The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

[asterism]

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

Yup, and in the case of my wife's cousin we talked about that a little. I pulled up some source code from the climategate files and showed where data integrity was nonexistent. I showed where the algorithm for adjusting data caused errors due to improper data type conversion. I then pulled up some surveys of sites included in her data set that documented temperature sensors on parking lots and near big air conditioner outlets.

She said that she wasn't qualified to comment on this because these weren't her fields of study. I told her they were mine and she accepted that but said there was no way errors like this would pass peer-review. When I showed her that they did she said that these were "experts" and I was obviously missing something.

The fact is, she's very intelligent and honest. She cannot fathom that such glaring oversights have been made and there is no reason for her to reinvent the wheel. I asked her if she thought someone citing her research would have the same perspective and she agreed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Windmill fAiL.....................

Slapped down in vote on Tuesday in upstate New York.

Why?

Too damn expensive, of course............NYPA Windmill project dropped » Local News » Tonawanda News


Damn right its an allergy.................

Its only not an allergy to k00k lefties these days.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Windmill fAiL.....................

Slapped down in vote on Tuesday in upstate New York.

Why?

Too damn expensive, of course............NYPA Windmill project dropped » Local News » Tonawanda News


Damn right its an allergy.................

Its only not an allergy to k00k lefties these days.

The only way it even gets off the ground 90 percent of the time is if the government LOANS hundreds of millions of dollars to it. Pissing it down a river! What a sad joke!

 

[wirebender]

The only way it even gets off the ground 90 percent of the time is if the government LOANS hundreds of millions of dollars to it. Pissing it down a river! What a sad joke!

The money aside, the thing about wind power that really pisses me off is the blatant hypocricy of those who support it. When mining operation's practices were resulting in the deaths of birds due to ground contamination, greens were up in arms to the point that crippling regulation was written in order to save the birds.

Those very same people are graveyard silent today over the fact that wind power is killing raptors, migratory birds, and bats in the tens of thousands. Even the autobon society is silent on the issue.

 

[skookerasbil]

wind and solar power = gay. Its a fringe market...........always has been .........always will be. When you see shit like windmill projects and cap and trade getting blown up in places like New York and the northeast........bastions of liberal causes, you know you're looking at utter fantasy.

Meanwhile, they're fracking the shit out of Pennsylvania and jobs have become more plentiful in this area = winning.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

LOL. Two idiots in arms.

Yes, of course, all the real scientists are in a conspiracy to present bad data. And come to erroneous conclusions. Only two internet board posters really know the real truth.

 

[Si modo]

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

LOL. Two idiots in arms.

Yes, of course, all the real scientists are in a conspiracy to present bad data. And come to erroneous conclusions. Only two internet board posters really know the real truth.

Well, if someone had said that all the real scientists are in a conspiracy, I would be right by your side beating that strawman to a bloody pulp, Rocks.

Personally, I would think it would be preferential for someone to argue with what folks actually say, not with stuff they themselves say. Somehow arguing with myself just doesn't seem very appealing on the intellectual challenge plane. But, it seems to be something you enjoy. Different tastes, that's all.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

LOL. Two idiots in arms.

Yes, of course, all the real scientists are in a conspiracy to present bad data. And come to erroneous conclusions. Only two internet board posters really know the real truth.

Gee OldRocks.. You need to reminded almost daily don'tcha? MANUFACTURED data comes from the MOST PRESTIGUOUS of AGW Scientists..

Here's a graph of temp proxy tree ring data from the ENTIRE FOREST...

HERE are trees that were SELECTED by Hadley's Briffa from the forest to make the hockey stick graph..

A lot of hemming/hawwing transpired and voila -- the most famous graph in AGW history was debunked. WILLFUL and METHODICAL manipulation of evidence.. That's enough for me..

Now I wonder looking at those single trees how the HELL they form a proxy temp well enough to justify all the hype in the 1st place.. If you ignore the 10yr avg on the 1st graph, you can almost see a warming trend in 2 places. But THAT wasnt enough to convince Granny that the earth had a fever.. We had to slice and dice our way thru the data to induce fear and panic..

 

[theliq]

Deanie,It may have something to do with what we've always known......That Republicans have their HEADS permanently BURIED IN THE SAND ...but hey lets keep it that way.....as its so much easier to kick their collective ASSES....theliq

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

-------------------------------------------------------

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

When asked at the recent Republican Debate about his views on global warming, Rick Perry's response was simply that even Galileo had to wait.

The reason Galileo was not allowed to make Copernicus monumental discovery known to the world wasn't because the jury was still out, it was because of the Spanish Inquisition.

