Berkelely group, preliminary results

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I read it. And what Si is saying is that she thinks that the data is flawed, and Muller did not do a good enough job to find the flaws. And ol' Watts has also disavowed Muller as a scientist that he trusts, now that Muller stated that the data is good, and that the findings were in line with what all the other scientists have been stating.

Si's agenda is political, and has nothing to do with science. She is a fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good grief, Charlie Brown...

Even super-hoaxer Kevin Trenberth doesn't buy this mess of a "study".

Now, Oddie, all you deniers were trumpeting this as the report that would blow Hansen, Mann, and the rest out of the water. But, unlike certain other people on this board, Muller acts as an ethical scientist, and reported the results as he found them. He confirmed the rest of the scientific communities finding in detail.

The way the ol' cookie crumbles, old boy.

 

[Trajan]

here, have a Leper messiah....




On March 30, Senator Boxer went on a tirade about how despicable the Republicans were for attaching an amendment to the Small Business Innovation Research Bill (SBIR). The amendment, sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-TN), would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating emissions of greenhouse gases to address climate change. The principal gas in question that the EPA wants to regulate (er, tax) is carbon dioxide.

Carbon DIOXIDE! Not carbon.

The first thing Senator Boxer said on the floor, immediately exposing her profound understanding of scientific knowledge:

There has been an amendment that was attached to this bill on the very first day that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency forever from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution. … It is essentially a repeal of the Clean Air Act as it involves a particular pollutant, carbon, which has been found to be an endangerment to our people.

She is so very wrong, already. First, the amendment is not a repeal of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is supposed to regulate pollution — this amendment is intended to stop the EPA from regulating a harmless and beneficial trace gas, carbon dioxide. Without carbon dioxide in the air, all life on Earth would die. It is essential for all plant life. Likely the senator does not know she was exhaling copious amounts of it during her rant.

Carbon dioxide is not dangerous to human health. In the very hall she was speaking in, it is possible and likely that carbon dioxide levels were three to five times higher than the air outside. Servicemen on submarines breathe air with up to 8,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide with no harmful effects — the Earth’s atmosphere currently contains only 390 parts per million.

Her further remarks are so full of errors, it’s hard to know which ones are worth discussing: virtually everything she said was not so.

Pajamas Media » Senator Boxer: Dangerously Ignorant on CO2




what an imbecile.

 

[Si modo]

One should look at Muller's actual testimony, not what the LA Times interprets that testimony to be. So, in Muller's own words from the start

....

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases.

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the study of
climate issues.

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.

....

[Emphasis added]

From Muller's own testimony, he makes a conclusion based on biased data.

But, leave it to Congress, an LA Times reporter, and those playing at science to miss that.

Just cannot handle the truth, can you, Si.
....

It appears I have a grasp on it but it still eludes you.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I read it. And what Si is saying is that she thinks that the data is flawed, and Muller did not do a good enough job to find the flaws. And ol' Watts has also disavowed Muller as a scientist that he trusts, now that Muller stated that the data is good, and that the findings were in line with what all the other scientists have been stating.

Si's agenda is political, and has nothing to do with science. She is a fraud.

Well, I'm saying what Muller said - that these are preliminary conclusions based on still biased data. I will trust Muller's own words for the moment.

 

[IanC]

Good grief, Charlie Brown...

Even super-hoaxer Kevin Trenberth doesn't buy this mess of a "study".

Now, Oddie, all you deniers were trumpeting this as the report that would blow Hansen, Mann, and the rest out of the water. But, unlike certain other people on this board, Muller acts as an ethical scientist, and reported the results as he found them. He confirmed the rest of the scientific communities finding in detail.

The way the ol' cookie crumbles, old boy.

actually thats not what either Muller or Watts said. Watts has access to both his and the BEST papers. he was upset that references were made to both before publication. contrary to scientific practise

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. As per normal Watts was upset for being shown up to be the lying fool that he is. But he makes a lot of money, so he is a good Conservative.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL. As per normal Watts was upset for being shown up to be the lying fool that he is. But he makes a lot of money, so he is a good Conservative.

LMBO..........like I say all the time. This idiot is OCD about people who are successful............loaths their very existence - fAil.

Miserable sob blames the rest of the world.......like all far left guys.......for all the gay personal fcukked up decisions they made in their lives. Its like the assholes who run up credit cards to 20K......30K and then blame the banks for fcukking them. Same EXACT dynamic. Its the root of far left thinking.

More predictable then the sun rising in the am............


too fcukking bad s0n...................

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[ScienceRocks]

This year wont get into the top 15 at this rate. That is my guess as of now.

 

[IanC]

Good grief, Charlie Brown...

Even super-hoaxer Kevin Trenberth doesn't buy this mess of a "study".

Now, Oddie, all you deniers were trumpeting this as the report that would blow Hansen, Mann, and the rest out of the water. But, unlike certain other people on this board, Muller acts as an ethical scientist, and reported the results as he found them. He confirmed the rest of the scientific communities finding in detail.

The way the ol' cookie crumbles, old boy.

Old Rocks, you are confusing your wishful thinking with reality.

Q&A With Richard Muller: A Physicist and His Surprising Climate Data - ScienceInsider

R.M.: Some [readings] are going down—but more are going up. The average is going up.

