
heat.
Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you
nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book.
But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so
do not want to understand, only to claim support.
> But I AM familiar with some methods of
> distorting data.
Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done
through ignorance.
> Perhaps more revelations are yet to come. As things stand right now, we
> "skeptics":
>
> * Cannot trust the raw data or the proxy data,
> * Cannot trust the interpreters of the data,
> * Cannot understand or trust the programs doing the projections based on
> these data.
Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the
results they provide don't agree with your agenda.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the
>scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side
>of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone
>(primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist
>who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation."
>Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money
>(primarily the government) to send it in their direction.
>All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn
>for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value.
>Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to
>go back to the moon.
But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old
guard to be wrong.
And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so,
even if the other money is easier to come by.
(Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the
results they want in court).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Bill Gunshannon
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
> On 28 Nov 2009 16:50:34 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
>
>>I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the
>>scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side
>>of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone
>>(primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist
>>who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation."
>>Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money
>>(primarily the government) to send it in their direction.
>>All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn
>>for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value.
>>Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to
>>go back to the moon.
>
> But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old
> guard to be wrong.
>
> And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so,
> even if the other money is easier to come by.
>
> (Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the
> results they want in court).
there for anyone willing to sell their integrity for.
HeyBub
>>
>> *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station
>> and opened another some distance away.
>
> At a different altitude.
>
>
>> adjustments (although I do know what they are).
>
> If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the
> adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'.
>
> If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled
> it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill
> the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of
> heat.
>
> Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you
> nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book.
>
> But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so
> do not want to understand, only to claim support.
Blah-blah-blah. I understand Boyle's law, etc. I used to TEACH chemistry,
for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were measuring
temperature at a completely different location. They didn't just put the
thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the whole shebang to another
county. The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and
Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude.
>
>
>> But I AM familiar with some methods of
>> distorting data.
>
> Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done
> through ignorance.
You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data.
>
> Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the
> results they provide don't agree with your agenda.
>
I don't have an agenda. I'm ready to be convinced as to anthropogenic global
warming. But when the data presented is demonstrably false, when the tools
used to present the data are demonstrably broken and inaccurate, and when
the experts interpreting the data are demonstrably rogues, I have to remain
unconvinced.
My beef is not with the results, it's with the process.
Richard
> Richard wrote:
>
> >> *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station
> >> and opened another some distance away.
>
> > At a different altitude.
>
> >> I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic
> >> adjustments (although I do know what they are).
>
> > If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the
> > adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'.
>
> > If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled
> > it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill
> > the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of
> > heat.
>
> > Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you
> > nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book.
>
> > But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so
> > do not want to understand, only to claim support.
>
> Blah-blah-blah. I understand Boyle's law, etc.
Obviously not.
> I used to TEACH chemistry,
Probably 'classical' chemistry based on the 4 elements of fire, earth,
air and water. Or was it alchemy ?
> for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were measuring
> temperature at a completely different location. They didn't just put the
> thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the whole shebang to another
> county.
No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff
does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved
it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea
level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill.
> The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and
> Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude.
>
It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change
of altitude of 150 metres.
Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5
kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end
of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so
and is 4.5 kilometers away.
> >> But I AM familiar with some methods of
> >> distorting data.
>
> > Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done
> > through ignorance.
>
> You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data.
The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from
two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to
allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those
clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though
you have admitted that you do not understand.
> > Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the
> > results they provide don't agree with your agenda.
>
> I don't have an agenda. I'm ready to be convinced as to anthropogenic global
> warming. But when the data presented is demonstrably false,
The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed
claim of fraud.
> when the tools
> used to present the data are demonstrably broken and inaccurate, and when
> the experts interpreting the data are demonstrably rogues, I have to remain
> unconvinced.
>
> My beef is not with the results, it's with the process.
It is only your and the clueless sceptics claim that they are "rouge"
and that the data is broken.
In the case of NIWA they have good processes.
HeyBub
>
>> for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were
>> measuring temperature at a completely different location. They
>> didn't just put the thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the
>> whole shebang to another county.
>
> No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff
> does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved
> it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea
> level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill.
I apologize for mischaracterizing your area as having counties. I am glad,
however, that you agree they moved the measuring station.
>
>
>> The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and
>> Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude.
>>
>
> It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change
> of altitude of 150 metres.
>
> Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5
> kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end
> of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so
> and is 4.5 kilometers away.
I'm glad you agree they moved the station. I think you're claiming that the
abandonment of one station and the creation of another by some distance is
insignificant, once adjusted for altitude. The point remains, the two
locations are not the same and no amount of fiddling with the data will make
them the same.
And the distance between Thorndon and Kelburn is more like 2 km, not 500
meters.
>>
>> You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data.
>
> The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from
> two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to
> allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those
> clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though
> you have admitted that you do not understand.
It is the authorities who claim the data came from the "same station." If
the people responsible call it the "same station," then why not attach the
readings. It's either the same station or it's not.
>
> The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed
> claim of fraud.
>
>
> In the case of NIWA they have good processes.
Consider:
* The IPCC data (home of the infamous Michael Mann "Hocky Stick" fraud) is
now considered problematic. [Penn State has opened an investigation
regarding the "questions" and "concerns" of Michael Mann and everybody he
ever knew raised by the release of the CRU archives.]
* The entire corpus of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is now
considered by many as suspect.
* NIWA has been caught fudging the data.
The "peer reviewed" papers from these institutions must now be reevaluated
and, until evaluated by independent researches, taken off the scale. As a
second degree, papers that used as reference any data or papers from IPCC or
East Anglia's CRU must also be viewed as suspect.
Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the conclusions of
IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with a "consensus of the
scientific community" consisting of one WWI pensioner living in what was
once East Prussia whose arthritic knee is acting up.
