Eat that GW believers!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

Josh Cryer wrote:
The only clean data is the original paper logs from each station, for each day. The only reasonable dataset that is accurate and untouched is, as I have stated, the local newspaper daily reports. That is, unfortunately what we are left with.
That is frick retarded. Sorry, censor me if you will, but you are saying that to trust the data you must OCR it *again* and do all the labor *again*, that's just insanity, sorry.
Unfortunately there are entrenched positions on both sides. It often helps for people to "see it with their own eyes." Scans of the original paper logs is not a bad idea - besides the work load for someone else. However perhaps they can PDFd through 50 page per minute photocopiers that a pretty much in every office nowadays. They don't necessarily need to be exhaustively OCRd, just referenced as a confidence spot check. Then again, as tools for crowdsourcing expand the labour may just arrive for free anyway.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748841/Chap ... tiful-Data
http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:Suppose there is not much rain one year and the vegetation browns. That can be predicted too?
Precipitation is accounted for. Read the papers.
I'm sure precipitation is accounted for. How about browning of vegetation which will change albedo?

And you know if they get it wrong it doesn't anneal. Because climate is chaotic (every one agrees) and the feedback is greater than 1 (disputed).

Now if the feed back was less than one (changes damped) you might have a chance for some period of time.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

MSimon wrote:I'm sure precipitation is accounted for. How about browning of vegetation which will change albedo?

And you know if they get it wrong it doesn't anneal. Because climate is chaotic (every one agrees) and the feedback is greater than 1 (disputed).

Now if the feed back was less than one (changes damped) you might have a chance for some period of time.
Why does their data match the satellite record if it's so cooked?

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pi ... ure-42.jpg

Why MSimon? The curve fits. One satellite record (RSS) agrees with the surface record perfectly. The only one in question is one who is run by a CO2 minimalist.

Spencer should release the code.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'm sure precipitation is accounted for. How about browning of vegetation which will change albedo?

And you know if they get it wrong it doesn't anneal. Because climate is chaotic (every one agrees) and the feedback is greater than 1 (disputed).

Now if the feed back was less than one (changes damped) you might have a chance for some period of time.
Why does their data match the satellite record if it's so cooked?

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pi ... ure-42.jpg

Why MSimon? The curve fits. One satellite record (RSS) agrees with the surface record perfectly. The only one in question is one who is run by a CO2 minimalist.

Spencer should release the code.
Josh. As you well know curve fitting is not proof of anything. Really. You should be ashamed of yourself for using it as proof of anything.

In fact curve fitting is exactly what caused the Hide The Decline problem.

Past Results Are No Guarantee Of Future Performance
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

And Josh,

Suppose Svensmark is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The models are wrong.

And no ocean currents in the models? The models are wrong. According to one recent paper - up to 50% wrong.

Integrity Josh is all you have got. I see it in your attention to detail. I don't see it in your look at the big picture. Pity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

Josh Cryer wrote:
Jccarlton wrote:Are there any independent checks on the NCDC stuff?
Yes, I independently checked it myself and I am writing software to show that raw USHCN = raw NCDC. Now, if you want me to OCR their images, then you're just someone who is in such denial I don't know what to tell you. I might see what I can do, in the distant future, about OCRing a random sample, but that's just a ridiculous level of ignorance you are portraying. Because that data was complied by meteorologists who have absolutely nothing to do with climatology. People who made records, in fact, long before climate change was even discussed outside of obscure papers.
As far as I know the only independent study was the surfacestations.org website which found many discrepancies in the US surface station organization and station monitoring.
No it didn't. The classifications fit those that NCDC station histories found. All it did was show scary pictures of certain stations to put doubt in the record. No where does SurfaceStations.org show that NOAA records were wrong.
Until we have absolute guarantees that the data are clean, the data has to be treated as dirty.
This coming from a side who can't even do proper data analysis, who embarrass themselves when they do it (see D'Aleo claiming Central Park data was raw when it was homogenized, see all of the many sites claiming that GISS provides raw data for US stations).
At this point the only reliable source are those that have never passed the hand of the climate cabal and their centers like NCDC, GISS, CRU and NCAR.
You cannot claim the NCDC is in the same group as the others, NCDC is meteorology, GISS, CRU, and NCAR are climatology. NCDCs job is to measure weather so people know what to wear, whether or not to stay inside, or take an umbrella. That job is done by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals (over the decades).

Actually, you can claim anything you want, but this particular claim puts you squarely in the denialist camp, because you're going deeper than homogenization, you're going to raw data compiled by many thousands of people, and that is truly bizarre and incoherent.
The only clean data is the original paper logs from each station, for each day. The only reasonable dataset that is accurate and untouched is, as I have stated, the local newspaper daily reports. That is, unfortunately what we are left with.
That is frick retarded. Sorry, censor me if you will, but you are saying that to trust the data you must OCR it *again* and do all the labor *again*, that's just insanity, sorry.

