From: Alistair on
On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
> >> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the
> >> conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with
> >> a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one WWI
> >> pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic knee
> >> is acting up.
>
> > And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly showed
> > global warming in progress before anyone had invented the term.
>
> > I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
> > started posting your nonsense to
> > alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
>
> I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, unless it
> came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average Global temperature
> dropped by 2.7°F.
>
> The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice
> age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article from June of that
> year.
>
> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
>
> This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible code used
> by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One experienced programmer
> spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the programs and his journal was part
> of the leaked documents.

The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the
Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of
increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to
BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the
previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global
warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming).
The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and
graphed, again by hand, by the same student.
From: HeyBub on
Alistair wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Alistair wrote:
>>
>>>> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the
>>>> conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left
>>>> with a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one
>>>> WWI pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic
>>>> knee is acting up.
>>
>>> And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly
>>> showed global warming in progress before anyone had invented the
>>> term.
>>
>>> I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
>>> started posting your nonsense to
>>> alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
>>
>> I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago,
>> unless it came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average
>> Global temperature dropped by 2.7�F.
>>
>> The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the
>> coming ice age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article
>> from June of that year.
>>
>> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
>>
>> This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible
>> code used by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One
>> experienced programmer spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the
>> programs and his journal was part of the leaked documents.
>
> The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the
> Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of
> increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to
> BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the
> previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global
> warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming).
> The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and
> graphed, again by hand, by the same student.

Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about
human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores -
neither of which is human."

Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded.
That may account for your readings. But when coupled with the more
cold-blooded types (i.e. the English), the average will drop considerably.


From: Alistair on
On Dec 5, 1:39 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:20 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> Alistair wrote:
>
> >>>> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the
> >>>> conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left
> >>>> with a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one
> >>>> WWI pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic
> >>>> knee is acting up.
>
> >>> And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly
> >>> showed global warming in progress before anyone had invented the
> >>> term.
>
> >>> I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you
> >>> started posting your nonsense to
> >>> alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays?
>
> >> I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago,
> >> unless it came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average
> >> Global temperature dropped by 2.7°F.
>
> >> The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the
> >> coming ice age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article
> >> from June of that year.
>
> >>http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
>
> >> This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible
> >> code used by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One
> >> experienced programmer spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the
> >> programs and his journal was part of the leaked documents.
>
> > The data shown to me was regarding the temperatures in the
> > Mediterranean region. The data showede a clear thirty year cycle of
> > increasing temeprature followed by a brief return to a level close to
> > BUT NOT EQUIVALENT TO OR LOWER THAN the starting temperature from the
> > previous cycle. So there was a local 30 year cycle (not global
> > warming) and a fail to return to the starting point (global warming).
> > The data had been extracted by hand by an undergraduate student and
> > graphed, again by hand, by the same student.
>
> Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about
> human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores -
> neither of which is human."
>
> Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded.
> That may account for your readings. But when coupled with the more
> cold-blooded types (i.e. the English), the average will drop considerably..- Hide quoted text -
>

The Med locals may be hot blooded but they don't move around much.
Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun. So, any local
temperature increases could only be the result of colonialism.
From: Anonymous on
In article <7budnYlqPup0JITWnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Hmmm. There's a psycological paradigm that goes: "Everything we know about
>human nature is derived from laboratory rats and college sophomores -
>neither of which is human."

That sounds to be almost as valid as a much more time-honored
psychological paradigm of 'All's crazy but me 'n thee... and sometimes I
doubts thee, a'well.'

>
>Everybody knows that people of the Mediterranean region are hot-blooded.

Everybody knows that any sentence which makes a statement about what
'everybody knows' is wrong, including this one.

DD
From: Clark F Morris on
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:04:37 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz>
wrote:

>On Dec 1, 1:46�pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>> >> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death Valley
>> >> (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't just take
>> >> the
>> >> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current
>> >> temperature in
>> >> Death Valley.
>>
>> > As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do of
>> > the world.
>>
>> > The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver
>> > is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that
>> > produce that forecast.
>
>If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea
>level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up
>the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming.

On the other hand, is the temperature difference between the two sites
a constant? If not is the variation taken into account by those who
did the adjustment? Indeed is there a long enough overlap period
where observations were available from both sites to validate the
adjustment factor used?
>
>In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the
>death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the
>graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using
>that to 'prove' world temperatures fell.
>
>
>> You rag on me about the difference between "site" and "station" ["I was
>> sited at Ft Polk, but now I'm a station for sore eyes"] now you go on about
>> "forecasts" in Death Valley and Denver.
>>
>> I said I couldn't take the current reading one place and apply a fudge
>> factor and expect to get the temperature somewhere else, and, presto, you
>> start blathering on about the "Weather Bureau" making "forecasts."
>>
>> First, a "forecast" is about a future event and I was referring to a
>> contemporary conditions.
>>
>> That said, the "Weather Bureau" doesn't make forecasts for Death Valley or
>> anywhere else. In fact there is no such thing as the "Weather Bureau." There
>> used to be, but its name was changed to the National Weather Service and
>> merged into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about forty
>> years ago.
>>
>> You really should keep up.