|
|
Post by william on May 2, 2010 15:38:04 GMT
This is interesting and deserves its own thread. Cool Heads Coalition provides evidence of data tampering and shows the data does not support catastrophic global warming for a doubling of CO2. The planet's response to an increase in forcing is negative feedback rather than positive feedback. Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing April 16, 2010 www.blip.tv/file/3539174Trillions of dollars are proposed to be spent to address "catastrophic global warming". The science supports the hypothesis that that global warming due a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C and mostly at higher latitudes. There will not be massive rising sea levels, increased hurricanes, or massive droughts due to a doubling of CO2. An increase in higher latitude temperatures will result in a total increase in world precipation and will increase in crop yields. The increased CO2 (doubling of CO2 levels), as plants eat CO2, will result in a 20 to 30% increase in plant growth rates. When CO2 rises plants make better use of water as they can reduce the number of stomata on their levels which reduces water loss due to photo respiration. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 2, 2010 15:53:17 GMT
This is interesting and deserves its own thread. Cool Heads Coalition provides evidence of data tampering and shows the data does not support catastrophic global warming for a doubling of CO2. The planet's response to an increase in forcing is negative feedback rather than positive feedback. Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing April 16, 2010 www.blip.tv/file/3539174Trillions of dollars are proposed to be spent to address "catastrophic global warming". The science supports the hypothesis that that global warming due a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C and mostly at higher latitudes. There will not be massive rising sea levels, increased hurricanes, or massive droughts due to a doubling of CO2. An increase in higher latitude temperatures will result in a total increase in world precipation and will increase in crop yields. The increased CO2 (doubling of CO2 levels), as plants eat CO2, will result in a 20 to 30% increase in plant growth rates. When CO2 rises plants make better use of water as they can reduce the number of stomata on their levels which reduces water loss due to photo respiration.
The increased CO2 (doubling of CO2 levels), as plants eat CO2, will result in a 20 to 30% increase in plant growth rates. When CO2 rises plants make better use of water as they can reduce the number of stomata on their levels which reduces water loss due to photo respiration. "However will the world cope with warmer weather higher crop yields and less hunger? This outcome must be prevented!! |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 2, 2010 16:34:28 GMT
This is interesting and deserves its own thread. Cool Heads Coalition provides evidence of data tampering and shows the data does not support catastrophic global warming for a doubling of CO2. The planet's response to an increase in forcing is negative feedback rather than positive feedback. Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing April 16, 2010 www.blip.tv/file/3539174Trillions of dollars are proposed to be spent to address "catastrophic global warming". The science supports the hypothesis that that global warming due a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C and mostly at higher latitudes. There will not be massive rising sea levels, increased hurricanes, or massive droughts due to a doubling of CO2. An increase in higher latitude temperatures will result in a total increase in world precipation and will increase in crop yields. The increased CO2 (doubling of CO2 levels), as plants eat CO2, will result in a 20 to 30% increase in plant growth rates. When CO2 rises plants make better use of water as they can reduce the number of stomata on their levels which reduces water loss due to photo respiration.
The increased CO2 (doubling of CO2 levels), as plants eat CO2, will result in a 20 to 30% increase in plant growth rates. When CO2 rises plants make better use of water as they can reduce the number of stomata on their levels which reduces water loss due to photo respiration. "However will the world cope with warmer weather higher crop yields and less hunger? This outcome must be prevented!! We all know what that means - more babies!  Standby for the CO2 boomer generation. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 2, 2010 17:21:33 GMT
Once again this all boils down to temperature manipulation. The actual raw data should be available publicly, as I would hazzard 90%+ of that data is publicly owned.
The missing heat shows that the models are corrupt. Not in the sense of being legally corrupt, but in the sense of being useful.
There is so much to learn about climate that is not yet known. The co2 hypothosis is not valid as shown by the missing heat. Let's find out what IS valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2010 0:18:52 GMT
The raw data is available publicly, the GHCN database can be downloaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 3, 2010 0:47:42 GMT
The raw data is available publicly, the GHCN database can be downloaded. SoCold: I have already told you some of the problems with the GHCN data base. It is NOT the raw data, it is the adjusted data. When I say RAW data I mean RAW data. Where is the RAW data available? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2010 0:58:23 GMT
"I have already told you some of the problems with the GHCN data base. It is NOT the raw data, it is the adjusted data."
How do you think it is adjusted? List a few of the adjustments. I just want to make sure we are on the right page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 3, 2010 2:12:09 GMT
See E.M. Smith's comments on adjustments, corrections, etc on this page: chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/ghcn-does-unadjusted-mean-cooked/If all this talk about 4 different versions of the same data for the same location (Central Park) has your head swimming, just think on this: They are all held out as valid and correct by NOAA / NCDC. The same organization produces all of: GHCN “unadjusted”, GHCN “adjusted”, USHCN “corrected”, and USHCN Version2. They all are available for download now.
