Global warming?

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:15:55 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:s2i1n59m2netf9i7at1v6decv1mkn3mndp_at_4ax.com...
After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said
"It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really.

John


Actually, I've heard that the best, most reliable way to predict the weather
is to ask what it was like yesterday. Assuming that today will be like
yesterday is true more often than the sophisticated models...

Regards,
Bob Monsen


If I predict that it will be cool and foggy in San Francisco on the
next 4th of July, I'll probably be right. Or if I see a cold front
marching into western Wisconsin, I can probably predict that it will
hit Madison soon. But past obvious stuff like that, the computer
simluations are terrible.

The warmingists say that nobody can model weather very well, but they
can model climate. The distinction between "weather" and "climate" is
one of timebase: if the timebase is short enough that the models can
be checked against reality, it's weather. If the timebase is so long
that the models can't be validated, that's climate.
^^^^^^^^^ INvalidated

John

In article <d0s1n59hgqq4tiipmaips2gr3vg9p0dvor_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote:
On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:

Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data
set. I guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that
it is more likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a
crank. However, tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor
grudges. Seems like they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this
scale. So, why isn't that happening on a much larger scale?

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
"adjusting" them.

Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of
the two satellite-based records?

For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface
records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at
UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy
Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic
side for AGW.

Dr. Roy Spencer even has a personal website with what he would say there
about AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com

He reports the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly and a graph
thereof in:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The UAH index for the globe as well as several latitude zones and
contiguous "48-states" USA is available at:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

The other satallite-based one, best-known as RSS, is at:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt

Graph and degrees/decade trend including map of the world (at 4
different levels of the atmosphere, not only lower troposphere) are shown
at:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

- Don Klipstein (don_at_misty.com)

And you warmingists have never answered the most fundamental quesion
of all - why is warmer weather a _bad_ thing? Why are longer growing
seasons a bad thing? Why is richer, lusher growth of vegetation a bad
thing? Why are milder winters a bad thing?

Answer me any of those questions, and maybe you'll get an idea of how
abysmally stupid the Church of Warmingism really is.

On 9 Feb 2010 07:10:17 +0 UTC, don_at_manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article <d0s1n59hgqq4tiipmaips2gr3vg9p0dvor_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote:
On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
"adjusting" them.

Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of
the two satellite-based records?

For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface
records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at
UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy
Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic
side for AGW.

Well, i tossed this "Hanson adjusting temperature" at a search engine and the
first hit is:

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/12/before-hansens-adjusting-raw-data
-show.html

It does seem to be documented, accurately or not.

In <ksa4n5lqhlgs4aeq8s79cuuoqr6jqeknu9_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote in part:

On 9 Feb 2010 07:10:17 +0 UTC, don_at_manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article <d0s1n59hgqq4tiipmaips2gr3vg9p0dvor_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote:
On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:

SNIP stuff previously quoted by Raveninghorde

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
"adjusting" them.

Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of
the two satellite-based records?

For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface
records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at
UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy
Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic
side for AGW.

SNIP most of what I already said to edit for space

Well, i tossed this "Hanson adjusting temperature" at a search engine and the
first hit is:

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/12/before-hansens-adjusting-raw-data
-show.html

It does seem to be documented, accurately or not.

That is a surface temperature record, not a satellite one. Hansen et al
are not responsible for either of the two major satellite-based indices of
global temperature anomaly.

- Don Klipstein (don_at_misty.com)

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:31:23 +0000 (UTC), don_at_manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In <ksa4n5lqhlgs4aeq8s79cuuoqr6jqeknu9_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote in part:

On 9 Feb 2010 07:10:17 +0 UTC, don_at_manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article <d0s1n59hgqq4tiipmaips2gr3vg9p0dvor_at_4ax.com>, JosephKK wrote:
On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:

SNIP stuff previously quoted by Raveninghorde

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
"adjusting" them.

Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of
the two satellite-based records?

For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface
records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at
UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy
Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic
side for AGW.

SNIP most of what I already said to edit for space

Well, i tossed this "Hanson adjusting temperature" at a search engine and the
first hit is:

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/12/before-hansens-adjusting-raw-data
-show.html

It does seem to be documented, accurately or not.

That is a surface temperature record, not a satellite one. Hansen et al
are not responsible for either of the two major satellite-based indices of
global temperature anomaly.

- Don Klipstein (don_at_misty.com)

Gosh, i could have sworn that the article said Hanson was adjusting the
GISS data. I thought that GISS was satellite data. Well if not, oops.
Still, recooking the books just has to be wrong.

No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf


John

No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

The "science" continues to fall apart:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

John