|
Post by trbixler on Jan 24, 2010 16:58:23 GMT
And my tera flop computer could not process all the data so we dropped 4000 stations to simplify the data acquisition problems. Oh and by the way we still do not allow access to the archived data and archived programs. Maybe it is that we taxpayers do not have a need to know. What good is data archiving anyway when all you need to do is a trim function. Was that ANSIString left or right well who cares it is all for the good of "science". Who knows maybe it was that float to integer to string to oh we did not need that adjustment anyway, I will just write a new one. Maybe I can use a case to homogenize then.......
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 24, 2010 17:16:22 GMT
Taking out paintbrush..... Depending on how you want to use the stats, the US is flat, colder, or warmer. Being all three can be proven, I will go with observation and say it has been flat. There are regional variations, which would be expected. The warmest years of the 20th century are still during the 30's. In my region, the warmest years in a row were during the early 40's. Once again, regional. I computed this from unhomoginized temps. When I look at worldwide temps, I see no sense of alarm. We are still well within the temps of the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm Period, and the MWP. We all know that co2 should have an effect on the earths temp. The question always goes back to sensativity of said co2, and what is happening with the major climate driver, h20. With the recent revelations of climategate, IPPC, etc it is also well known that major players, (note, players) will use whatever means available to drive the AGW agenda to their profit and way of thinking. Climate scientists with integrity will freely admit that what is known, and the responses to what is known, only show what is not known. In doing my regional thing and talking to the state climatologist, (PHD in climate science)......we have a very long way to go before we can actually make any kind of credible forcast long term. What happens on a daily scale with weather DOES affect the long term climate as those daily scales make long term climate. Sigurdur, CO2 follows temperature. Not the other way around. The Sun drives global temperature. This is something that you need to understand first. As for your state climatologist, well, that depends if he is actually a "forecaster." The great majority of the climate scientists over the last 30 years are not. The exceptions are those who actually forecast and they are the exception rather than the rule at this time in history. I continue to state that until climate scientists realize that all climate and weather starts in space, they will not discover any of the secrets of long-range climate and weather forecasting. They continue to study only the "effects" and to opinionate and theorize on that, which is the problem, since one must know the causes to be able to forecast efficiently, and most of them do not. I've been saying for years that the warmest years were not in the 1990s, but in the 1930s and early 1940s - and the data proves this. However, this climate fact was played with to make it second to 1998 (Mann's hockey stick) and that is what the mainstream media, and much of the world was told to believe, and many did. Now that the truth about the IPCC graphics and the data coming out of many British, American, and Australia climate/Met organizations has emerged, the world is seeing just how bad their forecasts are.
|
|
dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on Jan 24, 2010 18:37:34 GMT
Sour grapes from all those who cried 'global cool down!' or temperature stagnation......seems like the past decade was shown to be the hottest ever. Doesn't fit with the 'quiet sun', cold phase pdo etc blurb does it? And 2010? Big Nino' and called to be a tie with the hottest year yet or hotter. We'll wait for the data but i have to wonder what the next big thing will be to disprove AGW once folk see the folly in holding onto ideas that patently are in error...... Ho Hum Hmmm! But can the data be believed anymore??? We've seem enough evidence lately suggesting those scientologists scientists who produce this "data" are not behaving as scientists should!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 24, 2010 18:40:28 GMT
Astromet: ON the co2 following temps, we are in complete agreement.
Part of the responsabilities of my state climatologist is to "try" to forcast what the growing season will be.
As you have stated numerous times, he uses the cause and effect type information to try and forcast.
There is a certain validity to this method, however; it is not a very reliable method. That has been proven over and over.
I will say that more is expected of him than he can generate with any type of certainty.
I will be quit frank, in that for myself, I use a combination of the state climatologists forcast and the Old Farmers Almanac.
The reason I do so is quit clear from my example of the falling object from the Empire State building. The climate is chaotic in nature, and it is large and does not respond quickly to stimuli. And it certainly is not exact in timeing.
