wmw999 2,146
billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>There is much difference in the actual raw data out there. We've got GISS
>data, which finds 2005 to be the warmest year. We've Got Hadley that finds
>1998 still tops. What's going on?
The averages of the two data sets differ by less than a few hundredths of a degree, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
>The data itself isn't resolved.
The data is quite resolved. The means of reduction vary, and they emphasize different areas. For example, Hadley weights Arctic and Antarctic temperature measurements less, since they don't have as many monitoring stations there, whereas NASA extrapolates data between reporting sites and gives every area equal geographic weighting. If they were off by a degree, I'd be worried. Given that they're off by .05 degrees, I'm not as worried.
A while back I was making beer, and I calculated my strike temperature as 170F to get a 154F mash. So I filtered four gallons of water and put it on the stove. As I was heating up the water, I measured it via a digital thermometer. In the center it was consistently cooler than it was by the sides. At one point the outside was around 175 and the center was closer to 160F.
What's the average temperature of the water? You could average the two and claim that the water was around 167.5 degrees. You could weight the outer one more, since the outer half of the radius of the pot contains 3x the water than the inner half. In that case you'd get 171.25 degrees average. Which is correct? Is the fact that there are two potential answers mean that there is no correct answer, and that maybe the pot is really not warming up at all?
In my example above, the data was quite accurate, to the limits of the temperature probe (which from previous calibrations is within a few degrees.) The interpretation of the data could result in several similar, but not identical, results for average temperature.
Now, if it was important to you, you could start taking a lot more measurements. You could take a grid of temperature measurements and extrapolate between them; that would give you one answer. You could assume discrete boundaries between temperature zones; that would give you a slightly different answer. If you get enough measurements, and your methods of approximation start delivering very close (but not identical) results, then you are probably close enough for any conceivable application.
In my case I just stopped heating the water, put it in the mash tun, and ended up with a 153F mash - so that level of measurement was close enough.
>data, which finds 2005 to be the warmest year. We've Got Hadley that finds
>1998 still tops. What's going on?
The averages of the two data sets differ by less than a few hundredths of a degree, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
>The data itself isn't resolved.
The data is quite resolved. The means of reduction vary, and they emphasize different areas. For example, Hadley weights Arctic and Antarctic temperature measurements less, since they don't have as many monitoring stations there, whereas NASA extrapolates data between reporting sites and gives every area equal geographic weighting. If they were off by a degree, I'd be worried. Given that they're off by .05 degrees, I'm not as worried.
A while back I was making beer, and I calculated my strike temperature as 170F to get a 154F mash. So I filtered four gallons of water and put it on the stove. As I was heating up the water, I measured it via a digital thermometer. In the center it was consistently cooler than it was by the sides. At one point the outside was around 175 and the center was closer to 160F.
What's the average temperature of the water? You could average the two and claim that the water was around 167.5 degrees. You could weight the outer one more, since the outer half of the radius of the pot contains 3x the water than the inner half. In that case you'd get 171.25 degrees average. Which is correct? Is the fact that there are two potential answers mean that there is no correct answer, and that maybe the pot is really not warming up at all?
In my example above, the data was quite accurate, to the limits of the temperature probe (which from previous calibrations is within a few degrees.) The interpretation of the data could result in several similar, but not identical, results for average temperature.
Now, if it was important to you, you could start taking a lot more measurements. You could take a grid of temperature measurements and extrapolate between them; that would give you one answer. You could assume discrete boundaries between temperature zones; that would give you a slightly different answer. If you get enough measurements, and your methods of approximation start delivering very close (but not identical) results, then you are probably close enough for any conceivable application.
In my case I just stopped heating the water, put it in the mash tun, and ended up with a 153F mash - so that level of measurement was close enough.
kallend 1,644
QuoteQuoteE-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
What's wrong, Marc, no cite? AFRAID to admit that the FOX News hackjob was the source of your quote?
How about finding that primary source instead of hearsay. A source that actually has some credibility.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteAgreed. Nor is it as benign as the deniers claim.
Uh huh.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote***E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior ....
All you're doing is quoting what was stated in the hack piece.
I gave you the text of the email exchange.
You reply by repeating a repeated hack job of an interpretation of that email exchange. It is an illuminating tactic however as it illustrates the "big lie" tactics employed by FOX (and others). Repeat it often enough and......
QuoteQuoteQuoteE-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
What's wrong, Marc, no cite? AFRAID to admit that the FOX News hackjob was the source of your quote?