Richard
> Richard wrote:
>
> >> for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were
> >> measuring temperature at a completely different location. They
> >> didn't just put the thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the
> >> whole shebang to another county.
>
> > No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff
> > does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved
> > it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea
> > level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill.
>
> I apologize for mischaracterizing your area as having counties. I am glad,
> however, that you agree they moved the measuring station.
>
>
>
> >> The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and
> >> Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude.
>
> > It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change
> > of altitude of 150 metres.
>
> > Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5
> > kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end
> > of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so
> > and is 4.5 kilometers away.
>
> I'm glad you agree they moved the station. I think you're claiming that the
> abandonment of one station and the creation of another by some distance is
> insignificant, once adjusted for altitude.
The whole issue was that the station was moved. The clueless sceptics
claimed "There are no reasons for any large corrections" whereas, in
fact, the station was relocated at a higher altitude.
> The point remains, the two
> locations are not the same and no amount of fiddling with the data will make
> them the same.
The point of the exercise is to compare readings from the 19th and
20th century and present day. The only way to compare them is adjust
for the various differences.
> And the distance between Thorndon and Kelburn is more like 2 km, not 500
> meters.
The distance _between_ Thorndon and Kelburn is _zero_, they share a
boundary. The length of the cablecar track is 0.5 km. The weather
station was where the top of the cablecar track is.
> >> You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data.
>
> > The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from
> > two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to
> > allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those
> > clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though
> > you have admitted that you do not understand.
>
> It is the authorities who claim the data came from the "same station." If
> the people responsible call it the "same station," then why not attach the
> readings. It's either the same station or it's not.
Can you show any references where "the authorities" make the claim
that the data "came from the same station" ? Or is this just something
you (or the sceptics) made up to support your agenda ?
In fact, as I understand it, it was one 'station', one set of
equipment, that was moved up the hill in the 1920s.
> > The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed
> > claim of fraud.
>
> > In the case of NIWA they have good processes.
>
> Consider:
> * The IPCC data (home of the infamous Michael Mann "Hocky Stick" fraud) is
> now considered problematic. [Penn State has opened an investigation
> regarding the "questions" and "concerns" of Michael Mann and everybody he
> ever knew raised by the release of the CRU archives.]
> * The entire corpus of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is now
> considered by many as suspect.
> * NIWA has been caught fudging the data.
NIWA has not been 'caught', it has been accused by a bunch of clueless
sceptics.
> The "peer reviewed" papers from these institutions must now be reevaluated
> and, until evaluated by independent researches, taken off the scale. As a
> second degree, papers that used as reference any data or papers from IPCC or
> East Anglia's CRU must also be viewed as suspect.
>
> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the conclusions of
> IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with a "consensus of the
> scientific community" consisting of one WWI pensioner living in what was
> once East Prussia whose arthritic knee is acting up.
You need to get out of your mole hole more.
HeyBub
>>
>> I'm glad you agree they moved the station. I think you're claiming
>> that the abandonment of one station and the creation of another by
>> some distance is insignificant, once adjusted for altitude.
>
> The whole issue was that the station was moved. The clueless sceptics
> claimed "There are no reasons for any large corrections" whereas, in
> fact, the station was relocated at a higher altitude.
>
>> The point remains, the two
>> locations are not the same and no amount of fiddling with the data
>> will make them the same.
>
> The point of the exercise is to compare readings from the 19th and
> 20th century and present day. The only way to compare them is adjust
> for the various differences.
>
>
>> And the distance between Thorndon and Kelburn is more like 2 km, not
>> 500 meters.
>
> The distance _between_ Thorndon and Kelburn is _zero_, they share a
> >>
>> station." If the people responsible call it the "same station," then
>> why not attach the readings. It's either the same station or it's
>> not.
>
> Can you show any references where "the authorities" make the claim
> that the data "came from the same station" ? Or is this just something
> you (or the sceptics) made up to support your agenda ?
>
> In fact, as I understand it, it was one 'station', one set of
> equipment, that was moved up the hill in the 1920s.
Well, NIWA calls the two locations by the same name, they commingle the
data. THEY think it's the same station. You are so invested in the integrity
of your claim that you can't even be consistent. Look at the two paragraphs
you just wrote:
1. "Can you show... the claim that the data 'came from the same station?"
2. "... it was one station..."
You, yourself, are claiming a single station.
Look, our disagreement comes down to this (in my mind):
A. It's the same station, or
B. It's NOT the same station.
You contend that it's the SAME station and a fudge factor needs to be
applied to make the readings compatible. I assert that it's NOT the same
station and any "adjustments" are a fraud.
If you are correct, then we need only ONE temperature measuring station on
the whole planet, merely adjusting the pseudo readings, from Moscow to
Hawaii, by the appropriate fudge factor.
The adjustments to a single station are, in the main, almost irrelevant to a
global warming study. These adjustments to a single station ARE relevant,
however, to demonstrate palpable fraud by those making the adjustments. The
Kelburn (nee Thorndon) tweaking is but ONE of many fiddlings done by the
NIWA circus to achieve a pre-determined result. Bottom line: The "adjusted"
data show a warming trend; the "raw" data do not.
>>
> You need to get out of your mole hole more.
I'll stay in my hole, thank you. Underground temperatures have not yet been
subject to manipulation by hucksters.
Consider this comment - to get this back on programming:
"The problem, ...and (2) the exposure of code inside the climate models
themselves that seems to indicate a direct tweaking of the programming to
generate a particular result (i.e., a palpable warming trend). This is
really, really, really, really bad stuff, because the entire case for
regulatory intervention turns on the predictive power of these models. If
the data that is their basis and the the programming itself has been
manipulated in any way, shape or form to drive a result intended to
influence policy, then all the scientific papers that derive from these
models or rely on them in any way ought to be withdrawn."