It's one thing to object to scientific findings while they are still being tested, argued and discussed. Quite another to summarily dismiss such findings because they do not mesh with one's particular world view.

Either Perry used an extremely poor example to explain his hesitation about accepting Global Warming as a reality. Or he doesn't know reality from a fig. Or he doesn't have a clue why Galileo or Copernicus, for that matter, did not make the findings known.

 

[westwall]

When asked at the recent Republican Debate about his views on global warming, Rick Perry's response was simply that even Galileo had to wait.

The reason Galileo was not allowed to make Copernicus monumental discovery known to the world wasn't because the jury was still out, it was because of the Spanish Inquisition.

It's one thing to object to scientific findings while they are still being tested, argued and discussed. Quite another to summarily dismiss such findings because they do not mesh with one's particular world view.

Either Perry used an extremely poor example to explain his hesitation about accepting Global Warming as a reality. Or he doesn't know reality from a fig. Or he doesn't have a clue why Galileo or Copernicus, for that matter, did not make the findings known.

Agreed. And as soon as the AGW crowd allows dissenting papers to be published and argue about the data in public I will be off their backs. They don't however. They resort to the most unseemly of tactics to keep non supportive data out of the publics eye. That's not science...that's propaganda.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. More lies to support an unsupportable case.

 

[theliq]

!!!!!!!!!cool:

When asked at the recent Republican Debate about his views on global warming, Rick Perry's response was simply that even Galileo had to wait.

The reason Galileo was not allowed to make Copernicus monumental discovery known to the world wasn't because the jury was still out, it was because of the Spanish Inquisition.

It's one thing to object to scientific findings while they are still being tested, argued and discussed. Quite another to summarily dismiss such findings because they do not mesh with one's particular world view.

Either Perry used an extremely poor example to explain his hesitation about accepting Global Warming as a reality. Or he doesn't know reality from a fig. Or he doesn't have a clue why Galileo or Copernicus, for that matter, did not make the findings known.

Agreed. And as soon as the AGW crowd allows dissenting papers to be published and argue about the data in public I will be off their backs. They don't however. They resort to the most unseemly of tactics to keep non supportive data out of the publics eye. That's not science...that's propaganda.

 

[asterism]

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

LOL. Two idiots in arms.

Yes, of course, all the real scientists are in a conspiracy to present bad data. And come to erroneous conclusions. Only two internet board posters really know the real truth.

Conspiracy? No, lack of oversight and incompetence.

Surely a millwright can understand process - as in if you don't follow it things go wrong no?

 

[Old Rocks]

From Fourier in 1820 to the researchers of today, this issue has been followed up very well. And much is still being learned. I have yet to see any data concerning present events that shows the idea of AGW to be in error.

 

[westwall]

From Fourier in 1820 to the researchers of today, this issue has been followed up very well. And much is still being learned. I have yet to see any data concerning present events that shows the idea of AGW to be in error.

I have yet to see a single scrap of empirical data that shows anything out of the ordinary happening at the present time.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. More lies to support an unsupportable case.

Please point out where I lied.

 

[asterism]

Bullshit. More lies to support an unsupportable case.

Put up or shut up. Post the raw GISS historical data. Post the actual temperature readings.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have google, the same as I do. Find them yourself. However, others have checked out the data with the intent of demonstrating the errors, and their results are below.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming - WaterWired

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming
First day of Spring!

Joe Romm, who runs the well-respected Climate Progress blog and Twitter, just posted this -hot-off-the press item: Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”.

Thanks to friend Mark Boslough of Sandia National Laboratories for alerting me to this.

Romm writes that climatologist Ken Caldeira sent him this note:

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

The Berkeley group (BEST) - the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study - was created to take an objective look at all the temperature data of Earth to assess whether global warming is occurring or not. Others felt BEST was out to debunk global warming.

Romm continues:

In one sense, this finding isn’t news, since there have never been any credible challenges to the surface temperature data other than the smoke blown by the climate science deniers.

Indeed, we have very good reason to believe the data that were attacked the most, that collected by the Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, (unintentionally) lowballed the rate of recent warming (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming).

 

[Si modo]

"Preliminary results", quoted from Muller himself.

And, from the BEST site:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet completed the analysis of the full data set with corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. Our first step was to analyze a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods in order to confirm that they function effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.

A preliminary analysis ....​

[emphasis added]

We went through this back in March with Rocks presenting incomplete initial results as foregone conclusions, yet Rocks still tries seven months later to do the same thing.