http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html Let the waling and gnashing of teeth about corrupt GISS data begin.
Interesting results, what would be more interesting would be to see EXACTLY how they came up with these results. With AGW "scientists" recently being caught manipulating data, not feeling guilty about it, and even attacking those who catch them; there will always be skepticism in open-minded people's minds about these results. And even then there's still the debate as to if this is even AGW at all, or just natural global warming's and coolings that Earth's seen for billions of years.
The GISS data set is derived from publically available data. Presumably their methodology for extrapolation involves kriging, or spherical wavelet models, or something similar - all perfectly standardised methodology.
And "publically available data" can't possibly be manipulated by devious people for their own agenda? While I know that you or other are going to try to defend the GISS data set, the shit has already hit the fan ...turning off the fan now will do no good. The "scientists" who were caught manipulating data, etc, have raised the ugly spectre of that same thing happening in any and all data, by anyone anywhere. And you don't see the word "presumably" being a major problem for those of us who are likely to be asked to spend money based on it? Taxpayers do have a voice through their votes. No, Trippy, I don't know what's going on scientifically, I'm not a scientist. But in this global climate change issue, it's like I get this odd feeling as if all these scientists are telling me something odd and strange, like .....the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet when I look up in the sky, I can plainly see that the sun is obviously revolving around the Earth! Comes up in the east, travels right over my head, and sets in the west. What the hell, ....do they think I'm freakin' stupid? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
If you're going to see the Boogey man everywhere you look... Look, if you think the data has been fudged by GISS get the original data and prove it You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by 'publically available' or do you think that GISS are the only people in the world that make such things available. If you do, I've got some bad news for you. Not at all - it's a byproduct of my tendency towards cautious language. But tell me this, do you have the mathematical expertise to interpret what they've done, even should be able to track down documentation of such proceedings? Would you know if they had done it properly, or introduced fudge factors? Would Joe the Plumber be able to understand it? Probably not. And there in lies part of the problem, doesn't it. Tell me, do you understand enough physics to understand simple harmonic motion, and the role it plays in the green house effect? Do you understand enough chemistry to be able to interpret a calibration curve from a spectrograph?
There's nothing for ME to prove, Trippy. Look at it this way, "science" has accused the human race of a crime, and they've put the human race on trial for fucking up the planet, right? YOU, say as the prosecutor, must prove that man has committed that "crime". You're asking for tons of money, years and years of sacrifice, more tons of money, years of fucked up economies, etc., etc. It's a damned steep price you're asking all of humans to pay. Yes, because of that possible punishment, I'm asking you, yes, YOU, to prove the that the crime has been committed in the first place, and second, that humans are responsible and should be punished for it. If there's one single shadow of doubt, your case will be thrown out of court and we can all get back to fuckin' up the planet some more. See? Trippy, it's your accusation, YOU are the one that must prove your case. I'm just a stupid, ignorant, slothful, uncaring, druggie, drunkard .....JUROR. Convince me or get the hell out of court! And with this latest little gaff by a few scientists, it's throw the shadow of doubt over the whole freakin' issue of ......data. Baron Max
See, now therein lies another part of the problem, which is partly alluded to in my previous post. Firstly, take a look at your attitude. You suggested that the GISS data had been cooked, and I stated that I had seen no evidence that it had been, and asked you to provide some evidence that it had. Your response to me is to claim that you don't need to prove anything, and that it's up to me to prove anything, meanwhile, completely ignoring the rest of my post which, somewhat obtusely, deals with some of what you have to say. Here's the thing. I can prove that: Ab initio, the average temperature of the surface of the earth is higher than it should be considering solar input and distance. The only way to acheive an accurate result is to include the emissivity of the atmosphere. The emissivity of the atmosphere is dependent on it's composition. The logical conclusion of which is that changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the emissivity of the atmosphere, which changes the average temperature. I can also prove that: Ab initio, using classical physics, and simple harmonic motion, we can expect certain molecules, including CO[sub]2[/sub], CH[sub]4[/sub], and H[sub]2[/sub]O to absorb in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum where the earths thermal radiation peaks. The amount of energy that is absorbed is dependent on the partial pressure of the absorbing gas. Finally, I can demonstrate that: In the city I live in, the temperature has risen by about 2k when compared to 1870s - 1900 (using unadjusted data). This signal exists in spite of the station being moved toan ostensibly cooler location. This has happened over the same time frame that CO[sub]2[/sub] has been increasing. Both of the above have been happening as global fossil fuel consumption has been increasing. I believe I can also cite sources that demonstrate that: The mean sea level has risen. There have been changes in the amount and pattern of rainfall. These changes are consistent with models based on AGW. These are some of the reasons I have the stance that I do (which, incidentally, is not the one often attributed to me). If you're genuinely interested, I once created a thread discussing the basic physics behind some of this.
