Search results

Our contribution is 3% of the yearly flux, an important distinction, which by now means that ~30% of the carbon in the atmosphere came from human industry and land-use changes. It makes up a tiny portion of gases in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean anything by itself. Small amounts of...

Facts and Sarah Palin do not belong in the same sentence. She repeats falsehoods even after the fact-checkers show them to be false. She apparently thinks that the CRU is the operation advising Obama...she's as loony as they come.

If it's a model train, that old man might derail it.... That train could hit a moose and keep on chugging! :lol:

What does it look like? It's having a smoke break.

When CRU doesn't input any data that they don't have, that's not actually manipulating anything. GISS is, but it's a manipulation which is defensible. As are the manipulations adjusting for station moves and urban heat islands. I like it because it doesn't leave a hole as is, and because I know...

Surprised China didn't beat me to the punch. The findings of Commissioner Paul Kennedy regarding the death of Robert Dziekanski: While they were in the lawful execution of their duties as police officers, the four officers failed to adopt a measured, coordinated and appropriate response to...

There are good reasons though to choose one dataset over another. I like GISS better, for one because the data available is more open than for HADcrut, but mostly because of how it treats the polar regions. Knowing that the temperature is highly correlated in adjacent areas, NASA infills the gap...

There is no statistically significant difference between CRU and the other surface record products. As an example, since 1990, GISS temperature trend is 0.02 +/-0.011°C per year, and for CRU it's 0.019 +/- 0.0118°C per year. The margins overlap. No difference.

Which is a pretty big number. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was marked by a 6 degree rise over a period of 20,000 years. That's 0.03°C in 100 years, which makes the present rise about 33 times a faster rise than an event associated with a marine extinction event.

I have no idea what they are capable of reproducing. Presumably they could, since they have their code. If you want to throw the CRU data out because of this, fine. Use GISS, use GHCN, or use the MSU satellite products available from UAH or RSS. They all show the same thing. The globe is...

That's the ideal. In the real world, many scientists use such shoddy documentation processes, that replication is impossible. This problem becomes more evident in projects with very long life spans, with many different researchers working on the project at different times. You can watch this...

Opportunism. NASA station data here, and the model code and information is here. Here's NASA's Regina data: Public debate has taken place, countless times. Is there such a thing as without agenda? We're humans, we're not perfect, and trying to get the perfect situation to know the perfect...

The data that was thrown out was thrown out in the 80's. Before Jones was heading the CRU. Before this subject was politicized as it is now. They probably don't have the parchment that the records were written on in the 1800's either...

I don't know about all of them. Definitely some of them. :lol:

Keeping in mind that a stock price can be affected by consumer confidence, lower than expected returns, scandals...the surface temperature on Earth does not.

Umm, not even close. Hadley and NASA both make adjustments to their station data, RSS and UAH make adjustments to their satellite data. Now before you say AHA! consider that NASA has released it's data, and it resulted in insignificant changes, (not statistically significant), CRU has released...

Hmm, in light of the calls for open access to data, how about you find the raw data that figure was based on. I'm disinclined to believe that graph. Everyone wants to see CRU and NASA data, well lets see from where and how they constructed that integral. Was it ice cores? Tree cores? Sediment...

Umm, not likely. The CO2 isn't gone once the fuel is burned, the carbon goes from plant to fuel to carbon dioxide to atmosphere, and back to algae, or spruce, or bacteria. It's called the carbon cycle. The only carbon that disappears is that which is sequestered in the deep sea, or in caverns...

See, the thing is that there aren't these two sides like the dichotomy I set up. That's just me taking Beaver's absolute statement and making it a two-way choice. In reality it's nothing like that at all. You can't definitively say anything about the motives of all of the thousands of...