HadCRUT and other datasets

[Eeyore]

Is that why "The Great Global Warming Swindle" claims humans contribute
6.5 gigatons of CO2 annually when the correct figure is 24 gigatons?

Care to cite that ?

There's more than one way to count emissions. For example, do you count COW
emissions as 'human' because unless we farmed them, there probably wouldn't
be anything like as many cows ?

In fact you could fix alleged AGW even by 'greenie' standards by simply
killing every cow on the planet.

Or why earlier showings of that movie misrepresent 1988 global
temperature as 2000 global temperature, and other versions ignore what
happened after 1988?

Uh ? Meddling with temperatures is Hansen's speciality.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Which is what we'd expect of someone who takes "The Great Global
Warming Swindle" seriously.

You're a mental pygmy Slowman.

As I said before it's not hard to see why you can't get a job. You have NO critical faculties. I suppose you think Homer Simpson is a
real person too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

If you consider that smoothing with the incomplete 2008 to be invalid,
then valid appears to me to be smoothed results using only data before
2008.

It's how they do that 'smoothing' that strikes me as highly suspect.

Something not dissimilar involving stuff called PCs, that are a bit over my
head so far (until I really study it up) is what created Mann's hockey stick
(now wholly discredited by the IPCC).

If the 'science' and maths/statistics is THAT weak WTF are we doing worrying
over it ?

In the meantime we have a REAL energy shortage (oil) of some note, the
simple solutions to which such as energy efficiency would fix not only that
energy crisis but ameliorate any concerns about the role of CO2 in the
atmosphere too.

But NO ! What do we get instead, greenies screaming for more taxes to
subsidise inefficient and wasteful 'alternative power gemeration' like the
biggest waste of money, PV Solar.

What a bunch of utter FUCKWITS !!!

Graham

 

[Don Klipstein]

Care to cite that ?

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

As for some other cites for actual anthropomorphic CO2 generation:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm

gives figures around 6.5-6.6 PgC per year for late 1990's. That is
gigatons per year of carbon. PgC is a common unit for tracking carbon in
the carbon cycle globally. Multiply by 44/12 for gigatons of CO2.

.2 PgC per year of this is from cement production and the rest is from
fossil fuel burning. Other human-caused CO2 sources and sinks appear
to me to not be considered here.

There's more than one way to count emissions. For example, do you count COW
emissions as 'human' because unless we farmed them, there probably wouldn't
be anything like as many cows ?

I thought cows were blamed mainly for methane.

In fact you could fix alleged AGW even by 'greenie' standards by simply
killing every cow on the planet.


Uh ? Meddling with temperatures is Hansen's speciality.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Don Klipstein]

It's how they do that 'smoothing' that strikes me as highly suspect.

Something not dissimilar involving stuff called PCs, that are a bit over my
head so far (until I really study it up) is what created Mann's hockey stick
(now wholly discredited by the IPCC).

The first graph in the Wiki article on global warming has annual and
stated-as 5-year-averaged HadCRUT-3, with a link to the Hadley Centre.

5-year-average is not something difficult to understand.

As for use of 2008 - the Hadley Centre said they were using the portion
of the year so far experienced to represent the whole year. And that they
changed from that to using a forecast for how the year will end up, on
basis of that being better than representing a whole year with a deep La
Nina dip that is unlikely to last a year.
If anyone has problems with either of these approaches, then discard
smmothing that counts 2008 giving a whole year's weight, so consider the
smoothing up to the second-last year of a smoothed curve - which is 2005.

If the 'science' and maths/statistics is THAT weak WTF are we doing worrying
over it ?

What is so weak about a clearly stated 5-year-average for method of
smoothing of annual data? With all years covered up to and including 2007
not in question since 2008 is the only partial year given a full year's
weight for the smoothing?

<SNIP>

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[JosephKK]

so what about this?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d66e778-3128-11dd-ab22-000077b07658,Authorised=true.html

<duck>


martin

Hosed link. Cookie freaks. NFG.

 

[Eeyore]

I thought cows were blamed mainly for methane.

Bad enough but far from the totality.

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

You're a mental pygmy Slowman.

And you think that you have a "genius level IQ" ....

As I said before it's not hard to see why you can't get a job. You have NO critical faculties. I suppose you think Homer Simpson is a real person too.

You do seem to be projecting here. I certainly wouldn't be surprised
to learn that your lack of critical faculties had cost you a job or
two, though an electronic engineer wouldn't normally be required to
know about cartoons on TV - not even a progam as famous as "The
Simpsons".

 

[Eeyore]

And you think that you have a "genius level IQ" ....

It's a FACT.

I doubt you score much over 130-140. Way too gullible., together with an absence of critical thought.

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

Believe ? Yes, AGW's a religion. Belief without proof or evidence is the central plank of all religions.

Karl Wunsch does seem to have reasonable grounds for his belief - his
scientific opinion was edited to give a very different impression from
the one he intended.

As usual, you snipped that bit of my post - you may think that
snipping the evidence lets you can claim that I believe without
evidence, but you don't need to have a genius level IQ to realise that
this isn't all that convincing. For the terminally lazy, here is the
URL again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The science was abandoned a LONG time ago.

