Global Warming and the Null Hypothesis...

[Crick]

More insane and thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories, as usual from ol' BoobyBobNutJob.

Only bamboozled denier cult retards are still deluded enough to think that so-called 'climategate' was anything but a phony 'scandal' cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

<snip - Fiar use of Copyrighted material>

One. The Emails were in a file that was collected due to demands of a court for Freedom Of Information Law violation in Britain.

Two. That file was placed on a public server with public access.

Three. It was found by out side sources and copied, the university warned and the contents released as it was on a PUBLIC SERVER.

There was no theft involved.
There was no privacy considerations involved..

You guys really need to get your facts straight!

And your inability to use civil discourse and name calling is noted.. This usually is a signal that you give up and concede but do not have the fortitude to do so..

I don't see where Rolling Thunder said anything about thefts or privacy.

However, would you care to provide a source for your contention that the stolen mails were being stored on a publicly accessible server. Wikipedia's article states

"The University of East Anglia stated that

the server from which the data were taken was not one that could be accessed easily, and that the data could not have been released inadvertently.[19]

Norfolk Police later added that the

offenders used methods that are common in unlawful internet activity, designed to obstruct later enquiries.[5]

The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009

after the server of the RealClimate website was also hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded there.[20]

RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt said that he

had information that the files had been obtained through "a hack into [CRU's] backup mail server."[21]

So, again, I'd like to see the source of your contention that these mails were simply lifted from a publicly accessible server.

 

[edthecynic]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm thinking of changing my board name to Odie Ray. It's more humble and has better camo-value with leftists. Whatcha think Billie Bob?? Lower tropo measurements ARE the surface. And Christy and Spencer NEVER fudged any data. They did discover a small sat correction error in their data processing, but thats why they get a paycheck. UAH data has since been largely in agreement with surface data.

They didn't discover ANYTHING!!!! Spencer and Christy, knowing their data was cooked absolutely REFUSED to check their data when it was found to be so completely out of link with the data from the honest scientists. The honest scientists double checked their data after seeing the Spencer and Christy data and then triple checked it when the deniers claimed that the Spencer and Christy cooked data was the ONLY honest data and the data from all the honest scientists all around the world was manipulated. Finally the honest scientists has enough of the lies of the deniers and the honest scientists invested the time and money and checked the UAH data that Christy and Spencer refused to check. The honest scientists then PUBLISHED a peer reviewed paper exposing the very obvious errors Christy and Spencer employed in cooking the UAH data. Since the paper published by the honest scientists was unassailable, Christy and Spencer were forced kicking and screaming to correct their cooked data which suddenly matched almost exactly the ground station and satellite the deniers condemned for more than a decade. Since the deniers can't deny the honest scientist data any longer, they now claim Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their fudged data on their own.

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...01/Christy.pdf

Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets

We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

 

[Crick]

Brilliant. Excellent post.

 

[Billy_Bob]

More insane and thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories, as usual from ol' BoobyBobNutJob.

Only bamboozled denier cult retards are still deluded enough to think that so-called 'climategate' was anything but a phony 'scandal' cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

<snip - Fiar use of Copyrighted material>

One. The Emails were in a file that was collected due to demands of a court for Freedom Of Information Law violation in Britain.

Two. That file was placed on a public server with public access.

Three. It was found by out side sources and copied, the university warned and the contents released as it was on a PUBLIC SERVER.

There was no theft involved.
There was no privacy considerations involved..

You guys really need to get your facts straight!

And your inability to use civil discourse and name calling is noted.. This usually is a signal that you give up and concede but do not have the fortitude to do so..

I don't see where Rolling Thunder said anything about thefts or privacy.

However, would you care to provide a source for your contention that the stolen mails were being stored on a publicly accessible server. Wikipedia's article states

"The University of East Anglia stated that

the server from which the data were taken was not one that could be accessed easily, and that the data could not have been released inadvertently.[19]

Norfolk Police later added that the

offenders used methods that are common in unlawful internet activity, designed to obstruct later enquiries.[5]

The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009

after the server of the RealClimate website was also hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded there.[20]

RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt said that he

had information that the files had been obtained through "a hack into [CRU's] backup mail server."[21]

So, again, I'd like to see the source of your contention that these mails were simply lifted from a publicly accessible server.

Why dont you include the Britain/Interpol Police Investigation and findings? Oh That's right, because they show that everything you just posted was incorrect and a coverup of their ineptitude. The Official investigation found that the server was open to the public, (even though EAU officially stated otherwise). That the files were collected in demand of a court order to do so. Their own ineptitude and placement in an unsecured place was on them. Even Britain's Parliamentary inquiry could not determine when the files were obtained due to the placement in public domain. The Scotland Yard report states that the "leak" of information can not be shown a criminal act.