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-by-video.html
Pete Dashwood
I don't agree with your position, but I loved your arthritic pensioner...
:-)
If the programming has been fudged to support a particular political agenda,
then I would agree that is cause for serious concern. I'd like to think that
is not the case, but who knows? I'd want to see definitive evidence
(original and amended source code) before I could accept that, and I don't
think that has been forthcoming.
I believe the "data fudging" accusation has arisen from the relocation of
the Kelburn station and the consequent adjustment to readings from there. I
agree with Richard that those adjustments were fair and necessary. Sometime,
if you ever get to visit Wellington (it is a very beautiful city with houses
nestling into hills above a landlocked harbour), I hope you'll ride the
cable car, relax, drink in the scenery, and notice you may want to put your
jacket or cardigan on when you reach the top... there is a noticeable
(albeit, slight...) fall in temperature.
I don't believe NiWA has any hidden agenda, but I could be wrong and some
people certainly feel very strongly about Global Warming (as witnessed by
this thread...)
Today is cooler here, so I'm feeling more relaxed about it... :-)
Richard
"Wellington" ? "New Zealand" ? Where do they call Thorndon and
Kelburn by one name ?
> they commingle the
> data. THEY think it's the same station.
No, they do not "commingle". They create one set of data for many
years by taking the adjusted data into one graph. There was data from
sea level before 1920 and data from 125metres after 1920. This is not
'commingling'.
> You are so invested in the integrity
> of your claim that you can't even be consistent. Look at the two paragraphs
>
> you just wrote:
>
> 1. "Can you show... the claim that the data 'came from the same station?"
> 2. "... it was one station..."
>
> You, yourself, are claiming a single station.
One sign of a fraudster is that they misrepresent and misquote as you
do here.
This is what I said: "In fact, as I understand it, it was one
'station', one set of equipment, that was moved up the hill in the
1920s.".
Note that I had 'station' in apostrophes and clarified that the use of
that word related to the "set of equipment" and not the site.
> Look, our disagreement comes down to this (in my mind):
> A. It's the same station, or
> B. It's NOT the same station.
A weather station is a set of equipment.
A site is where that equipment is located.
Kelburn and Thorndon are obviously different sites but were not
necessarily different stations in the 1920s. However, it is quite
likely that the equipment has been replaced over the years since then.
> You contend that it's the SAME station and a fudge factor needs to be
> applied to make the readings compatible. I assert that it's NOT the same
> station and any "adjustments" are a fraud.
The equipment (station) was moved up the hill, how hard is that to
understand ?
Simply because it is at a different altitude (you still seem to fail
to understand adiabatic changes) then the reading of temperature will
be different, not because it is a different place, or different
weather, but because the usual laws of nature apply (whether you
understand them of not).
What NIWA did was produce a single graph showing average temperature
over many decades adjusted to a common altitude of sea level.
> If you are correct, then we need only ONE temperature measuring station on
> the whole planet, merely adjusting the pseudo readings, from Moscow to
> Hawaii, by the appropriate fudge factor.
There, once again, you fail. Exageration does not help your case, it
merely shows the breadth and depth of your lack of understanding.
Over a handful of kilometers there is _ONE_ weather. You are insanely
extrapolating this to a ludicrous degree as if this 'proves'
something.
As it happens we do need only one weather station for a local area: a
town for example. I live at 100m and can know what the temperature at
the beach is by, as you say, adjusting the reading I have here to
cater for the different altitude. I can do the same for the pressure
reading which will be consistently higher at the beach.
If you don't understand the difference between 'local' and 'far away'
then I susggest you get some education.
> The adjustments to a single station are, in the main, almost irrelevant to a
> global warming study. These adjustments to a single station ARE relevant,
> however, to demonstrate palpable fraud by those making the adjustments. The
> Kelburn (nee Thorndon) tweaking is but ONE of many fiddlings done by the
> NIWA circus to achieve a pre-determined result. Bottom line: The "adjusted"
> data show a warming trend; the "raw" data do not.
Here you are still confused about the distinction between 'station'
and 'site'. And what is "Kelburn (nee Thorndon)" supposed to mean. Do
you think they just renamed it ?
The adjustment is to cater for the adiabatic changes due to the
different altitude. How hard is this stuff ?
But then you deliberately want to not understand.
HeyBub
>
> I don't agree with your position, but I loved your arthritic
> pensioner... :-)
>
> If the programming has been fudged to support a particular political
> agenda, then I would agree that is cause for serious concern. I'd
> like to think that is not the case, but who knows? I'd want to see
> definitive evidence (original and amended source code) before I could
> accept that, and I don't think that has been forthcoming.
>
> I believe the "data fudging" accusation has arisen from the
> relocation of the Kelburn station and the consequent adjustment to
> readings from there. I agree with Richard that those adjustments were
> fair and necessary. Sometime, if you ever get to visit Wellington (it
> is a very beautiful city with houses nestling into hills above a
> landlocked harbour), I hope you'll ride the cable car, relax, drink
> in the scenery, and notice you may want to put your jacket or
> cardigan on when you reach the top... there is a noticeable (albeit,
> slight...) fall in temperature.
Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
(ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take the
curren reading in Denver and add 100�F to get the current temperature in
Death Valley.
>
> I don't believe NiWA has any hidden agenda, but I could be wrong and
> some people certainly feel very strongly about Global Warming (as
> witnessed by this thread...)
>
> Today is cooler here, so I'm feeling more relaxed about it... :-)
>
Your point is well taken. Here are two quotes to put into your machine
before you turn the crank:
If you lose the geeks, you've lost the war
"It doesn't take expertise in climatology to look at source code and
determine that the code is garbage. There are many more geeks with software
expertise than with climate expertise, and the geek community will go
through every line of code and likely conclude that the computer models are
so flawed that any conclusions drawn on them are without merit... Despite
the liberal tendencies of many geeks, I believe that the source code
evidence will be insurmountable for most."