Hence, even tho I think your forcast has great merit, and requires serious thought, I also look to the sky. Yep, I know that seems nuts, but just how I do it. And my track record is better than my state climatologists, not sure how it would compare to yours as I have not viewed yours till lately on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 24, 2010 21:29:40 GMT
Astromet: ON the co2 following temps, we are in complete agreement. Part of the responsabilities of my state climatologist is to "try" to forcast what the growing season will be. As you have stated numerous times, he uses the cause and effect type information to try and forcast. There is a certain validity to this method, however; it is not a very reliable method. That has been proven over and over. I will say that more is expected of him than he can generate with any type of certainty. I will be quit frank, in that for myself, I use a combination of the state climatologists forcast and the Old Farmers Almanac. The reason I do so is quit clear from my example of the falling object from the Empire State building. The climate is chaotic in nature, and it is large and does not respond quickly to stimuli. And it certainly is not exact in timeing. Hence, even tho I think your forcast has great merit, and requires serious thought, I also look to the sky. Yep, I know that seems nuts, but just how I do it. And my track record is better than my state climatologists, not sure how it would compare to yours as I have not viewed yours till lately on this forum. I surely believe what you say that your track record is better than those of your state climatologists. I have no bones with you about that, and take you seriously. My method is astrometeorological - which is astronomical forecasting. It has been around for centuries and gave birth to meteorology. How one practices it depends entirely on the particular forecaster. And, astromets look to the skies as well. It is a very valid method, for those who are paying attention. At this time in history, most of what you see are pro mets and climatologists playing with computer models, and trying to "forecast" medium and long-range through these models, which they mostly fail at. Most of the younger amatuers are taught to do the same thing, and often confuse modeling with forecasting, which is why they cannot forecast in the 10-14 day range, monthly, or seasonally. This causes problems that we have seen emerge even in Climategate. Many of those "forecasting" all these fantastic things do not even appear to understand the most basic facts about the weather. For instance, next weekend is a lunar perigee, that is also a full moon, and, I've forecasted a major winter storm for the U.S. East Coast. Simple enough. I've done it before, as astronomical transits associated with this lunar perigee show a large snowstorm. However, if you look at most mets, they do not feel comfortable forecasting 10 days in advance, which is not a long span of time, however, nonetheless, their models show probabilities, and they are heavily reliant on them to the point of not wanting to forecast even 5-10 days in advance for fear of being "wrong." These are also some of the same people who then boldly claim that no one can forecast 10 days in advance because they cannot. The hubris is amazing considering that meteorology has been around for centuries, and anyone who knows about the weather certainly is able to track the Moon's effects on the atmospheric and oceanic tides of the Earth. It is a basic part of astrometeorological weather forecasting. Very reliable. What never ceases to also amaze me is how many climatologists, and mets seem to see the Earth as if it is not a planet in motion around a star. They are blind to space weather, to the Sun, and the Moon, as if these bodies do not exist, and have nothing at all to do with the Earth's climate and weather? Is it no wonder they are unable to forecast accurately holding such views? The best forecasters will also be physicists - but we've seen how some of the Climategate players shut astrophysics out of climate science, as if they deserved no respect when they deserve all the respect. These are the people who know and clearly understand the laws of nature that govern the Earth. Yet, we've been treated as if we are merely on the "fringes" of climate science, and we are the ones doing the forecasting - and very well at that. The ideology that has been exposed by Climategate has been going on for years. You can see it on weather boards, in weather organizations and places like the CRU, for instance. It is a travesty because it certainly has exposed those who falsely believe that their "opinions," "biases" and "ideology" somehow counteract the laws of nature. They don't. They never did. So, what we are experiencing is the fall-out of Climategate, and many who bought into this whole house of cards have a lot of soul-searching to do because they were clearly wrong - in a big, big way - about anthropogenic global warming and the facts of Astro and Thermo and Geophysics. I often wonder how people who do not know anything about astronomical forecasting can then assume that it is not valid? With what experience? What knowledge? I always ask those who make such assertions. These assertions are often made straight out of total ignorance of the science and that is simply not enough to discount anything outright. But these are the times when ignorant political correctness and ideology tried to trump out Science - and, in the end - the truth, as always, wins out. I keep maintaining that ideology has no place in Science, and this includes climate and weather forecasting. One's personal views, opinions, fallacies, and ideology has no place at all and has seriously muddled conventional science for the time being. It will take much better education, training, and no ideology to get weather and climate forecasting back on the right path. This will take time because many people have been mis-educated and taught things that are not true. There continues to be climatologists and meteorologists in training (and some who actually call themselves pros) who say they believe that CO2 drives temperature. We know that is not true - rather it is temperature that drives CO2 - but try to say that to those who've become convinced despite this physical fact of our climate and atmosphere. It's going to take time to undo this mess, and to deprogram the minds of those who've been brainwashed by picking up the false views and bad habits of others - particularly those who believe in AGW.
