HadCRUT and other datasets

[JosephKK]

My past winter (2007-2008) ("mid-atlantic" eastern USA) came in warmer
than average of the prior 3 calendar decades.

Vastly different locale. I was comparing notes with my "neighbor"
less than 50 miles away.

 

[JosephKK]

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).

I read something somewhere (Damn i should have bookmarked that) that
explained how the use of an exploit of a known defect of the data
analysis software being used to create it. They had much more trouble
trying to delete the midevil warm period, or the little ice age.

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.

Not an actual shortage, but huge price increases.

 

[Eeyore]

PV Solar is getting cheaper as the volume of production ramps up - at
the moment it seems to be conforming to the usual rule that a ten-fold
increase in production volume halves the unit price. See

Utter nonsense. It's been at around $6 per peak installed watt for ages.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

When you don't know what you are talking about, you should just keep
quiet. People can tell.

I doubt you're familiar with British 'management'. It's an oxymoron.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Not an actual shortage, but huge price increases.

Well, perilously close to a shortage at current production and use levels. What
would a really cold winter do ?

Graham

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Ummm....
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="global+warming">
184,000 papers on "global warming" and:
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="climate+change">
760,000 papers on "climate change".
<snip>

I said, "on CO2."

Jon

 

[[email protected]]

Utter nonsense. It's been at around $6 per peak installed watt for ages.

And in 1978, I complained that 16k DRAM chips had been stuck at twenty
quid each for ages.

The decline in unit price as volume increases isn't a smooth,
continuous function - it goes in steps as someone discovers something
new or thinks up a better way of making something familiar. Think
about the amount of money that has been invested to keep up with
Moore's Law.

 

[[email protected]]

Well, perilously close to a shortage at current production and use levels. What
would a really cold winter do ?

Encourage people to get on with exploiting the Athabasca oil sands.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

 

[Richard Henry]

We have a device suitable for a "brain boost".  It's an AC power cord
with alligator clips.  Grab on, plug in, light up.  It's also called a
"suicide cord".  It will either elevate your IQ, or kill you.  We're
still working on this problem and other bugs.

I can see why Europeans are smarter than Americans.  Their "brain
boost" runs on 230VAC instead of 117VAC.

Incidentally, the technology for the "brain boost" device was
delivered by extraterrestrials in 1956 and documented in the movie
"Forbidden Planet" where Lt. Ostrow gets a fatal IQ boost from the
Krell original.


I have some bad news for you.  The revised testing methods have
created a different score distribution.  100 is the median score
(Wechsler Scale) which tends to change somewhat with populations and
testing methods.  See:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq>
<http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html>
My guess(tm) is that you took the Stanford-Binet test.  A score of 144
converts to 141.  My 135 converts to 131.  I'm used to dealing with
depreciation.

Interestingly, I later took the original SAT test in about 1969 and
scored about 1250.  That converts to the same IQ of about 131.
<http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx>

Gee. My 1965 1410 is off the scale.

I'm glad I didn't know this when I was younger. I might have become
an egotistical blowhard.

 

[Richard Henry]

Utter nonsense. It's been at around $6 per peak installed watt for ages.

Graham

Yes, but $6 isn't what it used to be.

 

[[email protected]]

Most managers I know would barely rate 90 on a good day.

That's not usually the problem. I once had a very intelligent manager,
but - like most of the British managers I've worked for - he didn't
know too much about the details of what we were working on, and made
his decisions on the basis of the over-simplified model that he could
build up on the basis of a few hours work.

Since he was very bright this worked remarkably well most of the time
- he was very effective when dealing with people who hadn't thought
things through - but he wouldn't sit still for long enough to take in
all the information he needed to make the right choice in complicated
cases. On a couple of occasions we went ahead and did what needed to
be done against his orders, and to give him credit he apoligised when
we presented him with the fait accompli.

One ignores then as far as possible and if in doubt tells them what to do. That
usually shuts them up.

Only the insecure ones. Confident ignorami - people who act like you -
could get very excited if you trespassed on what they saw as their
perogatives.

 

[[email protected]]

When you don't know what you are talking about, you should just keep
quiet.  People can tell.

Advice that is wasted on Eeyore.

 

[[email protected]]

Says someone who believes in AGW !

Says someone who believes what "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
chose to tell him, and vapours on about the error in Mann's "hockey
stick" when he doesn't even know that PC (in that context) stood for
"principal component".

