Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 09:51am PT
|
I'm taking bets on when the first criminal prosecutions of so called "highly respected scientists" in the climate/tax scam will begin. I mean other than Patchy and the fugitive founder of the IPCC.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 09:58am PT
|
HadCRUT4 and Cowtan/Way have not updated yet, they tend to be last, but here's the same analysis (uncentered 12-month moving average) applied to NOAA's global temperature index through January 2015.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2015 - 10:03am PT
|
Wade, good post:
http://inhabitat.com/house-passes-bill-that-prohibits-expert-scientific-advice-to-the-epa/
Pure lunacy:
Bill H.R. 1422, also known as the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, passed 229-191. It was sponsored by Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT), pictured. The bill changes the rules for appointing members to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. Among many other things, it states: “Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work.” This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 10:05am PT
|
Climate Change Fabrication (science)
"In CC scientific inquiry and academic research, fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results by making up data,
such as that reported in a journal article.
As with other forms of scientific misconduct, it is the intent
to deceive that marks fabrication as highly unethical
and different from scientists deceiving themselves.
In some jurisdictions, fabrication may be illegal."
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 10:15am PT
|
Sketch, just plot the data you found, and show your results.
If it disagrees with what Chiloe has shown, then you have a valid discussion point.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 10:16am PT
|
Sketch/Edward, why don't you just ban your self from the forum instead of making incorrect claims about the sincerity of other posters?
You wrote:
"I didn't think so, considering your graph was BS. The last part of your graph... the part showing recent temps above the 2010 high... it's pure fiction. A fabrication."
which is disproved by the data that you posted
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I guess that your problem is that you don't understand what chiloe posted.
"It's disappointing that our lone climate scientist is posting fudged data. The skeptics love to go on temps being dishonestly skewed upwards, to help "the Cause". And here we have the highly regarded Chiloe doing the same thing."
It is disappointing but expected when people like you attack other people when you really don't understand the subject at all.
"If I'm wrong about your actions, I will fully apologize."
Good.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 10:38am PT
|
Will one of you Warmists please deny the accuracy of this statement?
Extra cred for identifying who wrote it.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to
operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only
way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is
to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will
flourish and subvert”.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2015 - 10:43am PT
|
Pop quiz
Is the following statement true or false?
It is easy to verify the accuracy of an opinion.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 11:15am PT
|
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to
operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only
way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is
to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will
flourish and subvert”.
the quote is attributed to J. Robert Oppenheimer, and refers to the nuclear weapons policy developments of the 1950s and 1960s.
It is interesting to point out the the first global circulation models (GCM) where developed at the weapons laboratories, especially LLNL. Basically, LLNL had access to the necessary high performance computing required for this work.
This activity continues today, it is well reviewed in an enthusiastic skepticism which generates much constructive criticism. Interestingly, this science is not considered fraudulent by even the most skeptical scientists that I know.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 11:48am PT
|
The "humans are too puny to affect the Earth" meme always strikes me as particularly bizarre. Like, have people who utter things like this never looked out the window on a cross-country plane flight?
Anyway, I just had a request from elsewhere to update the Mauna Loa CO2 graph, including data through January of this year. So I'll share that here too. This is it, the Keeling Curve -- humans changing Earth's atmosphere.
Or putting the recent instrumental records in thousand-year context, the graph below shows annual (through 2014) global mean CO2 together with concentrations from the high-resolution ice core at Law Dome, Antarctica.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 12:51pm PT
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 27, 2015 - 09:58am PT
HadCRUT4 and Cowtan/Way have not updated yet, they tend to be last, but here's the same analysis (uncentered 12-month moving average) applied to NOAA's global temperature index through January 2015.
Love the new graph. The end point is about 0.05 degrees cooler than your previous graph.
Where'd all that additional warming go?
Here's a graph of the same data, through 1/15. Twelve month mean, which I assume is basically the same thing as a moving average.
Why does your graph (again) show a new high, while the one from Wood for Trees does not?