Your opinions about science are scarcely definitive. You don't even
believe in the greenhouse effect, on the rather dubious grounds that
it doesn't make sense in terms of the physics you were spoon-fed at
secondary school. Here's a discussion that highlights some of the
complications

http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/08/16/co...roposphere-and-lower-stratosphere-over-china/

It's science, but not the sort of science that even the brightest
secondary school student could be expected to follow.

 

[Eeyore]

Karl Wunsch does seem to have reasonable grounds for his belief

Ah yes ......

BELIEF. Like the Virgin Birth.

Very convincing.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

you don't need to have a genius level IQ

But I DO have a genius level IQ ! Why do you think my school wanted me to apply to Cambridge ?

Somewhat painfully (for the 'MD') I had to explain this to my doctor (GP - or general practicioner as we call them here)
only about a fortnight ago in the context of something I'd rather not go into right now.

He conceded that I was probably actually better informed about both the symptoms and treatment for a certain condition than
he was. I joked that he was just being modest but I reckon he wasn't totally kidding.

The malpractice/negligence law-suit starts soon. I went to the surgery today to request a complete copy of my medical
records which by law they have to supply me.

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

It's a FACT.

It may be a fact that you scored over 135 on a IQ test sometime, but
you aren't performing at anything like the genius level. Mensa exists
to give high-scoring nitwits like you a way to claim a high
intelligence that they don't manifest in real life.

I doubt you score much over 130-140. Way too gullible., together with an absence of critical thought.

I do score well enough on IQ tests to get me out of the region where
the results mean very much. I'm not gullible enough to think that this
means than I've got a genius-level intellect - when they administered
IQ tests to high-performing academics, the results didn't corrrelate
at all with any objective indication of performance (which presumably
meant citation rate). There was a cut-off below about 110 - people
with a lower IQ than that aren't encouraged to go to university, which
bars them from a university career, but IQ tests don't seem to measure
whatever it is that brilliant academics (and other professionals) have
that their less brilliant colleagues lack.

It is a pity that your own capacity for critical thought hasn't lead
you to this - fairly well-known - conclusion.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2111920

The citation is from 1966 when people still took IQ tests moderately
seriously - I knew about it (or some very similar study) back then and
was able to use it to cheer up one of my friends who was moaning about
having an IQ of only 108 (and he ended up as a very successful
hospital administrator).

Here's a more recent version of much the same story.

http://www.21learn.org/arch/articles/sternberg.html

 

[Eeyore]

You don't even believe in the greenhouse effect,

I haven't seen any truly convincing evidence for the part that CO2 might play in the greenhouse effect (which clearly DOES
exist).

It all appears to be be rather 'wishy washy'.

I did see one graph which purported to show the effect of CO2 on global warming but on close inspection illustrated the
absorbtion bands of WATER VAPOUR.

Interestingly this video has been removed from youtube. I only wish I'd saved those vids. There were several in a series by
a sceptical and very smart professor from a US University.

Yup, there's nothing like dealing with the other view like removing it. The Nazis knew this well.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

It may be a fact that you scored over 135 on a IQ test sometime

Over *** 135 *** ?

Hahahahahahahhahaha

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

Over *** 135 *** ?

No matter how well you did, that's what your final score would mean -
once you can go through an IQ test fast enough to do all the tests,
and have enough time over to check them, you are not doing the test in
the way that it was designed to be done, and your final score just
registers the fact that you were off the scale on the (limited) stuff
they do test.

You do seem to be an object lesson in the inadequacies of IQ tests as
a means of assessing real-world competence. For one thing you haven't
ever found this out for yourself, which would have saved you from
making a prat of yourself by boasting about a high, but largely
meaningless score.

 

[Eeyore]

No matter how well you did, that's what your final score would mean -

You're out by several decades.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

No matter how well you did, that's what your final score would mean -
once you can go through an IQ test fast enough to do all the tests,
and have enough time over to check them, you are not doing the test in
the way that it was designed to be done, and your final score just
registers the fact that you were off the scale on the (limited) stuff
they do test.

You do seem to be an object lesson in the inadequacies of IQ tests as
a means of assessing real-world competence. For one thing you haven't
ever found this out for yourself, which would have saved you from
making a prat of yourself by boasting about a high, but largely
meaningless score.

And you work in what sphere of electronics ?

I'd love to know, just to be sure I don't encounter your 'work', that is
if you actually do any.

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

You're out by several decades.

Nope. Scoring higher than 135 on an IQ test is like weighing something
on a spring scale that is heavy enough to permanently stretch the
spring - all you know about the weight of the object that you are
measuring is that it is off scale.

Here we do know something about the object that was measured, and your
practical intelligence is - to put it kindly - unremarkable. You may
treasure your "near genius IQ" as some kind of security blanket, but
the very fact that you take it seriously demonstrates that you haven't
got a clue.

 

[[email protected]]

And you work in what sphere of electronics ?

I'd love to know, just to be sure I don't encounter your 'work', that is
if you actually do any.

I've worked on phased array diagnostic ultrasound, electron
microscopes, electron beam microfabricators and electron beam testers
(which is to say adapted electron microscopes), and a couple of
measuring instruments for the brewing industry. Search on Google
Scholar for "A W Sloman" for more detail. It picks up a couple of
patents and a few published papers.

What have you worked on? It isn't all that obvious from what you post
here.