Q: You compared U.S. climate trends from some 300 stations deemed well or moderately-well located with 800 stations that are poorly sited. What did you find?

R.M.: There was no statistical difference [in the data] between the good groups and the bad groups.

Q: Why was that surprising?

R.M.: Because the stations were so bad. … You see stations right up against buildings, next to heat sources.

this has been noted before. personally I find the fact that the agencies who are spending billions on climate research but couldnt be bothered to check if their first order data is taken under decent conditions is a disgrace and indicative of their ability to quality control other aspects of the temperature data sets (remember how McIntyre had to inform them of the Y2K bug?).

Q: You say that "openness and transparency" are central to your project. So why present your findings to Congress before describing your methods in a publication that everybody can read?

R.M.: We were originally planning to submit a paper at the same time as the testimony, to a journal which would allow simultaneous publication of the draft online. ... This is a problem that causes us great concern. What do you do when you are working on [something] and Congress asks you to testify? It's a difficult issue.

Q: Did photos on [skeptic] Anthony Watts' Web site showing official temperature gauges in flawed locations like parking lots inspire you to get involved in the debate over the accuracy of the weather stations ?

R.M.: I realized that Watts was doing something that was of importance. The issues he raised needed to be addressed. It made me seriously wonder whether the reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality. Watts is a hero for what he's done. So is [prominent skeptic blogger] Steve McIntyre.

most of this kerfuffle is because preliminary results were prematurely released in response to a direct request from Congress. RM should have politely demurred. Once he decided to speak he should have made it clear that all the cleaning of the data records had not been finished.

Climate change: will Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature change Watts Up With That's mind? – Telegraph Blogs

It is important to stress, again, that it is preliminary: as Best say, “the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases...

preliminary. get it? no confirmation of other people's work at all. presumably the heavy lifting is still to be done on designing and applying corrections for UHI, time of measurement, land use change, etc. and obviously the general shape of the trends is going to be similar to other data sets.

here are two variations of the same data set, Hansen's data set-

as similar as two peas in a pod. that doesnt mean that there is no information to be gleaned from the slight differences.

 

[Old Rocks]

Muller's own words, not what someone else thought he said.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are
the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The
world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature
trends.
..............................................................................................................................

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C
land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we
call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to
build on it.
............................................................................................................................

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in
the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7
degrees C since 1957. (Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth curve, in black, does
not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.)
...........................................................................................................................

In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more warming in the U.S.
than the poor stations by 0.009 ± 0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what might be
expected, but also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and
performing the calculation in several different ways. But we are consistently finding that
there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to the inclusion of the poorly
ranked US stations.
..............................................................................................................................

Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects
well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity
is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most
worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask Ian.

I am willing to wait for the results to be published before I make any comments. I think Muller got trapped into making foolish remarks by being asked to testify at a hearing before he had finished his work. if BEST algorithms deal with the problems known to be inherent in the global temperature data sets and still produce similar numbers I have no problem with that. but if they dont deal with UHI and poor splicing and bizarre adjustments then it will be apparent to all when their methodologies are made public.

I am betting that in the end that neither their data nor their methodologies will be made public. They are, after all, from Berkley.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)
Financial Support
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has received a total of $623,087 in financial support from:

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ($188,587)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
We have also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500.

All donations were provided as unrestricted educational grants, which means the donor organizations have no say over how we conduct the research or what we publish

 

[IanC]

from Old Rocks citation, for the first graph

Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the
reduction of systematic bias.

there will be plenty to argue about when the data set and methodologies come out. claiming victory and vindication before that is just assinine.

 

[Si modo]

from Old Rocks citation, for the first graph

Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the
reduction of systematic bias.

there will be plenty to argue about when the data set and methodologies come out. claiming victory and vindication before that is just assinine.

 

[konradv]

from Old Rocks citation, for the first graph

Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the
reduction of systematic bias.

there will be plenty to argue about when the data set and methodologies come out. claiming victory and vindication before that is just assinine.

Any more assinine than claiming victory over a few stolen, misinterpreted emails? At least we're talking data here and not private conversations that may or may may not mean what was claimed bt the denier chorus. But hell, THAT was PROOF that AGW was a scam!!!

 

[Si modo]

LMAO! Even Rock's sockpuppet knows this is nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

And when Muller presents his full report, and states that the prior scientists did their homework, what are you going to state then, old gal? That Muller is another onw of them thar evil libruls! Sounds like the way you will go.

In the meantime, real scientists continue to publish the effect of the AGW that they are observing, and attempt to predict how fast the inevitable changes will occur.

 

[Si modo]

And when Muller presents his full report, and states that the prior scientists did their homework, what are you going to state then, old gal? That Muller is another onw of them thar evil libruls! Sounds like the way you will go.

In the meantime, real scientists continue to publish the effect of the AGW that they are observing, and attempt to predict how fast the inevitable changes will occur.

If he has some science to present, I'll comment.

I comment on science, not on political rhetoric. And, I ridicule those who don't know the difference.

 

[Old Rocks]

And when someone presents articles from Science, Nature, or the lectures at the AGU and GSA conventions, you state that is politics. LOL