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2009/11/anthropogenic-global-warming-will-lose-geeks-thanks-to-bad-code-part-2.php
Climate Change Data Dumped
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
---
Many years ago I worked for a geophysical exploration company. The company
had a warehouse in Metarie, Louisiana that contained hundreds of thousands
of reels of magnetic tape containg raw seismic data. The unwavering rule was
that original data was NEVER destroyed and all manner of effort was employed
to maintain its integrity (for example, they had several crews that did
nothing but rewind and retension these tapes on a regular basis).
The reasons for the 'forever retention' rule was quite simple and were two
in number: 1) Better processing techniques developed in the future could
achieve better results, and 2) It may not be possible to re-aquire the data
for long periods, if ever (i.e., Red Sea exploration was off limits for
decades due to Egypt - Israel conflict, or exploration in Viet Nam were out
of the question for thirty years).
In the case of the CRU at East Anglia, it may be that the original data
cannot be re-aquired. Ever.
Now if the computer programs used to apply corrections to raw data are
incomprehensible and the original data are no longer available, no scientist
worth the name would accept the unreproducible conclusions gleaned from the
process.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old
>> guard to be wrong.
>>
>> And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so,
>> even if the other money is easier to come by.
>>
>> (Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the
>> results they want in court).
>
>Maybe so, but no one pays like the government. An unending trough just
>there for anyone willing to sell their integrity for.
Government money gets spread about a lot. Private money pays more to
fewer. And neither give the glory that one gets by proving the old
guard wrong.
Richard
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> > I don't agree with your position, but I loved your arthritic
> > pensioner... :-)
>
> > If the programming has been fudged to support a particular political
> > agenda, then I would agree that is cause for serious concern. I'd
> > like to think that is not the case, but who knows? I'd want to see
> > definitive evidence (original and amended source code) before I could
> > accept that, and I don't think that has been forthcoming.
>
> > I believe the "data fudging" accusation has arisen from the
> > relocation of the Kelburn station and the consequent adjustment to
> > readings from there. I agree with Richard that those adjustments were
> > fair and necessary. Sometime, if you ever get to visit Wellington (it
> > is a very beautiful city with houses nestling into hills above a
> > landlocked harbour), I hope you'll ride the cable car, relax, drink
> > in the scenery, and notice you may want to put your jacket or
> > cardigan on when you reach the top... there is a noticeable (albeit,
> > slight...) fall in temperature.
>
> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take the
> curren reading in Denver and add 100°F to get the current temperature in
> Death Valley.
Wow, I guess that absolutely proves that I can't look out my window
and know what the weather will be like if I walk out the door.
We have already accepted your "I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not
conversant with adiabatic adjustments" so there is no need to continue
to provide examples of your complete incompetence in this area.
> > I don't believe NiWA has any hidden agenda, but I could be wrong and
> > some people certainly feel very strongly about Global Warming (as
> > witnessed by this thread...)
>
> > Today is cooler here, so I'm feeling more relaxed about it... :-)
>
> Your point is well taken. Here are two quotes to put into your machine
> before you turn the crank:
>
> If you lose the geeks, you've lost the war
> "It doesn't take expertise in climatology to look at source code and
> determine that the code is garbage. There are many more geeks with software
> expertise than with climate expertise, and the geek community will go
> through every line of code and likely conclude that the computer models are
> so flawed that any conclusions drawn on them are without merit... Despite
> the liberal tendencies of many geeks, I believe that the source code
> evidence will be insurmountable for most."http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2009/11/anthropogenic-global-warmin...
Richard
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> > I don't agree with your position, but I loved your arthritic
> > pensioner... :-)
>
> > If the programming has been fudged to support a particular political
> > agenda, then I would agree that is cause for serious concern. I'd
> > like to think that is not the case, but who knows? I'd want to see
> > definitive evidence (original and amended source code) before I could
> > accept that, and I don't think that has been forthcoming.
>
> > I believe the "data fudging" accusation has arisen from the
> > relocation of the Kelburn station and the consequent adjustment to
> > readings from there. I agree with Richard that those adjustments were
> > fair and necessary. Sometime, if you ever get to visit Wellington (it
> > is a very beautiful city with houses nestling into hills above a
> > landlocked harbour), I hope you'll ride the cable car, relax, drink
> > in the scenery, and notice you may want to put your jacket or
> > cardigan on when you reach the top... there is a noticeable (albeit,
> > slight...) fall in temperature.
>
> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take the
> curren reading in Denver and add 100°F to get the current temperature in
> Death Valley.
As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of
the world.
The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
produce that forecast.
> > I don't believe NiWA has any hidden agenda, but I could be wrong and
> > some people certainly feel very strongly about Global Warming (as
> > witnessed by this thread...)
>
> > Today is cooler here, so I'm feeling more relaxed about it... :-)
>
> Your point is well taken. Here are two quotes to put into your machine
> before you turn the crank:
>
> If you lose the geeks, you've lost the war
> "It doesn't take expertise in climatology to look at source code and
> determine that the code is garbage. There are many more geeks with software
> expertise than with climate expertise, and the geek community will go
> through every line of code and likely conclude that the computer models are
> so flawed that any conclusions drawn on them are without merit... Despite
> the liberal tendencies of many geeks, I believe that the source code
> evidence will be insurmountable for most."http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2009/11/anthropogenic-global-warmin...
HeyBub
>>
>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
>> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take
>> the
>> curren reading in Denver and add 100�F to get the current
>> temperature in
>> Death Valley.
>
> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of
> the world.
>
> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
> is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
> produce that forecast.
>
You rag on me about the difference between "site" and "station" ["I was
sited at Ft Polk, but now I'm a station for sore eyes"] now you go on about
"forecasts" in Death Valley and Denver.