Just to be on the safe side, I went to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I calculated the average for the last 12 months. I came up with 0.679, which is identical with the 2009-10 high. Yet your latest graph shows a new high, again.
What's that about?
Edit: My calculated 0.679 was incorrect. I think the correct number is 0.6825.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2015 - 01:05pm PT
|
If I'm wrong about your actions, I will fully apologize.
Question of the day: Does EdwardT have the character to apologize?
So far, it looks like a "no."
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:06pm PT
|
raymond phule
climber
Feb 27, 2015 - 10:16am PT
I guess that your problem is that you don't understand what chiloe posted.
Since you seem to think you're so smart, explain why Chiloe's chart (from 2/24) shows recent temps more than 0.05 degrees higher than the '09-10 highs.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:09pm PT
|
I seriously hate to admit this but Sketch is right, there's a bug in how I calculated the NASA graph, which found uncentered averages through the end of 2015 instead of stopping at January. I'll correct that shortly. The NOAA graph upthread was correct as posted, however.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:09pm PT
I seriously hate to admit this but Sketch is right, there's a bug in how I calculated the NASA graph, which found uncentered averages through the end of 2015 instead of stopping at January. I'll correct that shortly. The NOAA graph upthread was correct as posted, however.
Thanks.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:17pm PT
|
Hating to admit is one frikkin tough road to maintain, much less drive..
Anyway, good'onya for getting it out in the open. Looking forward to seeing the correction.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:22pm PT
|
Since you seem to think you're so smart, explain why Chiloe's chart (from 2/24) shows recent temps more than 0.05 degrees higher than the '09-10 highs.
Why should I do that? I commented on what you wrote. The twelve month average is higher now than for 2010.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:25pm PT
|
I calculated the average for the last 12 months. I came up with 0.679
I believe that you should check your calculations.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:30pm PT
|
Here is the corrected NASA graph,
and the NOAA graph, which was already correct:
How the NASA glitch happened: as noted in my earlier post I was trying out something new,
I've been graphing these intermittently either as monthly or yearly values, but it occurred to me that an uncentered 12-month moving average would have the advantages of both -- smoother (like annual values) but updated each month and up to date (like monthly).
The code for which looks like this:
tssmooth ma gis12 = gistemp, window(11,1,0)
What I failed to realize was that the NASA data set I was working with (unlike the NOAA dataset) contains empty rows for each month of 2015, so that code kept on calculating uncentered 12-month averages for each of those. The result goes like this:
+------------------------------+
| edate gistemp gis12 |
|------------------------------|
1969. | Jan2014 .68 .6025 |
1970. | Feb2014 .44 .5958334 |
1971. | Mar2014 .7 .605 |
1972. | Apr2014 .71 .625 |
1973. | May2014 .78 .6441666 |
|------------------------------|
1974. | Jun2014 .61 .645 |
1975. | Jul2014 .5 .6433333 |
1976. | Aug2014 .74 .6541667 |
1977. | Sep2014 .81 .6616667 |
1978. | Oct2014 .78 .6766667 |
|------------------------------|
1979. | Nov2014 .64 .6666667 |
1980. | Dec2014 .73 .6766667 |
1981. | Jan2015 .75 .6825 |
1982. | Feb2015 . .7045454 |
1983. | Mar2015 . .705 |
|------------------------------|
1984. | Apr2015 . .7044445 |
1985. | May2015 . .695 |
1986. | Jun2015 . .7071428 |
1987. | Jul2015 . .7416667 |
1988. | Aug2015 . .742 |
|------------------------------|
1989. | Sep2015 . .725 |
1990. | Oct2015 . .7066666 |
1991. | Nov2015 . .74 |
1992. | Dec2015 . .75 |
+------------------------------+
That is, it gives an appropriate value for Jan2015, but thereafter calculates averages based on a shrinking window, progressively more dependent on temperatures from the hot later part of the previous year. Ultimately the "Dec2015" calculation is actually just the average of one month, Jan2015 (.75).
Sorry!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!