Climate-gate

Oh, and...
AWShistTemp.png


HistogramJan1-High.jpg


UVicSci_Year_temperature_Avg_pdf.png


Seeing as how I doubt that you understand what you're looking at, these are histograms.

They show two things.
1. Temperature measured at the same location over an extended period of time (for example, sampled daily for a period of years) displays a bimodal normal distribution (depending on the strength of the seasonal signal).

2. Temperature measured at the same place on the same day over a period of years displays a normal distribution.

It might be predictable, and it might be cyclic, but it also has a random component if your sample size is big enough.
 
I want to address this point a little closer:
milkweed said:
If you were engaging in an honest discussion, you would have noted the link was to the russian version.
Click to expand...

Trippy said:
And yet, The Russians managed to write a paper complaining about the CRU's treatment of Russian climate data.
Click to expand...
Tell me.
What language did you expect a Russian report discussing Russian data, written by Russians to be writen in?

Chinese?
 
Here's something else that I've managed to determine.
In the cases of Sortavala and Petrozavodsk, according to the Russians, HCRU rejected large portions of the data. In the case of Sortavala most of the information before 1945 wasn't used, and in the case of Petrozavodsk most of the information before 1951 was rejected.
Well, according to the Russian Met Office, the Petrozavodsk station was moved in 1954, and the Sortavala station was moved in 1948, so, in both cases the data from 3 years before the station was moved, through to 1989 was used.
 
Trippy said:
unbelievable.
Look douchebag - BOTH of the data sets are the RAW DATA.
The Red set and the Blue set, the higher correlation coefficient is because the data has a better fit with the fitted trend, not because one set has been adjusted, and the other hasn't.
Click to expand...
More of your manipulations

The HadCRU data, no matter what portion you download is not RAW data. All of it has been manipulated, data ending with a v has been manipulated MORE.


Trippy said:
Technically true, but completely irrelevant in the context of the discussion you're avoiding (see above).
Click to expand...

More manipulations. You brought it up and misrepresented the situation.

Technically true. Nuff said.

Trippy said:
\
The Dr suspects that there may be complex-partial epileptic seizures involved, but I'm waiting on the tests.
Click to expand...

Trippy said:
The point of bringing the paper into the discussion, as I believe I have already outlined was that it demonstrates that your accusation that the raw data isn't available, and the HCRU results are unrepeatable, is FALSE.
Click to expand...
I already cut and paste from HadCRU which shows they wash data in every dataset they release (with files ending in v as more manipulated).

The paper was not an attempt to reproduce HadCRU.

The data the russian paper used was downloaded from the russians and compared with HadCRU data showing stations used vs available.

The real point of bringing the paper into this was to introduce a Red Herring along with other fallacies as evidenced in your previous and following posts.
 
milkweed said:
More of your manipulations

The HadCRU data, no matter what portion you download is not RAW data. All of it has been manipulated, data ending with a v has been manipulated MORE.
Click to expand...
But we're talking about the data used in the Russian paper, which you've already said isn't manipulated, so...

milkweed said:
More manipulations. You brought it up and misrepresented the situation.

Technically true. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I misrepresented nothing.

milkweed said:
I already cut and paste from HadCRU which shows they wash data in every dataset they release (with files ending in v as more manipulated).

The paper was not an attempt to reproduce HadCRU.

The data the russian paper used was downloaded from the russians and compared with HadCRU data showing stations used vs available.

The real point of bringing the paper into this was to introduce a Red Herring along with other fallacies as evidenced in your previous and following posts.
Click to expand...
Still more Bullshit.
You've made a number of stupid claims, and those stupid claims have been shown to be wrong.
End of story.
 
Dredd said:
The commies seem to think that climate change is a hoax.
Click to expand...
Russia may not be the capitalist democracy it pretends to be, and some of its politicians may be recycled communist leaders, but it is no longer a communist state. Surplus wealth (or "capital") is no longer managed centrally, bureaucratically and inefficiently by the government. The fact that surplus wealth even exists in Russia at all signifies that it is no longer a communist economy. Large communist economies invariably produce a "negative surplus" and collapse when the surplus they inherit from an earlier form of government or appropriate from occupied neighbors is exhausted. The Soviet Bloc collapsed in precisely this way, after running out of more prosperous countries to take over and squandering what little surplus it had on a huge military.

The only true communist states now in existence are Cuba, China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.
 
Photizo said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...82774.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald...rade-laws/

I'm drawing attention to a neglected story concerning hacked emails providing incontrovertible evidence that global warming (along with human culpability regarding same) cannot be considered as anything other than theory.
Click to expand...
However, all that you really present is a demented, stupid conspiracy theory that has gotten more press than it deserves.

The story about the emails should be front page news.
Click to expand...
Conservative pundits are already blasting it, every chance they get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IIRC we here had higher hopes than mirroring crap from Fox News and British tabloids.

This thread seems to have run aground in the shallows, anyway.
 
The significance of FOX News partisanship?

Photizo said:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/05/myron-ebell-climate-change-new-york-times-hansen/
Click to expand...

And? I mean, in the battle of editorials, we might as well point out that the vast majority of editorial cartoonists, who tend to be reasonably well informed on the subjects they address, fall on the side of global warming. and that's worth ... well, whatever it's worth. In the battle of editorials, it's significant. In terms of reality, however, it just means a bunch of people who draw pictures for a living believe in global warming.
____________________

Notes:

"Global Warming". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Index. March 8, 2010. Cagle.com. March 8, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/wolverton/2010/01/26/why-republicans-just-don’t-care/

Wolverton, Monte. "Why Republicans Just Don't Care". Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Index. January 26, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. March 8, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/wolverton/2010/01/26/why-republicans-just-don’t-care/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top