Source

David Holland, a British engineer who had been making FOI requests, says he too found CRU files accidentally open. In December 2008 he notified the university that "the search engine on your home page is broken and falling through to a directory". They thanked him and said it was caused by a "misconfiguration of the webserver". Holland says he didn't download anything since he knew it could be traced back to his computer.

Security was not one of the CRU strong points during this time.. And this is from the Guardian a left wing friendly paper. They tried hard to pin it on many people only to fail and fall flat.

Source

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm thinking of changing my board name to Odie Ray. It's more humble and has better camo-value with leftists. Whatcha think Billie Bob?? Lower tropo measurements ARE the surface. And Christy and Spencer NEVER fudged any data. They did discover a small sat correction error in their data processing, but thats why they get a paycheck. UAH data has since been largely in agreement with surface data.

They didn't discover ANYTHING!!!! Spencer and Christy, knowing their data was cooked absolutely REFUSED to check their data when it was found to be so completely out of link with the data from the honest scientists. The honest scientists double checked their data after seeing the Spencer and Christy data and then triple checked it when the deniers claimed that the Spencer and Christy cooked data was the ONLY honest data and the data from all the honest scientists all around the world was manipulated. Finally the honest scientists has enough of the lies of the deniers and the honest scientists invested the time and money and checked the UAH data that Christy and Spencer refused to check. The honest scientists then PUBLISHED a peer reviewed paper exposing the very obvious errors Christy and Spencer employed in cooking the UAH data. Since the paper published by the honest scientists was unassailable, Christy and Spencer were forced kicking and screaming to correct their cooked data which suddenly matched almost exactly the ground station and satellite the deniers condemned for more than a decade. Since the deniers can't deny the honest scientist data any longer, they now claim Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their fudged data on their own.

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...01/Christy.pdf

Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets

We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

All I saw was a science discussion.. Not the political brawl that you imagine existed.. And the correction was made.. All you got is a fictionalized version of events..

 

[flacaltenn]

How about comments that are NOT ancient history? I'd find that MUCH more interesting than the partisan crap that USUALLY dominates these discussions... But hey, NFL season has started and I have clients to work for..

 

[Billy_Bob]

How about comments that are NOT ancient history? I'd find that MUCH more interesting than the partisan crap that USUALLY dominates these discussions... But hey, NFL season has started and I have clients to work for..

Are we talking FOOTBALL or Soccer (fooball)?

 

[flacaltenn]

American football season bud.. Lowers my tolerance for rehashing inconsequential satellite corrections and the private email actions of a
bunch of academic primadonnas..

But if we have any warmers that want to discuss Climate Sensitivities or Total Solar Irradiance and the variances therein --- I will tune out the NFL..

 

[Billy_Bob]

American football season bud.. Lowers my tolerance for rehashing inconsequential satellite corrections and the private email actions of a
bunch of academic primadonnas..

But if we have any warmers that want to discuss Climate Sensitivities or Total Solar Irradiance and the variances therein --- I will tune out the NFL..

So what is your view of our current spectral shift in downwelling solar radiation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Think we could place an ad on Ebay for a couple qualified Gwarmers who are capable of discussing the science???

 

[flacaltenn]

American football season bud.. Lowers my tolerance for rehashing inconsequential satellite corrections and the private email actions of a
bunch of academic primadonnas..

But if we have any warmers that want to discuss Climate Sensitivities or Total Solar Irradiance and the variances therein --- I will tune out the NFL..

So what is your view of our current spectral shift in downwelling solar radiation?

All I know is that we had NO COMPREHENSIVE survey of solar spectral variances before about 1990's. At least none with a time history and a collection from ABOVE the atmos. I also know that we have seen spectral shifts that SEEM to be associated with the solar cycle, but it's too early to tell. And definate shifts to UV power -- whilst the TSI has remained fairly constant. But all of that is from 15 to 20 years of Satellite data. And mankind had no reliable way of keeping track of solar spectral shifts prior to that.

Pretty dull-witted to IGNORE how much we don't know given what you presented about MINOR shifts in Solar spectral content affecting the GreenHouse. It's just arrogance to dismiss it..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Think we could place an ad on Ebay for a couple qualified Gwarmers who are capable of discussing the science???