I said I couldn't take the current reading one place and apply a fudge
factor and expect to get the temperature somewhere else, and, presto, you
start blathering on about the "Weather Bureau" making "forecasts."
First, a "forecast" is about a future event and I was referring to a
contemporary conditions.
That said, the "Weather Bureau" doesn't make forecasts for Death Valley or
anywhere else. In fact there is no such thing as the "Weather Bureau." There
used to be, but its name was changed to the National Weather Service and
merged into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about forty
years ago.
You really should keep up.
Howard Brazee
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
>is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
>produce that forecast.
I can see the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Center (I. M. Pei
designed) headquarters from my work in Boulder. Close enough to
Denver - but pretty far from the ocean. I've sat on the Cray there.
Richard
> Richard wrote:
>
> >> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
> >> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take
> >> the
> >> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
> >> temperature in
> >> Death Valley.
>
> > As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of
> > the world.
>
> > The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
> > is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
> > produce that forecast.
If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the
death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the
graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using
that to 'prove' world temperatures fell.
HeyBub
> On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death
>>>> Valley (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't
>>>> just take the
>>>> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
>>>> temperature in
>>>> Death Valley.
>>
>>> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do
>>> of the world.
>>
>>> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
>>> is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
>>> produce that forecast.
>
> If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
> level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
> the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>
> In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the
> death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the
> graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using
> that to 'prove' world temperatures fell.
Now you bring up what the skeptics did. Until now, no one has said anything
about the activities of the anti-warming crowd. We were discussing the
criminal fraud perpetrated by the CRU and their co-conspirators in NZ.
I'm not interested in what the skeptics say or did. Your random
dart-throwing in an attempt to find a situation in which what you allege is
meaningful is simply appalling.
My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good
science to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant
to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly
different location. Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception,
obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal
fraud.
The people involved shoud be cremated (even if it contributes to 'global
warming'), and their ashes scattered. Take no chances.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good
>science to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant
>to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly
>different location.
Take:
a sit-down by the seaside
one pot of water
heat to a full boil
add one egg
wait three minutes
enjoy an egg of a cosistency called 'a three-minute egg'.
Change the location from sea level to 10,000 feet above sea level. To get
the same consistency one needs five minutes cooking.
>Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception,
>obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal
>fraud.
Anyone with sufficient formal training to be familiar with the qualifier
of 'fifty-five Paris feet' might recognise that changing *only the place*
where observations are made can change the results *and* be accounted for
by arithmetic constants... that's been 'science' for at least a
century-and-a-half.
DD
Howard Brazee
>a sit-down by the seaside
>one pot of water
>heat to a full boil
>add one egg
>wait three minutes
>enjoy an egg of a cosistency called 'a three-minute egg'.
>
>Change the location from sea level to 10,000 feet above sea level. To get
>the same consistency one needs five minutes cooking.
I lived a couple of years in Mexico City during the Kennedy
administration. At that time, US made cake mixes were available
with Spanish language instructions stuck on the box - modified for
Mexico City altitude. My parents complained that the coffee wasn't
hot enough for their taste. I am at work in Boulder Colorado at the
moment, but haven't seen recipe modifiers - I expect the mountains are
different. I do know I have to have a bigger boil to cook pasta
here - the boiling water isn't quite hot enough.
Alistair
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings (going back
> to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends.
Who? what data did they use and is their name Judson?
>
> In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming (or
> cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's magnificent
> computer program, we're all gonna die.
>
Just as well that no-one has told the foraminifera about global
warming.
Alistair
> Agreed. Some think it was the data that were massaged - no one has commented
> on the code. The programs used for climate predition at East Anglia,
> however, are seemingly a mess and cannot be deciphered.
They should have used Cobol, it is self-documenting. ;-p
Apparently as long
> as the programs in East Anglia generated the expected graphs they were
> deemed to be working okay.
As long as my programs generate the correct (by my definition) result,
I deem them to be working ok.
Alistair
>
> Perhaps more revelations are yet to come. As things stand right now, we
> "skeptics":
>
> * Cannot trust the raw data or the proxy data,
> * Cannot trust the interpreters of the data,
> * Cannot understand or trust the programs doing the projections based on
> these data.
>
You just can't trust anything that is not in the Koran, Bible or Old
Testament. Oops, they contradict each other so what should we do now?
Alistair
>
> The "peer reviewed" papers from these institutions must now be reevaluated
> and, until evaluated by independent researches, taken off the scale. As a
> second degree, papers that used as reference any data or papers from IPCC or
> East Anglia's CRU must also be viewed as suspect.
>
> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the conclusions of
> IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with a "consensus of the
> scientific community" consisting of one WWI pensioner living in what was
> once East Prussia whose arthritic knee is acting up.
And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly showed
global warming in progress before anyone had invented the term.
I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
started posting your nonsense to
alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
Howard Brazee
<alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
>started posting your nonsense to
>alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
Or
alt.fundamentalistsbelieveineverythingintrepretingwhatGodsaystowhattheybelieve
Howard Brazee
<alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You just can't trust anything that is not in the Koran, Bible or Old
>Testament. Oops, they contradict each other so what should we do now?
It doesn't matter. Take what you believe, search very hard for some
scriptural support to show you're right, and disregard the rest.
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
[snip]
>My parents complained that the coffee wasn't
>hot enough for their taste.
Ahhhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when one's parents could suck down java
at temperatures not tolerated by *ten* parents, today!
I recall my Sainted Parents - may they sleep with the angels! - being able
to consume foods at what I considered to be cauterising temperatures.
When those newfangled Mr Coffee devices came out they purchased one and
wouldn't bother with cups, just grab the carafe and pour directly into
their mouths, like some 1970s-era American version of the Spanish bota.