|
|
bxs
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 115
|
Post by bxs on Jan 25, 2010 0:14:14 GMT
My method is astrometeorological - which is astronomical forecasting. It has been around for centuries and gave birth to meteorology. How one practices it depends entirely on the particular forecaster. And, astromets look to the skies as well. It is a very valid method, for those who are paying attention. At this time in history, most of what you see are pro mets and climatologists playing with computer models, and trying to "forecast" medium and long-range through these models, which they mostly fail at. I think it's pointless to defend Astrology, as most people are only familiar with the Pop-Culture aspect of the science, and judge from that only. The charlatans aren't helping either with their theatrics. Most science books will not even acknowledge the fact, that astronomy, physics etc, are just concentrations that add to the validity of the omniscience, and only exist to prove the existing knowledge with hard data. So just keep doing what you do, it will only prove the point.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 25, 2010 0:59:41 GMT
[snip] Hah, wait, I should read that a bit more closely
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 25, 2010 1:02:45 GMT
Sigurdur, CO2 follows temperature. Not the other way around. The Sun drives global temperature. This is something that you need to understand first.
Dear Astromet
CO2 levels varied by ~100 ppm between ice age and interglacials - while temperature varied ~5-6 deg. Now you seem to be saying that the ~0.7 deg rise since ~1900 is responsible for rise in CO2 concentrations.
Would you like to explain this because it's not just sigurdur who "needs to understand".
|
|
|
Post by elirabett on Jan 25, 2010 15:55:59 GMT
Chickens cannot lay eggs as they have been observed to hatch from them.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 25, 2010 17:09:30 GMT
My method is astrometeorological - which is astronomical forecasting. It has been around for centuries and gave birth to meteorology. How one practices it depends entirely on the particular forecaster. And, astromets look to the skies as well. It is a very valid method, for those who are paying attention. At this time in history, most of what you see are pro mets and climatologists playing with computer models, and trying to "forecast" medium and long-range through these models, which they mostly fail at. I think it's pointless to defend Astrology, as most people are only familiar with the Pop-Culture aspect of the science, and judge from that only. The charlatans aren't helping either with their theatrics. Most science books will not even acknowledge the fact, that astronomy, physics etc, are just concentrations that add to the validity of the omniscience, and only exist to prove the existing knowledge with hard data. So just keep doing what you do, it will only prove the point. I will always defend Astrology, that which is real, but never the "pop astrology" which isn't at all. In every science, and omniscience, you are going to see charlatans and those who simply haven't had the training, nor gained the experience, but who for some reason need to be "somebody" by debasing such sciences.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 25, 2010 17:10:55 GMT
Sigurdur, CO2 follows temperature. Not the other way around. The Sun drives global temperature. This is something that you need to understand first.Dear Astromet CO2 levels varied by ~100 ppm between ice age and interglacials - while temperature varied ~5-6 deg. Now you seem to be saying that the ~0.7 deg rise since ~1900 is responsible for rise in CO2 concentrations. Would you like to explain this because it's not just sigurdur who "needs to understand". As I've said, CO2 always follows temperature, not the other way around. It is well known that CO2 can lag behind global temperature by hundreds of years.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 25, 2010 17:13:48 GMT
Astromet, Please do me the immense favor and move your discussions of astrology to your own thread. This is a thread about GISS manipulating data and rewriting history. If you respond to this, please simply acknowledge my request. Plesae do *not* further defend, explain or expand on astrology.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 25, 2010 17:20:54 GMT
glc, The point is that the temperatures of today, compared to ~100 years ago, are trivially different. If the temps were caused entirely by CO2, so what? AGW theory is not about whether or not CO2 is a ghg. AGW theory is about CO2 triggering a cascade of strong positive feedbacks that will cause a climate catastrophe. Since CO2 has in fact, according to the record, made strong swings in history and the climate has not had a runaway tipping point calamity, then there is no reason to believe this will happen during this time of allegedly higher CO2 levels. The confusion of AGW theory with CO2 as a ghg, and the co-opting by AGW theory of climate science, is the real issue. The emerging pattern, across the entire AGW community, of miselading statements, biases of data, conflicts of interest, suppression of critics, and cynical revisionism is the problem the AGW believers have to confront.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 25, 2010 17:43:51 GMT
Astromet, Please do me the immense favor and move your discussions of astrology to your own thread. This is a thread about GISS manipulating data and rewriting history. If you respond to this, please simply acknowledge my request. Plesae do *not* further defend, explain or expand on astrology. Mind your own business. The comment was not addressed to you, was it?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2010 18:39:16 GMT
Chickens cannot lay eggs as they have been observed to hatch from them. Fortunately chickens are not the predominant driver in the system. . . .or we would be up to our eyebrows in chickens. Fortunately natural variation keeps them in check.
|
|