GISS, from GISTemp, makes available a further 3 variations plus anomaly maps. Taking the NOAA / NCDC data and reworking it into yet more variations.
So exactly what “input data” are the right ones? You get to chose based on what ‘adjustments’ and ‘corrections’ you would like to have. And they are different from each other, often by several degrees. From this we are supposed to be excited about fractional degrees of change? There is much more than that in the adjustments… |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 3, 2010 2:18:07 GMT
"I have already told you some of the problems with the GHCN data base. It is NOT the raw data, it is the adjusted data.When I say RAW data I mean RAW data. Where is the RAW data available?" How do you think it is adjusted? List a few of the adjustments. I just want to make sure we are on the right page. Getting on the right page would entail answering his question. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2010 2:54:25 GMT
"UPDATE: (18 Jan 2010) In talking with Joseph, he has confirmed using GISS data, not the actual “unadjusted” data from NOAA / NCDC. I’ve sent him the “unadjusted” GHCN data and he reports that it is not significantly divergent from the actual “raw” data he got from NY directly." and the last comment: "I’d like to point out that while D’Aleo made a good faith effort to correct his mistake, he is still failing to recognize that US stations (which Central Park is) use USHCN v2 F52, which is fully homogenized (though USHCN v2 homogenization is very subtle as the graph shows). So calling this data 1) GHCN and 2) unadjusted, is incorrect. He writes, “implying they start with GHCN ‘unadjusted’ before they work their own homogenization and other magical wonders.” No, they start with whatever dataset has the station record. Central Park is not in GHCN as the numbers for Central Park in the GHCN are randomized, and it fails the quality control check. (Why they did it this way is anyones guess, probably some quick hack to avoid having to write a separate parser.) And to make matters worse, the graph has GISS data plotted as “GISS GHCN before homogenization.” This would be true if the station in question was not in the USA. One need only plot USHCN F52 with Central Park from GISS and it is identical." |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 3, 2010 2:58:42 GMT
"I have already told you some of the problems with the GHCN data base. It is NOT the raw data, it is the adjusted data." How do you think it is adjusted? List a few of the adjustments. I just want to make sure we are on the right page. SoCold: I have only been able to find the actual raw data for my small area and it took months. It does not match the GHCN raw data. Remember, I even took it to the state climatologist for verification? What they do is throw out what they consider outliers. In North Dakota we have what are called Chinook winds and Alberta Clippers. They are common fall/winter/spring events. An example would be the blizzard of 40 when the temp dropped 20-30 degrees and more in a matter of a few hours. It is not uncommon to go from -30F at midnight to wake to temps of +40F in the morning as the result of a chinook. These are facts, but GHCN doesn't see it that way and throws them out. This is one example of ignoring reality in favor of what they "Think" is correct. In the summer we can go from 90F to 50F in an hour if a thunderstorm shows up. That is also fact, and that temp drop is out of what they consider normal. For my area, it is normal and certainly not an oulier. In my analysis these were some of the very stark changes in temp. AS I said, I had the actual raw data that was reported, gotten from a local source that provided said data. When I compiled that data it wasn't even close at times to GHCN data. That is why I went to the state fellow, to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong. Remember our discussion about this? That is when I knew the temp data, presented as offical, was not correct and could not be used as a basis for anything. I am one small area, but compound that over a large area and the data becomes totally useless as it is corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2010 3:08:04 GMT
"I have already told you some of the problems with the GHCN data base. It is NOT the raw data, it is the adjusted data.When I say RAW data I mean RAW data. Where is the RAW data available?" How do you think it is adjusted? List a few of the adjustments. I just want to make sure we are on the right page. Getting on the right page would entail answering his question. Okay, but I hope diving into this doesn't create undue confusion later. The answer is that if you want the rawest form of data, then you want the daily records from each station. To get that information you have to request it from the owners of the station, which are typically the national weather service of the country the station is in. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 3, 2010 3:11:48 GMT
The national weather service no longer had the raw data. They had copies of the "adjusted" data. At least for my area that is the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2010 3:21:04 GMT
Was the actual raw data you obtained daily readings from a single station or monthly means from a single station? Where did you get the GHCN data from to make the comparison?
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 3, 2010 3:22:58 GMT
The national weather service no longer had the raw data. They had copies of the "adjusted" data. At least for my area that is the way it is. I know it has been said by others but I really have a problem with them not keeping the raw data. It just doesn't sit well. |
|
Standby for the CO2 boomer generation. 