But the NCDC does provide it, so if you want to provide this record, please, by all means, do so. There's no guarantee from me that I will ever even attempt this. Mike over at Cheifio agrees that they correspond with the digitized record.
If there was something really catastrophically wrong with the climate the cabal's bad practices have made it nearly impossible to determine in the bad data and noise they have created. The climate cabal has created their own monster, but we all have to live with the consequences.
It's not the climatologists' fault that the meteorologists' records are not coherent over a long period of time. They get whatever data they can.
Joch, what I cannot understand why you still trust those people and the garbage they create.
Because I value honesty, and I find their side to be more honest than the other side.

Frankly I cannot understand this need to hold on to something that no longer even has the illusion of science to support it. What is this need to believe that the human race is somehow destroying the planet?
You are a delusional ignoramus. You can accept that climate change is happening without giving one darn iota about the environment. If you care about fellow human beings, however, you ought to want to do something about it.
One thing I have not done is resort to name calling and insults. Nor do I resort to making accusations, especially ones that are not necessarily true. I don't think of as delusional to desire to keep my liberties in the face of those who want to take them away. I also don't think it is delusional to see the signs of the same bad agendas that killed 100 million people in the last century. Nor am I ignorant. Sometimes I wish I was. It would make my life so much easier. But I see the patterns and the coming darkness and it doesn't go away. It's so much easier to listen to Saruman than Gandalph. The Grimas amonst us have smooth tongues and glib arguments. That doesn't make Saruman right and Gandalph wrong. The darkness of tyranny and oppression remains.

The same kind of people, who in the last century talk about eugenics and master races, now talk about "sustainability." But in the end it means the same thing, kill some people and enslave the rest. The last century had it's series of revolutionary holocausts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNrfY4U9WYM
I don't want this century to have an environmental holocaust, killing driven by the misguided need to address something that doesn't exist.

As to the accuracy of the NCDC dataset. I trust the thousands of temperature readings to be as accurate as humanly possible for normal use. Does that mean it is good enough for what the climate cabal does with it? No. Most of that data was from mercury thermometers which under certain conditions are hard to read and aren't really accurate beyond two degrees or so. It also involved somebody actually going out to the station and taking readings every day. That could be difficult on very cold days. Which it makes it very easy for somebody to just say "the hell with it, it's just like yesterday." Bimetallic thermometers provide a paper record, but will drift and need to be calibrated frequently. Resistance thermal detectors also drift over time and need to be recalibrated. Then there are the siting standards, which is why the surfacestations website is so important. Are you going to say that the volunteers who went out and found all those weather stations, used the NOAA's own criteria to determine the quality of each station and tried to the best of their ability to give an accurate presentation of each stations status are less honest and determined than say you are?
We've discussed signal and error before. The fact of the matter is that most of the stations are only accurate to within >=2 deg c, which is fine for weather forecasting, but not good enough if you are looking for climate change trends in the range of 1/10th of a degree. Your signal gets wiped out by the noise.
Now as for trusting the scientists, well they have amply demonstrated that they could not be trusted:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... alysis.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... imategate/
The fact is that the climate cabal seems to want the same things that the Fabians did in the early 20th century:
another friggin too long url
It's same kind of thinking that had George Bernard Shaw talking about How everybody should be forced to justify their own existence. The kind of thinking that led to this:
I hate fixing these things
How do I know that AGW is the product of this kind of thinking? Because I have been paying attention to the players in this game for a long time. After a while the stench of evil becomes obvious when you know how to look for it.:
http://green-agenda.com/
The fact is that those who are always talking about the evils of capitalism are actually talking about the evils of liberty. They don't trust the individual to make his own decisions. After all those decisions might offend those who consider themselves our betters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opini ... ef=opinion
It's so easy, in the end to just get rid of those who won't willingly bend to the sick desires of the elites. After all you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
When it comes right down to it, i don;t care about the environment. If pollution becomes a problem you clean it up. If you are unwilling, like so many pictures I see from the third world, to clean up the mess you live with the consequences. As for humanity being a unsustainable burden on the planet, the same people saying that are the same ones with their hand drenched in the blood of millions in the last century. We should trust them with anything again?

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Looks like the 2000 GCIMs aren't doing much better than Hansen 1988.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/b ... -expected/

No wonder most of the world isn't excited about about spending trillions based on their predictions.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Josh Cryer wrote:The curve fits with the satellite record:

Image

Any biases would be immediately apparent. Unless you think that Spencer is in on it, too. And his whole downplaying the record is just a false flag so you don't know he's a real warmist.
Yes, but no one really disagrees much about the 30-year trend. The question is whether it sits on top of unprecedented, unnatural, unexplainable-without-anthropic-factors warming.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Re: Eat that GW believers!

Post by Jccarlton »

Thread bump to make life interesting since AGW came up again.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Eat that GW believers!

Post by Schneibster »

The NOAA records are off-line.

You're cheating again.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Post Reply