How about finding that primary source instead of hearsay. A source that actually has some credibility.
He
Here it is.
brenthutch 388
It would seem that you place more trust in the credibility of the IPCC and NASA data than they do??!!?
You go out on a limb touting the impeccability of NASA, and the IPCC only to find it cut off behind you by those very entities. I would feel betrayed1
You go out on a limb touting the impeccability of NASA, and the IPCC only to find it cut off behind you by those very entities. I would feel betrayed1
billvon 2,426
>I would feel betrayed
You must feel even more betrayed by this guy:
===========
Competitive Enterprise Institute Director Admits Funding Tied to Denial of Global Warming
March 29, 2010
Myron Ebell is a global warming denier with his fingers in many pies, all of them connected to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), one of the most vocal and well-funded of the organizations opposing action by the U.S. government on curbing climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Ebell is not a scientist. He is, however, listed as the director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, as well as the director of “Freedom Action”, an astroturf organization loosely affiliated with CEI. Mr Ebell also chairs the “Cooler Heads Coalition” headed by CEI.
. . .
In 2006, Mr. Ebell appeared on BBC’s “NewsNight”, along with John Mitchell, Chief Scientist for the UK Met Office, and a lead IPCC author. Here is an excerpt from that interview:
BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?
Ebbel: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate . . .
BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?
Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which… our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people’s daily lives.
BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you were taking a different view on, say for example climate change.
Ebell: I suppose that’s right.
=====================
How does it feel to know that one of the leading deniers out there just admitted that they get paid to support a political position, not a scientific one? Or do deniers not really care about that stuff unless the other side is doing it?
You must feel even more betrayed by this guy:
===========
Competitive Enterprise Institute Director Admits Funding Tied to Denial of Global Warming
March 29, 2010
Myron Ebell is a global warming denier with his fingers in many pies, all of them connected to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), one of the most vocal and well-funded of the organizations opposing action by the U.S. government on curbing climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Ebell is not a scientist. He is, however, listed as the director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, as well as the director of “Freedom Action”, an astroturf organization loosely affiliated with CEI. Mr Ebell also chairs the “Cooler Heads Coalition” headed by CEI.
. . .
In 2006, Mr. Ebell appeared on BBC’s “NewsNight”, along with John Mitchell, Chief Scientist for the UK Met Office, and a lead IPCC author. Here is an excerpt from that interview:
BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?
Ebbel: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate . . .
BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?
Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which… our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people’s daily lives.
BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you were taking a different view on, say for example climate change.
Ebell: I suppose that’s right.
=====================
How does it feel to know that one of the leading deniers out there just admitted that they get paid to support a political position, not a scientific one? Or do deniers not really care about that stuff unless the other side is doing it?
The money coming from Exxon to fund the denier commentary pales in comparison to that of David Koch.
I think he's up to about $50 million so far.
I think he's up to about $50 million so far.
kallend 1,644
QuoteIt would seem that you place more trust in the credibility of the IPCC and NASA data than they do??!!?
You go out on a limb touting the impeccability of NASA, and the IPCC only to find it cut off behind you by those very entities. I would feel betrayed1
You should feel betrayed by those that taught you English comprehension.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
This is something that I have a problem with.
Is "science" not "science" because one group or another funded it? Let's say Ebell comes up with something that is reproducible and verified. Does it mean it isn't science because chicken little paid for it? Or chicken biggie?
Yet, there is some degree of trust that the US Government (a political body) has nothing behind the objectives. There is. What agency, bureacracy, etc., does not seek additional funding from the government on the basis of a problem?
Scientists are human. They want funding. They want to get on the bandwagon. And the government funds the study of problems - not the study of non-issues.
It happens on all sides. The funding does not make the science valid or invalid.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Is "science" not "science" because one group or another funded it? Let's say Ebell comes up with something that is reproducible and verified. Does it mean it isn't science because chicken little paid for it? Or chicken biggie?
Yet, there is some degree of trust that the US Government (a political body) has nothing behind the objectives. There is. What agency, bureacracy, etc., does not seek additional funding from the government on the basis of a problem?
Scientists are human. They want funding. They want to get on the bandwagon. And the government funds the study of problems - not the study of non-issues.
It happens on all sides. The funding does not make the science valid or invalid.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,426
>Is "science" not "science" because one group or another funded it?
Science is science no matter who funded it. However, when the person/orgaization funding the research makes it clear that they will lose funding unless they conclude X then there's a good basis for thinking that their research may be biased.