DD
Howard Brazee
>Ahhhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when one's parents could suck down java
>at temperatures not tolerated by *ten* parents, today!
>
>I recall my Sainted Parents - may they sleep with the angels! - being able
>to consume foods at what I considered to be cauterising temperatures.
>When those newfangled Mr Coffee devices came out they purchased one and
>wouldn't bother with cups, just grab the carafe and pour directly into
>their mouths, like some 1970s-era American version of the Spanish bota.
And in the name of better tasting (and quicker) coffee, we lost the
delight of watching and listening to the glass-topped coffee
peculator.
Richard
> Richard wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Richard wrote:
>
> >>>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death
> >>>> Valley (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't
> >>>> just take the
> >>>> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
> >>>> temperature in
> >>>> Death Valley.
>
> >>> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do
> >>> of the world.
>
> >>> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
> >>> is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
> >>> produce that forecast.
>
> > If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
> > level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
> > the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>
> > In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the
> > death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the
> > graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using
> > that to 'prove' world temperatures fell.
>
> Now you bring up what the skeptics did. Until now, no one has said anything
> about the activities of the anti-warming crowd.
That is a complete lie for a start. You had referenced a discussion
about them and here is one of several times I discussed them:
"""Those that 'graphed the raw rates' and did not take into account
the change of location were clueless about how weather measurements
work, picked only readings (in this case unadjusted raw ones) which
supported their manifesto and ignore everything which does not support
that"""
> We were discussing the
> criminal fraud perpetrated by the CRU and their co-conspirators in NZ.
> I'm not interested in what the skeptics say or did. Your random
> dart-throwing in an attempt to find a situation in which what you allege is
> meaningful is simply appalling.
>
> My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good
> science
Exageration does not make good science.
> to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant
> to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly
> different location.
You don't understand weather or atmosphere. You misrepresent. It is
not a 'distinctly different location' (as your stupid hyperbole was)
The adjustment is exactly that required by Boyle's Law.
> Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception,
> obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal
> fraud.
> The people involved shoud be cremated (even if it contributes to 'global
> warming'), and their ashes scattered. Take no chances.
You are obviously wedded to the idea that the American Consummerism
should continue without restraint and will side with the shony and
clueless sceptics regardless.
Richard
> Richard wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Richard wrote:
>
> >>>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death
> >>>> Valley (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't
> >>>> just take the
> >>>> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
> >>>> temperature in
> >>>> Death Valley.
>
> >>> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do
> >>> of the world.
>
> >>> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
> >>> is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
> >>> produce that forecast.
>
> > If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
> > level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
> > the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>
> > In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the
> > death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the
> > graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using
> > that to 'prove' world temperatures fell.
>
> Now you bring up what the skeptics did. Until now, no one has said anything
> about the activities of the anti-warming crowd.
Just to be completely clear here is where _you_ brought up "what the
skeptics did" a few days ago:
"""On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings
(going back
to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends."""
And you included this link to what they did:
"""http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-
smea..."""
(Note the title)
> We were discussing the
> criminal fraud perpetrated by the CRU and their co-conspirators in NZ.
>
> I'm not interested in what the skeptics say or did. Your random
> dart-throwing in an attempt to find a situation in which what you allege is
> meaningful is simply appalling.
>
> My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good
> science to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant
> to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly
> different location.
The locations in Wellington are just a minute or two apart. Any wind
could well pass the same air by both, but as the air has had to travel
'up the hill' or 'down the hill' the it will obey Boyle's Law and will
change temperature without losing or gaining heat.
If you cannot understand such basic science then you should remove
yourself until you do.
> Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception,
> obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal
> fraud.
Given that this message of yours that I am replying to could be
described as "deception and obfuscation" and that nothing you have
said could be described as 'science' then you are entire disengenuous,
amongst other failings.
HeyBub
>>
>> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the
>> conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with
>> a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one WWI
>> pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic knee
>> is acting up.
>
> And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly showed
> global warming in progress before anyone had invented the term.
>
> I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
> started posting your nonsense to
> alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, unless it
came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average Global temperature
dropped by 2.7�F.
The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice
age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article from June of that
year.
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible code used
by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One experienced programmer
spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the programs and his journal was part
of the leaked documents.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice
>age was a Time Magazine cover story.
Didn't another Time Magazine cover story declare everybody to be the
'Person of the Year'?
(Anyone who's worked in a regularly-produced medium (nightly news show,
weekly entertainment magazine, monthly science journal, et and cet) might
have learnt that some issues are better, some worse... Things Of Great
Importance do not always coincide with the Get It To The Printer
deadline.)
DD
Alistair
The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the
Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of
increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to
BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the
previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global
warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming).
The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and
graphed, again by hand, by the same student.
HeyBub
Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about
human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores -
neither of which is human."
Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded.
That may account for your readings. But when coupled with the more
cold-blooded types (i.e. the English), the average will drop considerably.
Alistair
>
The Med locals may be hot blooded but they don't move around much.
Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun. So, any local
temperature increases could only be the result of colonialism.
docd...@panix.com
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about
>human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores -
>neither of which is human."
That sounds to be almost as valid as a much more time-honored
psychological paradigm of 'All's crazy but me 'n thee... and sometimes I
doubts thee, a'well.'
>
>Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded.
Everybody knows that any sentence which makes a statement about what
'everybody knows' is wrong, including this one.
DD
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>On Dec 1, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>> >> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
>> >> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take
>> >> the
>> >> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
>> >> temperature in
>> >> Death Valley.
>>
>> > As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of
>> > the world.
>>
>> > The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
>> > is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
>> > produce that forecast.
>
>If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
>level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
>the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who
did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period
where observations were available from both sites to validate the
adjustment factor used?
