Re: The Real Junk Science

In article <6p9i91l4qsf65ho6o1n5uhjtijkg27dedb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>
>On Thu, 26 May 05 13:35:24 GMT, lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> Wm James <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>  swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>>> wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>>>>> (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>>
>>>>[cut]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are lying.  This is out of date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a direct quote from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>>>>>Look it up and stop making a fool of yourself.
>>>>
>>>>[cut]
>>>>
>>>>Note that at the bottom of the page is the data:
>>>>
>>>>     "Last Updated: June 14, 2000 "
>>>>
>>>>It's very out of date.
[cut]

>>>>>What part of "they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when
>>>>>averaged over the entire Earth" and "The lower stratospheric data
show
>>>>>a significant cooling trend" and "In addition to the recent cooling"
>>>>>is too complicated for you to read and comprehend?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The latest data from Spencer and Christy's analysis is found at:
>>>>
>>>>     http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
>>>>
>>>>The trend data is at the bottom of the page.
>>>>Note that their result shows a global trend of 0.09 C/dec.  Also take
note 
>>>>of the fact that the Northern Hemisphere data shows much greater
warming 
>>>>than the global value.
>>>>
>>>>Other research groups, including NASA groups, have found greater
warming
>>>>in the same raw data.  The difference between the various analytical
>>>>approaches has been discussed many times and a new re****t on the
question
>>>>is due out shortly.  Stay tuned.
>>>
>>>
>>>I showed you NASA's own pages:
>>>http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>
>>>Now you want to pont to a university's pages as proof that NASA's OWN
>>>PAGES do not reflect what NASA says?
>>>
>>>Be serious!  Like I said:
>>>It's a direct quote from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>Look it up and stop making a fool of yourself.
>>>
>>>nasa.gov is NASA's domain.  uah.edu is NOT NASA's domain.
>>
>>What you cited isn't NASA either.  It's Spencer and Christy's pet
project:
>
>So you are saying nasa.gov isn't NASA?  
>
>>"The GHCC is a partner****p comprised of organizational elements from
NASA 
>>Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), the State of Alabama's Space
Science 
>>and Technology Alliance (SSTA), and the Universities Space Research 
>>Association (USRA)"
>
>And you think that's not affiliated with NASA?
>
>>So the only association with NASA is "organizational elements".
>
>Yeah, Mike Moore launched the satellite too, huh?

No, he made some movies.  All he didthe last time around was point to Gee 
Dubyah's apparent lies and disinformation.

>>NASA is at www.nasa.gov.  Try, for example, 
>>
>>http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov//Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html
>
>http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
 is nasa
>http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
 is nasa
>
>What part of http://wwwghcc.msfc.NASA.GOV/temperature/
do you not 
>understand?

What part of the data do you not understand (see below).

>>What part of "ozone depletion" do you not understand?
>
>"Consistant with ozone depletion" is not a claim of ozone depletion,
>which is a different hoax.  Trying to exlain why data doesn't match
>one hoax by blaming anpther hoax doesn't alter the fact that the data
>doesn't sup****t the first one. 

The fact of Ozone Depletion is rather firmly established in the
atmospheric 
sciences by now.

>I keep telling you to read the data, but you seem incapable of reading
>anything other than parroted editorials refering to and lying about
>the data as the closest excuse for "evidence" you can find. 

I have read the data.  I also have read the other re****ts on the subject. 
All 
5 results now show a warming trend, with S & C's indicating the least. 
The 
earlier results were for rather short time periods and natural
fluctuations,
such as sunspots and volcanos, influenced the trend calculation.   

Your reference to S & C's 1998 comments is very out of date and relied on 
data which was strongly biased by the effects of the 1991 Pinatubo
eruption.
There were also corrections to the UAH data set after 1998 for a few
problems.
Also, the first few years in the time series were at the peak of the
sunspot 
cycle, which put a warm "bump" at the start.

Here's what the recent data shows, when the trends for earlier years in
the
time series are recalculated.  Truncated MSU TLT 5.1 monthly time series, 
beginning in 1979 and ending December of year shown:

     1992    -0.003372	
     1993    -0.044424	
     1994    -0.043102	
     1995    -0.012106	
     1996    -0.007443	
     1997    0.0001289	
     1998    0.0702235	
     1999    0.0579218	
     2000    0.0466267	
     2001    0.0551461	
     2002    0.0724646	
     2003    0.081553

Notice the cooling trend seen in 1992 and later, until the warm year of
1998,
attributed to El Nino.  The El Nino effect lasted a few years, but the
newer 
data again shows an increasing trend.  Here's the data, which now shows a 
global trend of 0.086.

     http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1

-- 
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com   :-) 
--------------------------------------------------------------