Quote:

I would like to know why the Global Warming zealots never seem happy to find data that refutes their "The world is going to die" theories. You'd think a normal person that doesn't want the world to end would be happy to find such information... unless there was an ulterior motive.

Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Quote:

http://storage.denninger.net/FOI2009.zip

You mean like that?

Quote:

Bittorrent link, I'm seeding with 250 other people:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/....

Make that 903 seeds and counting,and I am seeding it @ 150 kB/s up ! :D

I have already seeded it to a ratio of 194 to 1 and going strong !

Quote:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/....

If you're torrent wise, don't forget to SEED the **** out of this. ;O)

Oh I am,this is truly *******n insane,a crippling blow to the Gore and company crowd.'Cap n Tax' MUST be repealed,NOW,and people need to go to prison over
this,I am deadly serious !

Karl is right,in that this whole affair,has turned into the hoax and scam of
the -century-....

Bar none !

Last modified: 2009-11-21 10:21:22 by jinroh

Quote:

This is pretty obviously the same station (well OK.. apart from the duff early period, but I've
got used to that now). But look at the longitude! That's probably 20km! LUckily I selected
'Update wins' and so the metadata aren't compared. This is still going to take ages, because although
I can match WMO codes (or should be able to), I must check that the data correlate adequately - and
for all these stations there will be questions. I don't think it would be a good idea to take the
usual approach of coding to avoid the situation, because (a) it will be non-trivial to code for, and
(b) not all of the situations are the same. But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge
based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I'm continuing the approach that created these broken
databases. Look at this one:
...
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

If an update station matches a 'master' station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:

<BEGIN QUOTE>
You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
This must be resolved!! Please choose one:

1. Match them after all.
2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.

Enter 1,2 or 3:
<END QUOTE>

You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

Quote:

I agree, it does all seem to be pre-cooked!

Not to digress too much but a parallel example in the world of medicine is statin drugs. Dr Mike Eades in my view is the Karl Denninger of medicine:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardi....

The video at that link of the doctors pushing statin drugs is just hilarious! Another fraud!!!

Quote:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality...."

Last modified: 2009-11-21 11:02:10 by sharon

Quote:

There is SOMETHING going on. We know for a fact that for the last 100 years or so, on avg, the world is heating. That's a fact. (And its happened thousands of times in the past, and will do so again in the future) We also know the rate of change has been more extreme than in the past. We do NOT know with certainty, the extent to which humans play a part in this.

Quote:

nother showing
the spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.  I
produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional
nature of the warmth in that figure.  we could add a few new sites to
it, but if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other
direction
</smaller> 

<smaller>rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
eof of the different reconstructions - one that emphasizes the
commonality of the message.

Last modified: 2009-11-21 11:34:22 by chainlink

Quote:

There is SOMETHING going on. We know for a fact that for the last 100 years or so, on avg, the world is heating. That's a fact.

Quote:

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.

Quote:

The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all -
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

Quote:

So, you release a dataset that people have been clamouring for, and the buggers only start
using it! And finding problems. For instance:

<QUOTE>
Hi Tim (good start! -ed)

I realise you are likely to be very busy at the moment, but we have come across something in
the CRU TS 3.0 data set which I hope you can help out with.

We have been looking at the monthly precipitation totals over southern Africa (Angola, to be
precise), and have found some rather large differences between precipitation as specified in
the TS 2.1 data set, and the new TS 3.0 version. Specifically, April 1967 for the cell 12.75
south, 16.25 east, the monthly total in the TS 2.1 data set is 251mm, whereas in TS 3.0 it is
476mm. The anomaly does not only appear in this cell, but also in a number of neighbouring
cells. This is quite a large difference, and the new TS 3.0 value doesn't entirely tie in
with what we might have expected from the station-based precip data we have for this area.
Would it be possible for you could have a quick look into this issue?

Many thanks,

Daniel.

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr Daniel Kingston
Post Doctoral Research Associate
Department of Geography
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT
UK
Email d.kingston@ucl.ac.uk
Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 0510
<END>

Well, it's a good question! And it took over two weeks to answer. I wrote angola.m, which
pretty much established that three local stations had been augmented for 3.0, and that
April 1967 was anomalously wet. Lots of non-reporting stations (ie too few years to form
normals) also had high values. As part of this, I also wrote angola3.m, which added two
rather interesting plots: the climatology, and the output from the Fortran gridder I'd just
completed. This raised a couple of points of interest:

1. The 2.10 output doesn't look like the climatology, despite there being no stations in
the area. It ought to have simply relaxed to the clim, instead it's wetter.

2. The gridder output is lower than 3.0, and much lower than the stations!

I asked Tim and Phil about 1., they couldn't give a definitive opinion. As for 2., their
guesses were correct, I needed to mod the distance weighting. As usual, see gridder.sandpit
for the full info.

Quote:

  Overall distribution of group sizes:
  2 in group:  642
  3 in group:   71
  4 in group:  188
  5 in group:  625
  6 in group:  183
  7 in group:  411
  8 in group: 1957

LAT:
  Number of diffs within a group:
  1.    0
  2. 3059
  3.  276
  4.   15
  5.    0
  6.    0
  7.    0
  8.    0
  Maximum differences:
  <0.1: 1233
  <0.2:  726
  <0.5: 1225
  <1.0:   15
  1.0+:  151

LON:
  Number of diffs within a group:
  1.    0
  2. 2996
  3.  339
  4.   30
  5.    1
  6.    0
  7.    0
  8.    0
  Maximum differences:
  <0.1: 1195
  <0.2:  722
  <0.5: 1242
  <1.0:   30
  1.0+:  177

ALT:
  Number of diffs within a group:
  1.    0
  2. 2035
  3.  237
  4.   17
  5.    0
  6.    0
  7.    0
  8.    0
  Maximum differences:
  <50m : 1767
  <100m:   75
  <500m:  121
  <1km :   36
  1km+ :  290

STATION NAME:
  Number of diffs within a group:
  1.    0
  2. 2167
  3.  365
  4.   43
  5.    0
  6.    0
  7.    0
  8.    0
  Worst percentage matches:
  <25% :  281
  <50% :  385
  <75% :  770
  <100%:  276
  100% :  863

COUNTRY NAME:
  Total groups with country mismatches: 1698
  Number of diffs within a group:
  1.    0
  2. 1475
  3.  182
  4.   41
  5.    0
  6.    0
  7.    0
  8.    0

Hmmm.. lots of groups that could be eliminated if we incorporated the WMO reference
list, because then we could allow an element of 'drift' from a reference point.

Decided to make it a bit quicker and easier as well, by removing tmn/tmx and letting
dtr take the strain - they should all be identical anyway.

Last modified: 2009-11-21 13:07:16 by asimov

Drwater wrote..

taking a few snippets out of context in a huge amount of e-mails does not come close to proving anything about GW.