Talk-Polywell.org

That was debunked recently in a paper, wasn't it?

Called into question. Not the same thing. It may yet be proven wrong. More data would be good. More analysis as well.

BTW the paper you quote above confirms the temp record. At the pole measured.

But the missing warming is in the equatorial troposphere.

Nice try though.

I keep wondering if your misreading of papers etc. is intentional, due to bias, or your understanding of what is being said is deficient.

The easiest person to fool is yourself. To do science well you have to be your own harshest critic. Doubt is essential. Error endemic. Absolute honesty an essential requirement.

BTW I'm sure you won't like it but ability in school (on average) pretty much follows IQ. Which is not to say that IQ is a good measure for an individual (although it is pretty good most of the time). My personal observation is that extra effort can add 15 IQ points. One SD. Of course laxity (disinterest) can subtract as well.

A pretty good paper on the subject:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

more on the same topic:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

You might like to read it. And weep. Because it says that some countries are going to need a lot of help. Probably more than is available.

Criminality race based?

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/fuzzy.htm

I can't find the study off hand but one I read a while back said there was a cut off in IQ below which a person was not smart enough to commit a crime. Then there was a peak and a decline so that smarter people were less likely to commit a criminal offense.

Getting civilized helps:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/discipline.htm

And the biggest civilizing influence? An older male in the household. (IMO)

So what we are doing with our drug war is taking the civilizing influences out of the black community. Stupidest thing I can imagine. Ah. Well.

MSimon wrote:Called into question. Not the same thing.

It was thoroughly demolished as a reflection of reality.

BTW the paper you quote above confirms the temp record. It does not confirm the computer predictions.

It only confirms the temp record over Antarctica. And it confirms the models too since the temp record is built with models, because NOAA doesn't have data year round for the region.

I suppose you didn't read the paper though.

Relevant quote (pp 2):

However, stratospheric data is sparse during the winter when the balloons do not reach high altitudes, and satellite based soundings fail to return reliable data. For such periods NOAA derives temperatures from their models. We utilize both the ground-based data and satellite measurements/models for our analysis.

It only confirms the temp record over Antarctica. And it confirms the models too since the temp record is built with models, because NOAA doesn't have data year round for the region.

Josh. Josh. Josh.

The models predict no anomaly over the poles. There is no anomaly over the poles. Fine so far. And the neutrino data matches other measurement methods.

But the models do predict an anomaly (well we are not using the terminology right but you get my meaning) over the tropics. We do not see it.

There for Josh there is an error. Now the correlation of the data over the poles by two measurement methods says that the data is probably good.

There for the models are in error.

The paper you give proves the opposite of what you want it to.

You might want to check your biases at the door.

MSimon wrote:The models predict no anomaly over the poles. There is no anomaly over the poles. Fine so far. And the neutrino data matches other measurement methods.

The models have to fill in data for the temperature record over the poles where that data is absent. It certainly matches any anomalies that IceCube found.

But the models do predict an anomaly (well we are not using the terminology right but you get my meaning) over the tropics. We do not see it.

We do see it with improved data, but that isn't enough for you guys, because improving data is a bad idea.

There for Josh there is an error. Now the correlation of the data over the poles by two measurement methods says that the data is probably good.

One measurement method measures muon counts from the ozone layer, and intuits temperature. Another measurement method uses balloons, satellite data, and models to fill in gaps when the balloons aren't able to make effective measurements. The models, NOAAs models, are verified to be good compared to IceCube.

There for the models are in error.

The paper you give proves the opposite of what you want it to.

You might want to check your biases at the door.

OK MSimon. The paper explicitly notes NOAA models for temperature measurements over Antarctica, and you somehow manage to believe the exact opposite. Good enough.

(Note, no where did I say that the models here were necessarily GCM, I am explicitly referring to NOAAs temperature fitting models, whatever it is that they use, it's good enough to make sure the temperature record is intact, contrary to the objections about temperature adjustment.)

You might find this amusing re: absent data.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08 ... ia-effect/

There is actually data. But the Climate "Scientists" no longer use it.

BTW the comments are especially instructive. Esp about your favorite Josh. Open Source.

