Robert Blass wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:45:38 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
sayd the following:

"Robert Blass" wrote
The world is ending....YAWN
Ending for some species, yes. And the more that will die out the more
likely it will be that you will be found hanging from a tree by the rope.



You're DRAMATIC about this so called "man made" warming.

DRAMA is all your side has right now.

You should go to acting school.


Romeo where for art thaugh hottest years on record?

Alas, poor Horatio, I knew his carbon offsets well.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01*pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. *I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control *(being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? *You get no warming trend. *RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. *Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above are a
better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.



Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

On Apr 11, 7:40 am, Annabel Lee
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward



wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above are a
better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

The problem with constructing a global temperature is that sampling
biases will occur even when researchers are aware of the possibility.
Another poster replying to you has offered you a chance to examine the
ultimate abuse of sampling - cherry picking. It involves taking a
subset of the data set that only reflects what you want to believe -
in this case all the weather stations showing big temperature raises
were eliminated from the set.

In article ,
Annabel Lee wrote:

Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

NASA was established on October 1, 1958 (partly in response to the
Russian Sputnik satellite the previous year), which is not quite 50
years ago. NASA does not have satellite data of either solar flux
or global surface temperatures that goes back 129 years.
Furthermore, it has been widely reported that NASA's official
reports have been censored and altered by nonscientist government
officials in the past, sometimes changing their conclusions
entirely. There is a scene in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"
where James Hansen admits under oath that his reports were altered
without his consent during the Reagan and first Bush
administrations. Do a google search for "NASA Hansen" for numerous
links.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Annabel Lee wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-
Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.
Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.
That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.
The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).
Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.
And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.
Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.
If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above are a
better indication of reality than your fantasies.
Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.



Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?


Well they did only get back 29 of 31 shuttles..... So we know they arent
perfect.

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

The IPCC says they have proved Global Warming, Look at their sources.

"Annabel Lee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above are a
better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.



Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better
data? Or is it all bad?

This is a complicated question.

(1) NASA gets raw data from surface stations and the surface station records for the past,
there are several problems with this. stage.

(2) NASA then makes adjustments in several steps that SHOULD take care of most, but not
all, of the problems in (1).

(3) NASA has been lucky so far in that the mistakes that have been caught cut both ways
and the outcome of corrections has been minor.

On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:14:20 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:43 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock
wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice
-n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's
129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do
several other
organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for UHI
using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist
you wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the
urban station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend.
RURAL STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more
than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above
are a better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't
be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

It is even worse than that. I suspect there is an analogy with wine
making. I knew of a winemaker who had a small amount of wine made from
under ripe grapes. He blended it (10%) with some good wine 90%). That
small amount ruined the whole lot. A "Little BAD Goes a LONG ways". I
suspect the same is true of data. A little bad or incorrect can have
effects that are way beyond suspected results.

Such are the musings of a statistical illiterate. In actual practice, the
way to avoid problems from extraneous or erroneous data (ie. bad) is to
swamp it by using large sample sizes. If you measure the height of 100 men
taken at random, the mean height will be virtually unchanged should one or
two of them be giants or dwarves.

This is what happens in practice with temperature data. Very large sample
size ensures that the famous UHIs will have little effect on the
calculated global means.

Only if you can prove the assumption that all errors are symmetrically
distributed. Otherwise it's a fantasy. Or a hoax.

Ah. Another statistical illiterate crawls from the woodwork, to give
us his take on something he knows little or nothing about.

The manner in which the residuals are distributed is immaterial. It is
merely required that their distribution remains the same in repeat
samples.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:37:26 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:40:51 -0600, Annabel Lee wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:13 -0700, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01*pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. *I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control *(being a sicnetist
you wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? *You get no warming trend.
*RURAL STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. *Unless
you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are more
than welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above
are a better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's the
problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be used
- it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad data with
with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.



Since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know the best way to determine
temperatures but I've always believed that NASA is a pretty reliable
scientific organization. Can you point out any peer reviewed articles
that would lead me to believe that their data can't be trusted?

If NASA's data is bad, is there another organization that has better data?
Or is it all bad?

Take a look at this blog:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50

That link will take you into a section discussing the surface temperature
record. It takes a little digging to understand the issues, but if you
will follow along for a while, I think it will pay off. There's a lot
more interesting stuff also available on the site.

MacIntyre, the moderator, is one of the people who debunked Mann and the
"Hockey Stick", and many of the contributors are quite well qualified in
their fields. If you actually want to understand "the science", this is
one of the best areas to watch. As an example, they link to
"RealClimate.org", the true believer blog, while AFAIK, RC won't link to
them. I take that as an indication of open-mindedness.

It's worth taking a look. Let us know what you think.




I think this is too complicated for a non-scientist to figure
out.....unless I want to pull out my old science books and re-learn
science which I don't particularly want to do right now and would take
a few years anyway.

As for the MacIntyre/Mann controversy, it looks to me like MacIntyre
found some very legitimate discrepencies in Mann's "Hockey Stick"
analysis but that the result of the correction wasn't particularly
significant. As far as I can tell, they seem to be about equal in
stature.

As for "open mindedness": I don't know what that has to do with
science. I have pagan friends who object to the Christian lack of
open mindedness but science is about fact, not opinion.

On Apr 12, 1:49 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:55:40 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:14:20 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:43 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock
wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice
-n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's
129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do
several other
organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured
from satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census
data to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural
area near to the urban station to act as a control (being a
sicnetist you wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the
urban station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend.
RURAL STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE
TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data.
Unless you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you are
more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented above
are a better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it
can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

It is even worse than that. I suspect there is an analogy with wine
making. I knew of a winemaker who had a small amount of wine made
from under ripe grapes. He blended it (10%) with some good wine
90%). That small amount ruined the whole lot. A "Little BAD Goes a
LONG ways". I suspect the same is true of data. A little bad or
incorrect can have effects that are way beyond suspected results.

Such are the musings of a statistical illiterate. In actual practice,
the way to avoid problems from extraneous or erroneous data (ie. bad)
is to swamp it by using large sample sizes. If you measure the height
of 100 men taken at random, the mean height will be virtually
unchanged should one or two of them be giants or dwarves.

This is what happens in practice with temperature data. Very large
sample size ensures that the famous UHIs will have little effect on
the calculated global means.

Only if you can prove the assumption that all errors are symmetrically
distributed. Otherwise it's a fantasy. Or a hoax.

Ah. Another statistical illiterate crawls from the woodwork, to give us
his take on something he knows little or nothing about.

The manner in which the residuals are distributed is immaterial. It is
merely required that their distribution remains the same in repeat
samples.

So it doesn't matter to you if there are more errors showing increasing
warming than showing cooling? I think I see your problem. You are
reading "residuals", where I wrote "errors". Don't you know the
difference?

Generally speaking, statistical errors can never be quantified. I
simply corrected your sloppy language, as it was clear to what you
referred.

On Apr 11, 10:37*pm, Annabel Lee
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Sorry, but I need scientists to interpret this data for me so what do
the peer-reviewed scientists say?

In a single word they say, "Warming."
Searches of the literature can't find
a single peer-reviewed paper in an
established journal saying otherwise.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/168

There is not a single long-term data
set saying anything else about the last
century, too.

You might want to read this article as
well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change