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>The locations in Wellington are just a minute or two apart. Any wind
>could well pass the same air by both, but as the air has had to travel
>'up the hill' or 'down the hill' the it will obey Boyle's Law and will
>change temperature without losing or gaining heat.
>
>If you cannot understand such basic science then you should remove
>yourself until you do.
>
As asked by me in another posting, is there a consistent correlation
of the temperature difference between the two point? Another
interesting question about temperature observations over time is
whether human activity is affecting the temperature at the observation
point. While I am on the fence about climate change, the glacier
changes seem more convincing in many ways and more solidly measurable.
If the measurement of acidification of the oceans is solid, that also
is of great concern.
Assuming there is global warming, it also would be interesting to
figure out what effect, if any hydroelectric facilities in the north
and in mountainous areas have by displacing snow with water that
absorbs rather than reflects heat.
Richard
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Richard wrote:
>
>
> >If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
> >level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
> >the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>
> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
> a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who
> did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period
> where observations were available from both sites to validate the
> adjustment factor used?
The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the
adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when
there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude.
As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and
relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not
vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base
atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level).
You can do the calculations to determine the theoretical variation in
temperature differences.
As these were used as averages then any tiny theoretical variation in
the differences (as distinct from the variations in temperature)
caused by cyclone and anti-cyclone pressure changes would be evened
out.
What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw
unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims.
Pete Dashwood
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death
>>>>> Valley (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't
>>>>> just take the
>>>>> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
>>>>> temperature in
>>>>> Death Valley.
>>>
>>>> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they
>>>> do of the world.
>>>
>>>> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and
>>>> Denver is one area that does provide data (among thousands of
>>>> others) that produce that forecast.
>>
>> If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
>> level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
>> the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>
> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
> a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who
> did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period
> where observations were available from both sites to validate the
> adjustment factor used?
Those are all very good questions, Clark.
I think the .8 of a degree is a "mean" variation that would be based mainly
on adiabatic compensation, and local weather conditions, but I don't KNOW
that.
My own feeling is that it is a "fair" adjustment and I don't think it has
been done as part of a conspiracy to fudge weather data in support of Global
Warming.
Again, I don't KNOW that, either.
I guess it depends on how passionately you feel about GW (I'm on the fence)
and how important the weather is in your life. :-)
For me, for now, I'm not observing anything untoward in the weather here.
Today is 24 and pleasant.
Id rather be enjoying it than worrying about it... :-)
(Yes, I know that it is better to prevent problems than to deal with them
once they've arrived, but it seems to me enough people are doing the
worrying without actually needing my help...)
<unreferenced remainder snipped>
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
Pete Dashwood
A clear and simple explanation.
Thanks Richard.
>
> What is the real issue is that the skeptics pasted together the raw
> unadjusted temperatures and made fraudulent and uninformed claims.
I guess political motivations work on both camps... :-)
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 12:04�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >On Dec 1, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>> >If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
>> >level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
>> >the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>>
>> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
>> a constant? �If not is the variation taken into account by those who
>> did the adjustment? �Indeed is there a long enough overlap period
>> where observations were available from both sites to validate the
>> adjustment factor used?
>
>The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the
>adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when
>there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude.
>
>As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and
>relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not
>vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base
>atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level).
That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. I
live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of
a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher
temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the
coast. I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and
why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an
altitude correction is the only one that is needed.
Howard Brazee
<cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. I
>live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of
>a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher
>temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the
>coast. I would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and
>why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an
>altitude correction is the only one that is needed.
San Francisco and Oakland have very different climates.
Richard
You could read the link that HeyBub supplied:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>On Dec 8, 5:19锟絘m, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:47:30 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 7, 12:04锟絧m, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 1, 1:46锟絧m, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Richard wrote:
>>
>> >> >If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
>> >> >level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
>> >> >the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.
>>
>> >> On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
>> >> a constant? 锟絀f not is the variation taken into account by those who
>> >> did the adjustment? 锟絀ndeed is there a long enough overlap period
>> >> where observations were available from both sites to validate the
>> >> adjustment factor used?
>>
>> >The temperature difference between the two sites is the result of the
>> >adiabatic lapse. In other words what is specified by Boyles Law when
>> >there are changes in pressure due to change in altitude.
>>
>> >As the altitude difference between these two sites is fixed and
>> >relatively small then the difference in altitude pressure will not
>> >vary to any significant degree, both sites will have the same base
>> >atmospheric pressure (measured at sea level).
>>
>> That assumes that altitude differences are the only differences. 锟絀
>> live 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the Bay of Fundy on the other side of
>> a range of 500 foot high hills at a higher elevation and have higher
>> temperatures most of the year than those at a lower altitude near the
>> coast. 锟絀 would want to know a lot more about the two locations (and
>> why the measuring point was moved) before I have confidence that an
>> altitude correction is the only one that is needed.
>
>You could read the link that HeyBub supplied:
>
>http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
The graphs look like the adjustment is OK in this case although there
is some difference in the variability. I don't claim to be a climate
expert. It will be interesting to follow the responses to the Wall
Street Journal article that I posted a link to.
HeyBub
>
> A clear and simple explanation.
>
> Thanks Richard.
>>
If adiabatic pressure were the only variable between the two locations,
there might be some accuracy in the adjustment. But that's not the only
difference. It's not like they put the temperature guage on the top of a
twenty story building and adjusted for 200 feet - they changed the location
of the instrument cluster. Much more than elevation could be involved:
Relative humidity, average wind speed, surrounding area heat sinks or
radiation proclivity, reflected sunlight, blah-blah-blah.
They moved the station.
Richard
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> > A clear and simple explanation.
>
> > Thanks Richard.
>
> If adiabatic pressure were the only variable between the two locations,
> there might be some accuracy in the adjustment. But that's not the only
> difference. It's not like they put the temperature guage on the top of a
> twenty story building and adjusted for 200 feet - they changed the location
> of the instrument cluster.