Well the Open Source is going to work. In a year or so I expect it will be an open sore for the "Real" scientists.

It is not over yet. Not by a long shot.

MSimon,

As far as I understand, GHCN uses similar models as NOAA CPC, so the Bolivia "effect" is similar to the "Antarctica IceCube-NOAA correlation." ie, backed by scientific analysis that most people don't care to understand.

Josh Cryer wrote:MSimon,

As far as I understand, GHCN uses similar models as NOAA CPC, so the Bolivia "effect" is similar to the "Antarctica IceCube-NOAA correlation." ie, backed by scientific analysis that most people don't care to understand.

You missed the point Josh. There is actual data and it is being ignored. Instead they are using homogenization to invent the data.

It is not about the models. Yet.

I must say though, you are an artful dodger. Got to keep an eye on you at all times.

And I must say that it is unwise to confuse me with most people. I have actually studied the matter. In depth.

Unless I missed it reported here already - NASA has its own data manipulation scooped:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

Betruger wrote:Unless I missed it reported here already - NASA has its own data manipulation scooped:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

A good example of how "real" homogenization is carried out.

Another case of debunking papers by the climate cabal:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... he_su.html

Jccarlton wrote:Another case of debunking papers by the climate cabal:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... he_su.html

Nice video of Sallie Baliunas here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ptics.html

and my latest on NASA folks tampering with the data:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -data.html

I notice Josh hasn't been back since I offered to discuss data homogenization with him.

I hope he returns soon because I have even more ammunition than I had a few days ago. Heh heh heh heh heh heh and a cackle.

Betruger wrote:Unless I missed it reported here already - NASA has its own data manipulation scooped:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

IceCube validated the homogenization methods as good representations of reality. IceCube researchers who, btw, have no foot in climate research.

If the denialists (whom Michael Smith and Joseph D'Aleo are to a great extent) believe that the data methods are utilizing manipulation, then I encourage them to submit a peer reviewed paper with corrections to the methodology.

Josh Cryer wrote:

Betruger wrote:Unless I missed it reported here already - NASA has its own data manipulation scooped:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

IceCube validated the homogenization methods as good representations of reality. IceCube researchers who, btw, have no foot in climate research.

If the denialists (whom Michael Smith and Joseph D'Aleo are to a great extent) believe that the data methods are utilizing manipulation, then I encourage them to submit a peer reviewed paper with corrections to the methodology.

Josh,

In real science - no matter how good the method - it is not kosher to manufacture (homogenize) data when real data exist.

And Josh - in Climate Science peer review is compromised. So trotting that out does not help your case.

Besides weren't you once a proponent of open source?

BTW I'm in personal contact with Smith. His attitude is: "I don't care whether the data supports my view or refutes it. I just want the truth." (a paraphrase)

And FWIW Smith is a Polywell fan. The very first post on his blog had a picture from the Nebel/Park POPS experiment.

In climate science the stations used went from about 6,000 to about 1,000 to 1,500. Were the stations shut down? Nope. The data is unused. the other 4,500 to 5,000 "missing" stations have been homogenized.

Does it make much difference in actual temps? No.

Where it makes a LOT of difference is in rate of change. From which projections are made.

As I have said before - open source will get to the bottom of it. It will just take time.

BTW some good news for you from a sceptic site:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/globa ... ay-on.html

What is going on here is that real sceptics value their integrity and "the sky is falling camp" not so much.

===

I admit that objective science from an individual may not be possible. Different folks will have different interpretations of the data. What kills an individual's reputation is a lack of integrity.

And in the case before us we have indications of world wide collusion to at minimum shade the data in the desired direction and keep papers out of the official literature that did not comport with the views of warmists.

That hurts all science.

Thank the Maker that Polywell is being treated as an engineering project.

An example of homogenization:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08 ... ia-effect/

and historical adjustments:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13 ... an-cooked/



Now it means nothing that the satellite data agree with the ground data if they are adjusting pre-satellite data down. Pretty clever way to get a good rate of warming and yet have the current record show agreement.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/15 ... ed-warmth/

===

And here is his Polywell post:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/mr-fusion/