I most certainly did not! I merely mentioned that, with the latest incident of scientists "manipulating" data, that using that data or most any data is now suspect. Thus, it's not up to me to prove anything, it's up to those who produce and/or use any and all "data" .....is it or is it not "manipulated"? And ...how do you know? And, ...can you prove it? I am NOT suggesting that it is or not ...YOU are the one who is basing his opinions and thoughts and theories on that data. With the "manipulated data" incident in mind, has the data that YOU are using been manipulated or not? Can you prove it? The shadow of doubt has been cast over all such gathered data. It's now casting a shadow on any opinions that come from anyone using that data. You can prove that how? ....Using data that's suspect? Where did you get that data? Has it been manipulated by scientists with an agenda of their own? See? Now there is doubt, and it's up to you NOT ME to remove that doubt. Correlation does not mean cause. Listen, Trippy, I'm not trying to be a wise ass or a troublemaker, but those scientist who "cooked the books" have raise this doubt, and I think it would behoove every scientist on Earth to show conclusively that ...well, that they really are nice guys! And while I made comparisons to a murder trial, it's not so much different; if the climate change group has their way, it's likely that the world's economies willl suffer horrendously. And unlike a murder trial, all of the efforts to fight climate change will hurt/harm billions of people, not just one person! The shadow of a doubt has been cast ...ain't no un-ringing that bell. Baron Max
Yes, it is. Point blank, if you think that the GISS data is potentially suspect, because of some of the other goings on that it is suspect, then it's up to you to prove that it is, not me to prove that it isn't. I've already said that, based on other data I have from other sources, I have no reason to believe that the GISS data is cooked. Obviously you can't prove that it has been manipulated, which is why you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Here's a clue, seeing a show you onviously haven't picked it up from what I said the first time around. The data I've been using is the same data that GISS used, BUT I sourced it from the original source, not GISS. GISS or HADCRU have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the data that I have downloaded (although they may have used it, irrespective of whether it's cooked or not). Do you understand what I'm trying to say yet? Or are you trying to push some sort of super secret global conspiracy of ridiculous proportions? No it hasn't. Either your being deliberately disingenous and lying about what I said, or you simply haven't understood it. The EARTH has a distance of approximately 149,597,887 km from the sun. The EARTH has an average albedo of 0.3 to 0.4. The SUN has a temperature of 5780K The SUN has mean diameter of 1.392x10[sup]6[/sup]km Using the Steffan Boltzman law, formulated in 1879, we can predict, using the above data, that the earth should have a mean temperature of 279k. Meanwhile, the actual mean temperature of the earth is 287k any alleged cooking of data is insufficient to account for this. Addendum (please read): I erred in the above, the calculation based on the Steffan Boltzman law is for a black body, not a grey body, and does not take albedo into account. Taking Albedo into account (meaning that 30% of incoming solar radiation is reflected back into space) predicts an average temperature of 255k where the measured average is 287k, a difference of 32k. As someone who works with statistics on a daily basis, I'm well aware of this old chestnut, however, the fatal flaw here is that it's not just correlation that's being relied upon, proven causal mechanisms exist. Then it may behoove you to tone down some of your posts, because at the moment that's exactly how you come across. I have endeavoured to explain some of the basics to you, and so far, those people that I have come across that understand those basics, even the ones that may or may not disagree with me over causes, have agreed that the only real debate that exists is the results of some of what I have mentioned. You're that addicted to your lifestyle that you're unable to make a few small changes?
