Re: The Real Junk Science

In article <s32l91t1hh35d6nbe882v6lj7n1s5jrp2o@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>
> swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>, wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>>>  Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> Wm James <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>  swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>>>>> wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...

[cut]

>>>>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 the DATA do you not understand?  Do you know what DATA
>is?  Can you comprehend the difference between DATA and the claims
>about the data?  Apparently not.  Just once I'd love to see someone
>even attempt to sup****t the global warming hoax with actual data
>instead of re****ts from kooks making claims about the data based on
>their failed models and crewatively adjusted and munged and made up
>"data".

I gave you the latest data from your source.  Yet, you ignored it.  
Note to the scientists out there: S & C's results are not actual 
measurements, but the result of model based computations.

[cut]

>>>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.   
>
>Irrelevant.  And if you were at all familiar with the subject you
>should know why.  See below.

You mean that 5 analytical results, 3 of which were done by NASA
employees, are 
irrelevant?  Then, why did you repeatedly shout that just 1 batch of NASA
data 
analysis so revealing?

>>Your reference to S & C's 1998 comments is very out of date and relied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.
>
>"Corrections", right...  AKA "munging" AKA "attempting to explain away
>the data", AKA "trying to make the data match the hoax"

NO, just trying to get at the truth.  S & C have agreed with the need for 
corrections for orbit decay, ****ft in the time of day of local Equator 
crossing, etc.  They do not appear to agree that there are changes needed
in 
the mirror correction factor and other problem areas.

>>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.
>
>Ah!  A hint of a clue!

From you?

>>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
>
>You really think one solar cycle means ANYTHING regarding clobal
>climate?  ANYTHING AT ALL? Are you serious?

As the time series lengthens, short term fluctuations are washed out. 
Picking 
a subset of the time series between roughly equal positions in the sunspot

cycle would minimize the impact of the sunspot cycle, assuming the sunspot

cycles are of roughly equal impact.

>>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
>
>ROTFLMAO!  Climate change claims based on a few years is absolutely
>meaningless testimnial BS.  Why don't you go into faith healing?

Note that the data above is not a "few years".  The first sample is 13
years
and the one used in your 1998 reference is 18 years.  The time series is
now
more than 25 years long.  That you seem to think your reference to a 1998 
comment has meaning today puts the lie to your statement above.  The Earth
is warming up.  We'll just have to learn to live with it, since there are
so
many idiots like you out there that there is almost no chance of stopping
it.

Faith healing is for unscientific witch doctor types.

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