Socialists in a Panic

[Ron in Regina]

So...is this CRU capable of replicating it's own findings to prove that a
Fudge Factor wasn't involved, so as to remove any controversy
surrounding itself? If not, then its findings are being
dismissed or ignored, and not being used to
base any future policy upon, right?

 

[TenPenny]

The thing is, what the scientists are doing is taking sets of data, massaging them to get rid of anomalies or obvious errors, and then plotting them. Based on the plots, they make predictions.

If they are all using the same data sources, they should theoretically come up with similar results, but on the other hand, we have to consider what massaging has been done to remove anomalies...the question really becomes, how has the data been manipulated?

 

[Extrafire]

I doubt it, but I also doubt that fraud is limited to the side you are opposed to.


So you say. Got a graph? Got ANY evidence?

I don't have time to dig up those graphs so I'll just direct you to professor Bob Carter. His graphs are better and he explains better than I can.

Professor Bob Carter torpedoes the “scientific consensus” on the climate HOAX

 

[Tonington]

So...is this CRU capable of replicating it's own findings to prove that a
Fudge Factor wasn't involved, so as to remove any controversy
surrounding itself? If not, then its findings are being
dismissed or ignored, and not being used to
base any future policy upon, right?

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 warming. That much is clear. What future policy is based on, is attribution of that warming, and in that case, the specific temperature time series you use doesn't make much of a difference. That's why the results are called robust. They don't depend so much on which data set you use.

Seriously, go read Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4. Figure S91 (page 10 of 14) in the appendix makes the attribution picture abundantly clear.

 

[AnnaG]

Another list of data sources:

NCDC: Online Climate Data Directory

There's nothing wrong with omitting anomalous data if all one is trying to do is show that the data indicates a trend. The trend is that temperatures (the mean averages) are creeping upwards.

 

[damngrumpy]

I no longer trust scientists and haven't for some time, anymore than I trust politicians or the police in BC. They are all just flack lines for the current governments and
corporate sectors that want to make money and dominate all the rules being made in
society for their own benefit. There is a climate change and has been since time began, and there is nothing we can do except adapt. Oh I agree that we could do
some clean up but talk won't make that happen and this conference will be like all
the others, talk, hot air and little of value will come out of it except for those who
own the hotels and meeting halls.

 

[AnnaG]

Talk makes lots of things happen. Otherwise we wouldn't have people advertising us to death.

 

[EagleSmack]

Ok...climate change is as real as it has been for millions of years.

So some scientist are saying that we are warming the planet.

Why is the main goal of Copenhagen, so far as I can tell by listening to NPR radio which is a close to left wing radio as you can get to get the western nations to give billions... perhaps trillions of dollars, euro, and good ol' Canadian loonies to under developed nations?

For example... Bangledesh wants 5% of any agreement to go to them because if sea levels rise they will be most affected. What will Bangledesh do with that money?

 

[TenPenny]

Another list of data sources:

NCDC: Online Climate Data Directory

There's nothing wrong with omitting anomalous data if all one is trying to do is show that the data indicates a trend. The trend is that temperatures (the mean averages) are creeping upwards.

By approx 1 deg in 100 years, yes, it is.

 

[TenPenny]

Or, actually, next to nothing over the last 1000 years.

 

[Tonington]

By approx 1 deg in 100 years, yes, it is.

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.

 

[AnnaG]

Ok...climate change is as real as it has been for millions of years.

Yup.

So some scientist are saying that we are warming the planet.

I'm still undecided on that, but I am definitely for cleaning up our act whether or not we have an effect on climate.

Why is the main goal of Copenhagen, so far as I can tell by listening to NPR radio which is a close to left wing radio as you can get to get the western nations to give billions... perhaps trillions of dollars, euro, and good ol' Canadian loonies to under developed nations?

Let the Chinese do that. They're the rich buggers these days, I hear. lol

For example... Bangledesh wants 5% of any agreement to go to them because if sea levels rise they will be most affected. What will Bangledesh do with that money?

Move maybe?

 

[AnnaG]

Or, actually, next to nothing over the last 1000 years.

Yup. But history doesn't do anything except inform. Rising temperatures do things NOW. lol

 

[AnnaG]

Which is a pretty big number.

Except to most people. To informed people it is a 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.

Pretty much.

 

[Ron in Regina]

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 warming. That much is clear. What future policy is based on, is attribution of that warming, and in that case, the specific temperature time series you use doesn't make much of a difference. That's why the results are called robust. They don't depend so much on which data set you use.

Seriously, go read Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4. Figure S91 (page 10 of 14) in the appendix makes the attribution picture abundantly clear.

Hey...I'm just a layman asking a laymen's question. Just one of the
Mob, like you and everyone else on the planet. No reason to get
upset. I thought it was a Yes or No answer to my question. My
mistake.

Do the results put forth by CRU differ significantly from those put
forth by GISS or GHCN or UAH or RSS? I'm assuming someone
else here has waded through these sites already. I haven't, and
have lots on my plate already. Thanks anyway though.

If they do, fine. If they don't, then that should raise a red flag, assuming
that this CRU fudged their results as was alleged earlier in this Thread.
That's all. That was my question. No pressure.

If you want to ask something about Commercial Driving legislation in
North America and how is works province to province, state to state
or internationally between Canada & the USA....I'm your Guy....but this
subject isn't my forte, though I do have a few questions...


Someone who's interested in swimming in these Threads on this subject
will answer it. No worries.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I never stated that CRU's data should be thrown out...I asked if it had been.
That's all. Read what you want into it. Some of us aren't polarized on the
issue, and are still in the middle.

 

[AnnaG]

Hey...I'm just a layman asking a laymen's question. Just one of the
Mob, like you and everyone else on the planet. No reason to get
upset. I thought it was a Yes or No answer to my question. My
mistake.

Do the results put forth by CRU differ significantly from those put
forth by GISS or GHCN or UAH or RSS? I'm assuming someone
else here has waded through these sites already. I haven't, and
have lots on my plate already. Thanks anyway though.

If they do, fine. If they don't, then that should raise a red flag, assuming
that this CRU fudged their results as was alleged earlier in this Thread.
That's all. That was my question. No pressure.

IMO, the data that the CRU has posted is not that much different than that of NOAA, JMA, JAMSTEC, CSIRO, etc.

 

[AnnaG]

I never stated that CRU's data should be thrown out...I asked if it had been.
That's all. Read what you want into it. Some of us aren't polarized on the
issue, and are still in the middle.

A likely excuse. hah! lol

In essence the only reason it would matter if CRU's data was thrown out or not is because it simply supports that of the other meteorological and climactic research outfits.

 

[Tonington]

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.

 

[Tonington]

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 in coverage with it's nearest neighbours. Hadley leaves it blank, as if it doesn't exist.

The polar regions happen to be where the greatest amount of warming is measured, so Hadley treating the region like nothing is happening is to me one reason why GISS is a better dataset. Others disagree. That's fine. The differences when taken for the whole globe disappear.