They moved the station up the hill.
The clueless skeptics attempted to use the raw figures
_with_no_adjustment_at_all_ which is clearly wrong. Even you finally
understand that adjustment is needed for altitude.
> Much more than elevation could be involved:
> Relative humidity, average wind speed, surrounding area heat sinks or
> radiation proclivity, reflected sunlight, blah-blah-blah.
>
As all those will change from time to time, day to day and season to
season for _ONE_ location then what point are you trying to make ?
Stations are deliberately positioned to reduce all those effects, in
fact it was probably because the city was growing in the 1920s with
reclamation and new buildings that decided them to move it to a place
where the effects would not increase.
The data was put together as _averages_. On average all those will
balance out.
The airport station, which is just 5 km away and at about sea level,
was compared to the readings for several decades from the 1950s on and
found to have a consistent difference attributable to the altitude.
These locations are all in the _same_ weather patterns.
Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has not
already been thought of and dealt with decades ago.
docd...@panix.com
Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has not
>already been thought of and dealt with decades ago.
What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a linear
fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all due to starve
by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or 20th centuries?
DD
Richard
> In article <4be1258d-34d7-46d5-aed9-39ae0b924...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal
in many states of the US.
Pete Dashwood
Yes, they did. But they moved it to the top of a hill almost overlooking the
old site. So your analogy of the building and the temperature gauge is
pretty much what they did. I think you have to see the location, Jerry. It's
a bit like moving something from the bottom end of a cable car ride to the
top of it.
Pete Dashwood
LOL!
Why does that conjure images of round pegs and square holes?
I have resisted the temptation to relate the story about the squaw on the
hippopotamus... :-)
docd...@panix.com
Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 12:02?pm, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>> In article
><4be1258d-34d7-46d5-aed9-39ae0b924...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has not
>> >already been thought of and dealt with decades ago.
>>
>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a linear
>> fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all due to starve
>> by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or 20th centuries?
>
>I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal
>in many states of the US.
Many states in the US are proud of their outlaws... how could any
civilised society take honor from criminal status?
DD
Pete Dashwood
You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-)
HeyBub
>
> They moved the station up the hill.
>
> The clueless skeptics attempted to use the raw figures
> _with_no_adjustment_at_all_ which is clearly wrong. Even you finally
> understand that adjustment is needed for altitude.
>
Skeptics don't disagree with the concept of adjustments (what the
climatologists call "inhomogeneity"). Legitimate adjustments can be made for
such things as: instrumentation, environment changes where the station is
located, etc. What cannot be countenanced is outright fraud - fudging the
numbers to achieve a pre-determined result.
I refer you to an analysis of Australian temperature data involving the
"raw" data which was, erroneously NOT deleted, compared to the "homogenized"
or adjusted temperatures.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Money quotes:
"YIKES! Before getting homogenized [adjusted], temperatures in Darwin were
falling at 0.7 Celcius per century . but after the homogenization, they were
warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was
over two degrees per century . when those guys "adjust", they don't mess
around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going
stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C."
and
"Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can
they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on.
They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They've just added a
huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data!
Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right . but a six degree
per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to
heaven? What's up with that?"
Then the conclusion:
"And with the Latin saying "Falsus in unum, falsus in omis" (false in one,
false in all) as our guide, until all of the station "adjustments" are
examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can't trust anyone
using homogenized numbers."
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a linear
>> fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all due to starve
>> by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or 20th centuries?
>
>I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal
>in many states of the US.
Wasn't there a Teletuby that did that?
Howard Brazee
<dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-)
We all tend to associate "Waltzing Matilda" with Oz though.
Richard
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> docdw...@panix.com wrote:
> > In article
> > <a6221da3-ff33-4e81-9991-d201ddbcf...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Dec 9, 12:02?pm, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> >>> In article
> >> <4be1258d-34d7-46d5-aed9-39ae0b924...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>> Richard ?<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>> Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has
> >>>> not already been thought of and dealt with decades ago.
>
> >>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a
> >>> linear fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all
> >>> due to starve by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or
> >>> 20th centuries?
>
> >> I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal
> >> in many states of the US.
>
> > Many states in the US are proud of their outlaws... how could any
> > civilised society take honor from criminal status?
>
> You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-)
One time Jasper Carrot was going through Aussie 'Border Control' and
he was asked if he had any criminal convictions, his reply was: "Is
this still a requirement ?"
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article
>> <a6221da3-ff33-4e81...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 12:02?pm, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
[snip]
>>>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a
>>>> linear fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all
>>>> due to starve by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or
>>>> 20th centuries?
>>>
>>> I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal
>>> in many states of the US.
>>
>> Many states in the US are proud of their outlaws... how could any
>> civilised society take honor from criminal status?
>
>You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-)
Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, Mr Dashwood.
I've been told they speak a Funny Language in Australia, as well.
DD
Alistair
I believe that people have been reproducing in a geometric
(progression) fashion for millennia and not arithmetrically.
Alistair
That is a malicious rumour about Tinky-winky that is being spread by
Dipsy, La-La and Po as they are jealous of TW's acting ability and
homosexual tendencies.
Pete Dashwood
Some young friends of mine sitting in the back seat of the car as we drove,
shocked their mother and made me break up laughing, with the following (they
call it the "Tinky-Winky song"):
" I like Po
Po likes me
Let's get together and kill Dipsy
With a knife in the guts
And a bullet in the head
Sorry La-La
Dipsy's dead."
It's good to know the kids are being adequately prepared for life in the
21st century... :-)
Richard
There's the problem. The were told to go fourth and multiply but they
found the Kama Sutra and tried fifth, sixth and seventh.
Alistair
That would make a good gangsta-rap song, if it isn't already. Insert
something about slapping one's bitch up as well...