Skip to comments.Editorial: Put up or shut up on global warming
Posted on 01/22/2011 11:44:33 AM PST by Mark Landsbaum
It is time for an independent investigation of whether or to what degree human activities are creating catastrophic global warming. It should be conducted by scientists untainted by advocacy and uncompromised through receiving taxes or private funding to advance or debunk the theory.
Many in the new Congress were elected on promises to re-evaluate global warming claims used to justify Draconian regulations. A "team of nongovernment and non-U.N. experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges ... and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists," says Robert Ferguson, president of the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute for "sound public policy based on sound science." We agree... (click through to the Register's editorial page for the entire editorial)
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
You are welcome, I am glad you liked it. Roughly it is a break down of the temperature station reliability for global warming research. The more red the piece of pie is the worse the station is. So 64% of stations aren’t very good. If you want to learn more go to the web site listed in the picture.
The errors can go either way. It is true that most of sites have heat bias, but the temperature ratings for errors are not all on the hot side, a 2 to 5 degree cool bias is also possible.
That raw data doesn’t really say how hot the bias is overall since some of the errors are in the other direction. The main problem is that data hasn’t yet been reviewed and put into a scientific study (a real one, not one by someone biased in either direction).
It explains how solar radiation affects the Earth as its eccentric orbit drastically changes our distance from the sun over a 100,000 year cycle. It also lays out the parameters and time lines for axial tilt, and the Earth's polar precession. Milankovitch's models correlate very well indeed with known historical data.
Milankovitch published his theory in the 1920s. It is now accepted as fact by astronomers, physicists, astro-physicists, archaeologists, paleontologists, mathematicians, and geographers. It is not accepted by democrats.
How the Sun Affects Climate - Milankovitch Cycles Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation The Milankovitch band Some history of the adoption of the Milankovitch hypothesis (and an alternative) More detail on ... www.scribd.com Research Science - Cached - Similar
Next you'll be knocking them about that Germans at Pearl Harbor line. I say Forget it...they're rolling!
Yeah, and the Milankovitch-alone model doesn’t fit.
Congratulations. You have given the correct answer.
So now both sides of knee-jerks hate you.
If that’s the case I’ll know how Sarah Palin feels.
“We could at least start with determining whether the planet is warming or cooling, irrespective of human influence. Right now the error bar states we do not have enough accuracy to even determine positive or negative anomaly. Which is why I trust the Floridian Manatees more then I trust the NWO Apes.”
Well put. We’ll never know as long as the scientists are playing politics and FOLLOWING THE MONEY.
It said error, not bias. At the risk of oversimplifying, root mean squared (RMS) error is the squareroot of the sum of bias squared plus variances, properly weighted.
It the stations are unbiased, as likely to overestimate as underestimate, or if at least the ensemble of stations is unbiased, and the contributions from the various stations properly weighted, then the measurements (if not the conclusions) are valid. If all you have is this ensemble, you can only measure the bias and variance of the stations with respect to the ensemble, there is no “ground truth” to compare things to.
I believe the concern is that the ensemble has a time dependent creep or bias and no way (or at least effort) to compare it to some form of “ground truth”. It is not at all clear what ground truth even means.
Quite true, but then I despaired of explaining Sunspot Cycles to Keith Olbermann. Not to mention volcanic activity, etc. ad naus.
Then there's the entire CO2 myth to explain, along with "Carbon footprints.' The Left has succeeded where I and many others have failed. That is, they have succeeded in inextricably mixing up "Man-Made Pollution," and "Climate."
From that point of confusion, it is an easy leap for everyone from the kindergarten through Ph. D. levels, from the man-in-the-street to Presidents, to absolutely believe that man can affect global climate and climate changes.
It says only 10% of the Surface Stations used can be trusted to be accurate to within 1 degree C. The other 90% can’t be trusted to even be within 1 degree or more of being accurate yet they use that data and make ‘warming claims’ down to 1/10 of a degree C. That is nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.