While we're on the subject of misrepresentation. Show me one single post of mine where I have advocated for Carbon Taxes, emissions trading schemes or the such. Show me one single post of mine where I have stated that I believe that undertaking massive geoengineering projects to cool the planet is a good idea. Go through my posting history with a finetoothed comb, and find just one post, link to it and quote me in context. I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...% certain that you won't be able to. So take a moment to consider that before you go demanding that I provide any proof that spending money is a good idea, or before you go dismissing what I have to say as the idle rantings and ramblings of the faithful. Meanwhile - for 20 years I walked, bused, or carpooled when I could have been driving a car. I only purchased a car when I married and had a family (for practicality and medical reasons which I don't care to go into). We only use CFL bulbs. Our heating comes from the most efficient heat pumps we could afford. We've applied for grants to improve our home's insulation. We specifically bought a brick house in full, all day sunshine to reduce the heating requirements. When we do use our heat pumps, they're set to the minimum temperature setting. We only do full loads of washing, or full loads in the dishwasher, and we don't use the clothes drier unless we absolutely have to. The car that we bought is the smallest, most fuel efficient vehicle that met both our budgetary requirements, and our practical requirements (Station wagon 4 cylinder, 1600cc (I believe) 7km/l (16.5 mpg) around town, and 10 km/l (23.5 mpg) on the open road).
The AGW crowd has been screaming about doomsday scenarios since before I was born. The same group said we would all be dead by now from overpopulation (The Population Bomb in the 60's), that we would be frozen now from Global Cooling (70's), nuclear holocaust in the 80s, running out of oil in the 90's and now it's global warming in the 00's. Funny thing is that ALL of these problems have a similar solution...Americans should grant political power to the Chicken Littles, consume less, and give poor nations our money. Fear is a powerful tool to achieve these political agendas. I don't doubt your sincerity Trippy, I applaud you for taking steps to make the world a better place. I do, however, doubt the motivation of many (if not most) AGW activists. If the AGW crowd wants me to ever take them seriously they need to ditch the Socialist political undertones in their "proposed solutions" because I'd rather live in a hot, free society than a Socialist one.
There in lies something else that annoys me from time to time. Who do you think's going to have more money at the end of the week - Me, or the guy down the road who get's around in his Valiant V8?
What does that have to do with anything? If you want to save money, that's wonderful for you. If you want to do something for the environment, that's wonderful, thank you. But if that guy down the road wants to drive a freakin' bulldozer to work, then ....so what? You both get to do what you want. Except, as I see it, you're gonna' be complaining about him ....while he's not saying anything about you. Baron Max
Show me again where I was complaining about them? Oh wait, that's right. I wasn't, I was simply drawing a comparison. Your political agenda, and basic asinine assumptions are laid open for all to see.
What political agenda???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm too old to care about climate change or any of that crap. I've already done my share to fuck it up, if that's what happened. I'm going to die soon, so what the hell .....what political agenda could I possibly have?? ...LOL! Baron Max
Right. And I'm asking you to justify the accusation that the data has been manipulated, because nothing that I have seen suggests that it has been? I've answered your questions. To the best of my knowledge, the data is accurate. Am I willing to give a more definitive answer than that? Fuck no, because I'm actually a scientest, and have a tendency to use cautious language, because even in my field of specialization, there is always the possibility that I could be wrong. Do you see yet? Based on some of the things that I have endeavoured to explain to you, I see no reason to assume that the GISS data set has been fiddled. I'm now asking you to provide something that suggests it has been, or to give up the argument. Some of which were genuinely overblown hype and media spectacles - for example, the global cooling debacle originated from literally, one or two papers. By which point it's actually too late, and we have to live in our mess for longer. I reiterate my point. And if you're that narrow and bloody minded that you can't see how paying a few bucks less each week in gas and power bills doesn't directly benefit you? Not my problem.
Well, okay then, you're assinine assumptions. The fact that you continue making the same assinine assumptions about my motivations "Except, as I see it, you're gonna' be complaining about him ....while he's not saying anything about you." inspite of the fact that I've invited you to go through my posting history and back your trolling up with facts.
Besides which, do you know what I don't think I have seen? I don't think I have ever actually seen one iota of proof of improper data manipulation, only supposition and inference based on some comments made in some emails. And before you go frothing at the mouth, take a moment to consider what I might mean by 'Improper data manipulation'.
Seriously Trippy, if you don't believe that data was manipulated it's because you are being willfully ignorant. Google "climategate data manipulation" and enjoy. Here's a good one Let me qualify this by saying that I believe the Earth is warming. I also believe that some of these scientists think they are doing the "right" thing by manipulating data, but it's still wrong and so are they. I'd like to see some of these clowns in jail.