> And the government funds the study of problems - not the study of
> non-issues.
Hmm. I can think of a lot of very expensive space exploration that hasn't been "the study of problems." What problems have the Hubble or the Mars rovers solved?
One of the functions of government (in my opinion) is the study of more theoretical and non-practical science that would not be funded otherwise. Space exploration, high energy particle physics and nuclear fission/fusion are some examples that come to mind. Part of the reason is a responsibility to make wise investments in the future for the people of the US - a cheap and simple nuclear fusion process would be of massive benefit to everyone living here, for example. Another part of the reason is a responsibility to humanity in general. We as a race will benefit greatly if we can start living on other planets, and our lives will be forever changed if we do find life somewhere else in the universe.
Given the less-practical nature of those pursuits, study of what will happen to the planet we're living on over the next 100 years strikes me as a good use of government money - whether the answer is good, bad or indifferent.
Science is science no matter who funded it. However, when the person/orgaization funding the research makes it clear that they will lose funding unless they conclude X then there's a good basis for thinking that their research may be biased.
> And the government funds the study of problems - not the study of
> non-issues.
Hmm. I can think of a lot of very expensive space exploration that hasn't been "the study of problems." What problems have the Hubble or the Mars rovers solved?
One of the functions of government (in my opinion) is the study of more theoretical and non-practical science that would not be funded otherwise. Space exploration, high energy particle physics and nuclear fission/fusion are some examples that come to mind. Part of the reason is a responsibility to make wise investments in the future for the people of the US - a cheap and simple nuclear fusion process would be of massive benefit to everyone living here, for example. Another part of the reason is a responsibility to humanity in general. We as a race will benefit greatly if we can start living on other planets, and our lives will be forever changed if we do find life somewhere else in the universe.
Given the less-practical nature of those pursuits, study of what will happen to the planet we're living on over the next 100 years strikes me as a good use of government money - whether the answer is good, bad or indifferent.
kallend 1,644
QuoteThis is something that I have a problem with.
Is "science" not "science" because one group or another funded it? Let's say Ebell comes up with something that is reproducible and verified. Does it mean it isn't science because chicken little paid for it? Or chicken biggie?
Yet, there is some degree of trust that the US Government (a political body) has nothing behind the objectives. There is. What agency, bureacracy, etc., does not seek additional funding from the government on the basis of a problem?
Scientists are human. They want funding. They want to get on the bandwagon. And the government funds the study of problems - not the study of non-issues.
It happens on all sides. The funding does not make the science valid or invalid.
Both the NSF and the NIH use panels of independent scientists to evaluate research proposals. I have been on NSF panels. We get paid for our travel and accommodation. I can assure you that the government's wishes are not made known to the panelists, nor is any pressure of any sort applied. Neither can the govt. buy my opinion for the cost of a night in a Holiday Inn and a round trip coach class air ticket on "We_treat_you_like_cattle Airlines".
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
Both the NSF and the NIH use panels of independent scientists to evaluate research proposals. I have been on NSF panels. We get paid for our travel and accommodation. I can assure you that the government's wishes are not made known to the panelists, nor is any pressure of any sort applied. Neither can the govt. buy my opinion for the cost of a night in a Holiday Inn and a round trip coach class air ticket on "We_treat_you_like_cattle Airlines".
Government funding for unbiased study of pot use is a whole different matter.
GeorgiaDon 340
+1QuoteBoth the NSF and the NIH use panels of independent scientists to evaluate research proposals. I have been on NSF panels. We get paid for our travel and accommodation. I can assure you that the government's wishes are not made known to the panelists, nor is any pressure of any sort applied. Neither can the govt. buy my opinion for the cost of a night in a Holiday Inn and a round trip coach class air ticket on "We_treat_you_like_cattle Airlines".
I review grant proposals for NIH and NSF, as well as some private agencies. I have never once been told to slant my reviews to fit any "government policy". The only criteria we consider is the importance of the research problem and the quality of the experimental plan. I also kind of resent the insinuation that scientists or "the government" have to fabricate problems like Malaria and West Nile so we can have an excuse to suck at the public teat or somehow expand my "power" over the public or whatever.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
brenthutch 388
Oh! Ouch that hurts! Wow such a wit. (less)
brenthutch 388
I am confused, I don’t recall citing the sources you are referencing. Could you please provide some more detail?
I'm sorry -- this road has no middle. You guys have to pick a side, and then talk about how your side is the best side in the history of sides.
Wendy P.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites