[bmillam]

is there any real data left.

Breaking News : NSIDC Gets In The Data Tampering Act

You can’t make this stuff up.

At 8:56 am MDT, NSIDC showed that April 16 Arctic ice extent was about to cross the 1979-2000 mean.
Sometime during the day today they changed their data, and pushed extent much further from the mean line.

http://www.real-science.com/breaking...-tampering-act

[bmillam]

scientists seeing the light eventually.
Academic group says it's time for researches to begin sharing source code
April 16, 2012 by Bob Yirka report

(Phys.org) -- A diverse group of academic research scientists from across the U.S. have written a policy paper which has been published in the journal Science, suggesting that the time has come for all science journals to begin requiring computer source code be made available as a condition of publication. Currently, they say, only three of the top twenty journals do so.

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-academi...urce-code.html

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by bmillam

is there any real data left.

Breaking News : NSIDC Gets In The Data Tampering Act

http://www.real-science.com/breaking...-tampering-act

Par for the course in climate science.

But don't expect any condemnation from the cultists.

[bmillam]

anyone know of a set of climate data that hasn't been tampered with.
Analysis finds satellite data has been continuously 'adjusted' to exaggerate sea level rise

The German Skeptical Science site has analyzed satellite sea level altimetry data using the WayBackMachine archive and finds that "adjustments" have been made continuously over the past 8 years "all in one direction, namely towards an increasing sea level rise. It almost seems that in recent years the data has been "adjusted" to continue to keep the overall increase over the magical minimum of 3 millimeters per year." The analysis notes 7 other publications have found global sea level rise from tide gauges to be significantly less, from 1.2 to 1.9 mm/yr, and mentions the Holgate 2007 paper which found sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/...-has-been.html

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

[Email 0071 from Michael Mann] what more reference do you want, eek

A link to where you're getting it from, your evasiveness tells us all we need to know.

you mean exactly what I posted then.

What you posted didn't make sense.

yup

Right, so Sat measurements agreeing with land based ones is some sort of coincidence and doesn't, in your view, actually reflect on their accuracy.

there was a reference,

but no link or context.

thte pope is the church. D D

I can see another joules=watts moment coming. You originally said "religion" anyway.

[bmillam]

don't put your hot water bottle away just yet.

Piers Corbyn astrophysicist of Weatheraction.com says "We are making this headline from our 45day ahead Britain & Ireland forecast public because of its importance......

The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse.

*Confidence of E / SE England mean temps: Coldest in 100yrs 80%; In 5 coldest in 100yrs 90%

It is an economically impactful forecast and more detail of the timing of cold and wintry blasts, East-West splits and drought or not implications are available to subscribers and will also be reviewed for the 30day ahead forecast due at end of April.

"The very cold expectations apply to East parts and near – Europe rather than Ireland and West Britain”

http://climaterealists.com/index.php...=Google+Reader

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

A link to where you're getting it from, your evasiveness tells us all we need to know.

if you don't know were to look up climategate emails. you never read anything, besides you said you already looked it up.

What you posted didn't make sense.

you had better tell wiki then

Right, so Sat measurements agreeing with land based ones is some sort of coincidence and doesn't, in your view, actually reflect on their accuracy.

what coincidence they are all adjusted

but no link or context.

in the email

I can see another joules=watts moment coming. You originally said "religion" anyway.

and what is religion if it is not the church.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

if you don't know were to look up climategate emails. you never read anything

I do, that's how I knew it was about proxy measurements for hundreds of years ago and nothing to do with the instrumental record at all. And how I knew why you're being so evasive about publishing a link.

you had better tell wiki then

I suspect they know that what you write doesn't make sense, everyone else does.

what coincidence they are all adjusted

Ah, so you doubt Dr Roy Spencer's satellite record too?

in the email

No link to or context for the email. Hiding something again.

and what is religion if it is not the church.

It's what's practised by the church. That joules=watts moment is approaching fast.

And you still said that religion was infallible whereas it's the Pope.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

I do, that's how I knew it was about proxy measurements for hundreds of years ago and nothing to do with the instrumental record at all. And how I knew why you're being so evasive about publishing a link.

he didn't say "historical global temperature anomaly", he just wrote "global temperature anomaly", so you are wrong again

I suspect they know that what you write doesn't make sense, everyone else does.

I didn't write it wiki did

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

No link to or context for the email. Hiding something again.

the context is in the email

It's what's practised by the church. That joules=watts moment is approaching fast.

in other words the church

And you still said that religion was infallible whereas it's the Pope.

the pope is the church

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

he didn't say "historical global temperature anomaly", he just wrote "global temperature anomaly", so you are wrong again

Ah so you're trying to infer that he meant every global temperature anomaly measurement ever. Truly desperate. And still hiding the source, i see.

I didn't write it wiki did

I wasn't disputing what was on wiki but your words.

the context is in the email

But not the context of the email, which you are hiding for a reason.

in other words the church

the pope is the church

But you said "religion".

[bmillam]

[quote]

Originally Posted by andykn

Ah so you're trying to infer that he meant every global temperature anomaly measurement ever. Truly desperate. And still hiding the source, i see.

I suspect they know that what you write doesn't make sense, everyone else does.

I wrote.

obviously you don't.

yes it made sense to everyone else

But not the context of the email, which you are hiding for a reason.

how am I hiding an email that is numbered and is available on line.

But you said "religion".

same as your "accuracy. Precision;" the same thing.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

how am I hiding an email that is numbered and is available on line.

You link to everything you think you can defend.

same as your "accuracy. Precision;" the same thing. D D D

Only to people who don't understand science.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

You link to everything you think you can defend.

why would I ever want to defend Mann

Only to people who don't understand science.

ho one always understands climate science. if you get the wrong answer you just make it up.

Accuracy and precision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the fields of science, engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy[1] of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's actual (true) value. The precision[1] of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.[2] Although the two words reproducibility and repeatability can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.
Accuracy indicates proximity of measurement results to the true value, precision to the repeatability or reproducibility of the measurement

A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both

climate science at its best

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

why would I ever want to defend Mann eek eek:

Your point, you'd want to defend your point. Which fails once you show the context of the email

ho one always understands climate science. if you get the wrong answer you just make it up.

Interesting, having realised that precision and accuracy are not the same thing, goes on to invent a different fallacy to replace that one.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

Your point, you'd want to defend your point. Which fails once you show the context of the email

not my point manns point

Interesting, having realised that precision and accuracy are not the same thing, goes on to invent a different fallacy to replace that one.

only in science. in the real world they are one and the same thing.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

not my point manns point

Mann's point was that, in 2006, they didn't have an accurate of the Southern hemisphere temperatures hundreds of years ago before the instrumental record because proxies were so sparse.

only in science. in the real world they are one and the same thing.

You're no engineer, are you?

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

You seem to be talking about something that isn't related to your bogus Arctic sea ice claim.

Nothing bogus about it. Arctic sea ice has always grown and shrunk. Nothing unusual. Of course now we have satellites and stuff, so a very short record to play with.

Oh, you aren't.

Sure I am. I'm part of some well-funded industry denial machine. Haven't you bought Mikey's new book?

You are both simply gullible and scientifically ignorant. It's just that your ignorance doesn't always align, which is quite funny.

Sceptics are allowed to think for themselves. We don't need any handy SkS scratch'n'sniff guides. We can just look at the people invoved, like the scientologist, or even Canada's no.1 fruit-fly abuser, who gets a mention here-

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/...-last-chances/

Fast forward two decades and David Suzuki’s 1990 book, It’s a Matter of Survival, told us (22 years ago) that we had “fewer than 10 years to turn things around” and that we were “the last generation on Earth that can save the planet.”

But I guess mistakes like that are ok because after all, Suzuki is not a climate scientist..

But Steven Goddard is the most stupid climate blogger on the planet, and everything he ever says is wrong.

Errrm.. Ok. Everything?

I did actually attempt to (very politely!) engage with him a while back,

Why do I find it hard to believe you could ever engage 'politely'? Did you only use ad homs every 2nd sentence?

Needless to say, both he and his followers proved to be ineducable.