I guess getting paid to get your butt kicked with facts could be an interesting proposition.... hmmmmmmmm

 

[Billy_Bob]

All I know is that we had NO COMPREHENSIVE survey of solar spectral variances before about 1990's. At least none with a time history and a collection from ABOVE the atmos. I also know that we have seen spectral shifts that SEEM to be associated with the solar cycle, but it's too early to tell. And definate shifts to UV power -- whilst the TSI has remained fairly constant. But all of that is from 15 to 20 years of Satellite data. And mankind had no reliable way of keeping track of solar spectral shifts prior to that.

Pretty dull-witted to IGNORE how much we don't know given what you presented about MINOR shifts in Solar spectral content affecting the GreenHouse. It's just arrogance to dismiss it..

And here lies the rub, we do not have sufficient data to determine if this is a short term cyclical change or if this is a larger shift that lasts much longer. The shut down in 98 was interesting to watch. it shifted 2% energy from 0.1 um to 1.2um. then again in 2011 another shift of .6% in the same direction. Total shift to date is around 2.6% and with water vapor declining in our atmosphere this allows for greater LWIR escape at night time and from thinner regions around the poles. Can you say increase in thermal imbalance to cooling? I would say this is a major reason for the enlargement of the polar lows the last 4 years and the continued hemispheric cooling of both hemispheres.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

You sited a regional temp, I countered with a system designed not to need adjustment showing rapid decline in hemispheric regions. no movement needed as you had already done the work for me!

 

[flacaltenn]

All I know is that we had NO COMPREHENSIVE survey of solar spectral variances before about 1990's. At least none with a time history and a collection from ABOVE the atmos. I also know that we have seen spectral shifts that SEEM to be associated with the solar cycle, but it's too early to tell. And definate shifts to UV power -- whilst the TSI has remained fairly constant. But all of that is from 15 to 20 years of Satellite data. And mankind had no reliable way of keeping track of solar spectral shifts prior to that.

Pretty dull-witted to IGNORE how much we don't know given what you presented about MINOR shifts in Solar spectral content affecting the GreenHouse. It's just arrogance to dismiss it..

And here lies the rub, we do not have sufficient data to determine if this is a short term cyclical change or if this is a larger shift that lasts much longer. The shut down in 98 was interesting to watch. it shifted 2% energy from 0.1 um to 1.2um. then again in 2011 another shift of .6% in the same direction. Total shift to date is around 2.6% and with water vapor declining in our atmosphere this allows for greater LWIR escape at night time and from thinner regions around the poles. Can you say increase in thermal imbalance to cooling? I would say this is a major reason for the enlargement of the polar lows the last 4 years and the continued hemispheric cooling of both hemispheres.

Would be a freaking shame wouldn't it --- if after all the money we've spent on "climate science", we ignored the simple instabilities in the basic GreenHouse windows.. All those absorption spectra are just targets in a comb-tooth filter just waiting to be modulated. And folks are gonna smack themselves in the head if they find out occasionally, that yellow ball in the sky actually changes colors and the ice starts to roll in again...

Are you getting those shift numbers from PUBLISHED work -- or is it in progress in somewhere?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Would be a freaking shame wouldn't it --- if after all the money we've spent on "climate science", we ignored the simple instabilities in the basic GreenHouse windows.. All those absorption spectra are just targets in a comb-tooth filter just waiting to be modulated. And folks are gonna smack themselves in the head if they find out occasionally, that yellow ball in the sky actually changes colors and the ice starts to roll in again...

Are you getting those shift numbers from PUBLISHED work -- or is it in progress in somewhere?

Numbers are taken daily from the satellite measurements. Three sets of data are generated and then averaged to obtain median of the 4 operational satellites daily. This should eliminate sever outliers and data failures. We then plot the spectrum for that day. The three full spectrum are primarily used and the partial spectrum are used to verify observations.

We then match up the four daily capture times with the ground stations that are at solar apex. along with local weather conditions. when you start overlaying daily plots and playing them like a cartoon you can actually watch the sun fluctuate its outputs.

As with all fission/fusion reactions, 'dirt' or spent fuel will become prevalent in convection layers causing the reaction to cool slightly or slow. This simple slowing of the vibrations in the reaction changes how the sun emits its energy. Most of this takes a very long time to move from the core to the surface of our sun. This is why we can predict the next solar cycle activity by what background radiations tell us.

Right now the background radiation is so low that it can not be seen indicating a very low solar cycle coming. Were expecting it to be about half of the current one.

SORCE Daily SORCE Measurements Return

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why Study the Sun and How does SORCE Help?