In fact Eeyore's problem isn't that he is stupid, but that he is
ignorant, and doesn't appreciate how little he knows.

 

[James Arthur]

Ummm....
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="global+warming">
184,000 papers on "global warming" and:
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="climate+change">
760,000 papers on "climate change".

For 2008 alone, there were 10,400 papers on climate change. I can
read/skim about 1 pager per minute. The 10,400 current papers, at 8
hours reading per day, would take me about 22 days. The 2007 readings
would take about 78 days. Reading all 760,000 papers would take 4.4
years of continuous reading at 8 hrs per day.

Perhaps you might suggest a less Herculean task?

That's a standard gambit--making any problem overly complex. Often
done with respect to social problems, like poor schools.

Science isn't like that. You don't need to know all that's ever been
written about climate change, for example, to examine and know that
finite-element analysis of the Earth's climate is purely speculative,
not predictive.

One contrary example disproves a theory. One essential premise
refuted does the same.

Just fun, from Google Scholar limited by year of publication:

Year Papers mentioning
"Climate Change"
2008 10,400 (to June 10, 2008)
2007 37,300
2006 34,700
2005 32,400
2004 27,600
2003 25,400
2002 22,100
2001 19,500
2000 15,400
1999 12,300
1998 9,820
1997 8,100
1996 7,100
1995 6,110
1994 4,380
1993 4,120
1992 3,450
1991 2,470
1999 2,000

Global warming -- it's a boom industry, to be sure.

Good stuff Jeff.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

And in 1978, I complained that 16k DRAM chips had been stuck at twenty
quid each for ages.

The decline in unit price as volume increases isn't a smooth,
continuous function - it goes in steps as someone discovers something
new or thinks up a better way of making something familiar. Think
about the amount of money that has been invested to keep up with
Moore's Law.

Moore's Law relies on die shrinks.

PV Solar energy relies on the collecting area. Which doesn't shrink for a
given energy input.

Just how stupid can you be to see that Moore's Law does not even remotely
operate here. I can't believe how cam realistically call your self any form of
'scientist'. Even a bright kid ought to be able to see the 2 things are
utterly different.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Yes, but $6 isn't what it used to be

It has been (for cheap commecial solar - not aerospace) and looks like
continuing to be for some considerable time.

Maybe CIGS will be a breakthough, maybe it won't. No-one yet seems to have
seen any of nanosolar's alleged cheap panels and they're not on the general
market and won't be AIUI for at least 18 months.

Just wishing something to change won't make it happen.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Encourage people to get on with exploiting the Athabasca oil sands.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

Not developable fast enough.

So what do yiou have against my infinitely more sensible idea of installation super
insulation in all homes, offfices etc ? Which addresses energy use AT SOURCE.

Graham

 

[Richard Henry]

Impressive.  As I recall, I was recovering from a cold or flu when I
took the test.  The antihistamines probably cost me a few points.

I've considered putting my IQ, diplomas, and grade point averages on
my business card, but there's no room due to all the email addresses,
phone numbers, and web sites.  I plan to add a bar code strip (code
39) on the back for easy address book entry.  Too bad Outlook doesn't
have a field for IQ.


You mean like me?  

No, actually.

 

[Richard Henry]

Not developable fast enough.

So what do yiou have against my infinitely more sensible idea of installation super
insulation in all homes, offfices etc ? Which addresses energy use AT SOURCE.

Developable? It has been in production for forty years and ongoing
plans (inaugurated BEFORE the recent oil price spike) are already
increasing production to Middle East levels.

 

[[email protected]]

Not developable fast enough.

So what do you have against my infinitely more sensible idea of installation super
insulation in all homes, offfices etc ? Which addresses energy use AT SOURCE.

More efficient use of the energy we've got is a sensible idea, though
scarcely yours - you are welcome to try to copyright a cliche but I
don't like your chances of success. The problem is that as far as
house insulation goes, the low hanging fruit has already been plucked.

There are super-insulated houses, but they have to be built from
scratch

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976727666

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

Replacing the bulk of the U.K. housing stock with super-insulated
houses is a good idea, but it would take longer than one cold winter,
and you'd have to invest a lot of energy in ripping down the old
houses and putting up the new ones.

Why you should think that this approach is infinitely more sensible
than exploiting the less easily accessible oil sources is difficult to
imagine - though the fact that you think that it is your idea may
explain a lot.