Or perhaps you were wrong..

Is this the bit where the fact that each year does not show less ice than the last, or each year is not warmer than the last, is regarded as proof that global warming isn't happening?

It's not happening the way it was supposed to. Where's the polar amplification gone?

Oh, when did we get to those? I thought we were arguing about ice-free summers?

Keep up with the literature! cAGW means no ice all year round, then those tipping points that don't exist get crossed, and we're all doomed.. doomed I tell you!

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Let's say I do a Black Cloud and say that I've done the numbers according to your link and found that warming since 1995 is 95.21% statistically significant, what then?

I'd do as you did with Black Cloud and ask you to show your working. Much as what happened on that thread over at Lucias that you rely on, but don't understand.

Don't you know how to work out statistical significance?

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

Has he not actually read any of the attacks on Mann and other climate scientists, on HalfWatts' blog and elsewhere?

Mann's the worst thing that ever happened to climate science, and a gift to us sceptics. You presumably didn't read this-

I point this out in the paper Mann criticizes and also in (Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245), which interestingly was published while Steve Schneider was ed in chief. As a final note on my work on this problem, I showed in (Loehle, C. 2005. Estimating Climatic Timeseries from Multi-Site Data Afflicted with Dating Error. Mathematical Geology 37:127-140)

Loehle's published in more journals than just the dreaded E&E, and has a far better publication record on relevant subjects to dendrochronologies than Mann ever has. But then Mann doesn't understand trees or data analysis.

And as for Energy and Environment being "peer reviewed", well, in a manner of speaking. It's a social science journal which will publish any old crap,

Much like Nature then. It published Steig's Antarctic paper and gave it a cover. It published Shakun and gave it an editorial.

[bmillam]

[quote]

Originally Posted by andykn

Mann's point was that, in 2006, they didn't have an accurate of the Southern hemisphere temperatures hundreds of years ago before the instrumental record because proxies were so sparse.

nope he didn't say historical. or even southern hemisphere that was jones.

You're no engineer, are you?

bet the engineers that make cars, ships, planes, rockets, space stations. are accurate and precise as in the real world.

in fact the only one listed below would be the Chemical engineering that might use the scientific definition.

Chemical engineering –
Civil engineering
Electrical engineering
Mechanical engineering – .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

and by they way you are wrong again I am.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

I'd do as you did with Black Cloud and ask you to show your working. Much as what happened on that thread over at Lucias that you rely on, but don't understand.

Don't you know how to work out statistical significance?

Yes, but I'm wondering why you're asking me to do it for you when your own link said it was expected.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

nope he didn't say historical. or even southern hemisphere that was jones.

And they were talking about pre instrumental proxy records.

bet the engineers that make cars, ships, planes, rockets, space stations. are accurate and precise as in the real world.

in fact the only one listed below would be the Chemical engineering that might use the scientific definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

and by they way you are wrong again I am. p p

So for your latest shameless ignorance you now assert that in Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, precision and accuracy are the same thing.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yes, but I'm wondering why you're asking me to do it for you when your own link said it was expected.

A 0.2C/decade temperature increase was 'expected'. Did reality meet that expectation?

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve.

Just for you to demonstrate if you know how to calculate it. You happily tell people they get their stats wrong, but you seem unable to do something pretty basic. It's climate science, not rocket science.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

So for your latest shameless ignorance you now assert that in Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, precision and accuracy are the same thing.

Probably is for Civil Engineers. Mechanical Engineers rely on both. See #5 here-

http://www.i18nguy.com/engineers.html

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

A 0.2C/decade temperature increase was 'expected'. Did reality meet that expectation?

Just for you to demonstrate if you know how to calculate it. You happily tell people they get their stats wrong, but you seem unable to do something pretty basic. It's climate science, not rocket science.

You seem to be getting two different points conflated, whether or not there has been statistically significant warming since 1995 and whether 20 year means have risen by 0.2 deg C between 2000 and 2010.

If I verify that your link was correct and that there had been the expected statistically significant warming since 1995, that doesn't necessarily help with the 0.2 deg/decade rise in 20 year means that was predicted.

Glad I didn't waste my time.