Solar radiation is the dominant, direct energy input into the terrestrial ecosystem; and it affects all physical, chemical, and biological processes. The Sun provides a natural influence on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. In order to understand mankind’s roles in climate change, the Sun’s impact must first be understood.

SORCE measures the Sun’s output with the use of state-of-the-art radiometers, spectrometers, photodiodes, detectors, and bolometers engineered into instruments mounted on a satellite observatory. The SORCE satellite orbits around the Earth accumulating solar data. Spectral measurements identify the irradiance of the Sun by characterizing the Sun’s energy and emissions in the form of color that can then be translated into quantities and elements of matter. Data obtained by the SORCE experiment will be used to model the Sun’s output and to explain and predict the effect of the Sun’s radiation on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

SORCE Science

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm thinking of changing my board name to Odie Ray. It's more humble and has better camo-value with leftists. Whatcha think Billie Bob?? Lower tropo measurements ARE the surface. And Christy and Spencer NEVER fudged any data. They did discover a small sat correction error in their data processing, but thats why they get a paycheck. UAH data has since been largely in agreement with surface data.

They didn't discover ANYTHING!!!! Spencer and Christy, knowing their data was cooked absolutely REFUSED to check their data when it was found to be so completely out of link with the data from the honest scientists. The honest scientists double checked their data after seeing the Spencer and Christy data and then triple checked it when the deniers claimed that the Spencer and Christy cooked data was the ONLY honest data and the data from all the honest scientists all around the world was manipulated. Finally the honest scientists has enough of the lies of the deniers and the honest scientists invested the time and money and checked the UAH data that Christy and Spencer refused to check. The honest scientists then PUBLISHED a peer reviewed paper exposing the very obvious errors Christy and Spencer employed in cooking the UAH data. Since the paper published by the honest scientists was unassailable, Christy and Spencer were forced kicking and screaming to correct their cooked data which suddenly matched almost exactly the ground station and satellite the deniers condemned for more than a decade. Since the deniers can't deny the honest scientist data any longer, they now claim Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their fudged data on their own.

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...01/Christy.pdf

Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets

We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

All I saw was a science discussion.. Not the political brawl that you imagine existed.. And the correction was made.. All you got is a fictionalized version of events..

That is what happens when you use the left wing revisionist Wikipedia as a source... many of their so called 'facts' lack fact... or are made up entirely.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm thinking of changing my board name to Odie Ray. It's more humble and has better camo-value with leftists. Whatcha think Billie Bob?? Lower tropo measurements ARE the surface. And Christy and Spencer NEVER fudged any data. They did discover a small sat correction error in their data processing, but thats why they get a paycheck. UAH data has since been largely in agreement with surface data.

They didn't discover ANYTHING!!!! Spencer and Christy, knowing their data was cooked absolutely REFUSED to check their data when it was found to be so completely out of link with the data from the honest scientists. The honest scientists double checked their data after seeing the Spencer and Christy data and then triple checked it when the deniers claimed that the Spencer and Christy cooked data was the ONLY honest data and the data from all the honest scientists all around the world was manipulated. Finally the honest scientists has enough of the lies of the deniers and the honest scientists invested the time and money and checked the UAH data that Christy and Spencer refused to check. The honest scientists then PUBLISHED a peer reviewed paper exposing the very obvious errors Christy and Spencer employed in cooking the UAH data. Since the paper published by the honest scientists was unassailable, Christy and Spencer were forced kicking and screaming to correct their cooked data which suddenly matched almost exactly the ground station and satellite the deniers condemned for more than a decade. Since the deniers can't deny the honest scientist data any longer, they now claim Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their fudged data on their own.

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...01/Christy.pdf

Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets

We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

All I saw was a science discussion.. Not the political brawl that you imagine existed.. And the correction was made.. All you got is a fictionalized version of events..

As a denier, you see only what you want to see, not reality. The fact remains you falsely claimed Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their own mistake for which they are paid handsomely, which never happened in reality. During the time the deniers were using the fake UAH data of Christy and Spencer, the deniers claimed that Christy and Spencer were the foremost satellite data experts in the world and all the honest scientists in the universe were so inferior that they all must be conspiring together to have data at odds with the world's greatest satellite experts. When the fake UAH data was checked, one of the mistakes was using the opposite sign for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic and elementary calculations required of anyone working with satellite data. For that not to be deliberate, we would have to believe that, not one, but the TWO greatest satellite data experts WORKING TOGETHER could not figure out between them what sign to use for the most basic calculation month after month and year after year for more than a decade!!!!!