Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

By 'local water level' were you talking about a specific area? Or everywhere in the world? There are many instrumentation differences, methodology of measurement differences, and so on, if you are talking global. On the other hand, if you were talking about the SF bay area and some specific team and time frame, I think you'd probably get the data.

Here in Portland, we have a NOAA weather office, for example. They do things like read temperatures, monitor rain precipitation, snow precipitation, wind speed and direction, and the usual lot of your basic measurements. Some of the data is intermittent -- snow fall has ceased to be measured, about 10 years ago, and monitoring wasn't begun until perhaps the 1950's. Some of it is continuous, like temperature, going back a ways. However, the locations of the measurement, the type of measuring instrument, the frequency and timing of those measurements, and the calibration methods used have changed over the years. Even though there is some digesting of the data before it makes it into their SF6 preliminary product, it's still not reliable and certainly not usable as a continuous dataset without a lot of specific information to help.

Much of that information isn't even available on the web. Even the more recent data only goes back 5 years -- by policy, after this late Bush took office and had key staff in Washington DC _order_ (I've read the order, personally) the datasets curtailed on the web. They do have data going back further and, upon request, sent me much of it. However, to make use of that data as well as other data that still remained only in paper records, I has to personally visit the office and take days of time going through stacks of old papers and copy out calibration standards and references and methodology.

And that is just one process variable for one site.

So what exactly were you asking for?

Mostly, I wanted to point out the effort required to fuse even just a couple of data sets. My above comments give you even more about it.

By the way, 1.12mm/year represents perhaps (in my opinion) the single largest source of rise, right now, except perhaps thermal expansion. In other words, mountain glacier loss is pronounced and not to be set aside or laughed at. Broadly speaking, it's important and widespread.

Well, the report I cited provides all you need to know. From there, you can realize the assumptions and know at least some of what else may need to be examined further. You know the data sets, broadly speaking, and can track those down (or ask for more details.) You know the results and methods and probably could get very close to replication, if you put in the work he did. What else should have been included?

Depends. If the subject were far, far more complex and the question illustrating much, much further to go in terms of education... you might. I think I definitely would brush them off, because I frankly care about my time, unless they somehow showed me the were serious enough to work hard for their own opinion. If someone is serious and can show it, I usually agree with you. I love it when people want to know things and are willing to put in the sweat to get there. But there are so many people out there who aren't.

And in climate science, it's is _so_ politicized and there is _so_ much money there for those willing to do little other than confuse and waste others' time, that you really _do_ need to be a little careful. Even the late Bush administration actively worked hard to "make this political." I only wish the world were different. But it isn't. Still, many scientists are generous people and a lot of them will give away their time even when the questioners msy only be asking to be annoying and will never do anything with the effort granted them.

Best foot forward is to show you have put in some time, first, and know just a little bit about what they've done and are currently interested in. Just as that would be a best foot forward with you. For example, I know that you look for other than boutique parts and often have a cost/space issue and sometimes deal with controlling RF power levels fewer have to. If I were writing to you for information, it might go just a little further perhaps that I was at least aware of some of your own concerns and could couch my request in a way that presents well.

It's just good practice.

I think you know what I mean, though. They might be asking also for a lot of work on your part in the request. (Presumed here, because when you ask a scientist for 'sea level data' you probably are asking for an hour or two of their time, if for no other reason than to explain to you the caveats of it.)

And yes, taking your point it would be nice if scientists would ask you for more about what you plan to do or what problem you are trying to solve, so they can better advise you even if they don't plan themselves to provide everything. Often, they can refer you to someone else, or a good book on the subject.

Yes, it can. Which stations? How long of a period? Did the instrumentation change? If so, when and when and when? Did the locations change, too? If so, what are the calibration differences? How were they determined and with what precision and variances, based on methods used? What methods were used? Have there also been changes in the land mass, itself, based upon satellite observation or other geologic information that confounds the measurements in the interim? Etc. I'm only just getting started.

Yes, I agree.

Read my above comments. It's not 'that easy,' except to someone who hasn't ever done this. But of course, to those ignorant of the details everything seems 'easy.' Boy did I learn that digging my own foundations and perimeter wall cement forms! Just the very idea of 'digging a level base' seems easy enough to conceive. Until you go there and dig it out. Not the work, but what you find. I found biotic material here going twice as deep as I wanted to dig, in one corner of the area. And NONE of the books told me how to deal with it

-- except to say that the foundation needs to based upon inert ground. So I knew I had a problem. It took me days to work out the answers and remove all of the 'bad' material leaving cavities, develop engineered fill on my own, learn how to tamp it down properly and bring the cavities back up, and move earth around the area to bring a more uniform appearance. Damn! I just wanted a level foundation.

Reality impinges.

Nothing is easy. Especially this stuff.

I think I have every right to control _my_ time. Sometimes, I think the effort is worth it and, since I generally agree with your approach, I often try. But in the end, _I_ decide when and where I am willing. Sometimes, I've got other things going on (like my daughter) that require my time and it's just a bad time that the request comes in. So I brush them off. I usually try and send them somewhere slightly useful and spend _some_ time, even then. But if the number of requests were high, perhaps, and my personal circumstances very demanding at the time... I might not respond at all. If the questioner is serious, they will either write in a few months or else they will find someone else. I don't owe anyone my time, though.

Great.

Show me what you know about getting 'sea level data.' What instrumentation is used, Joerg? Where and over what periods of time? What areas are markedly different in their methods? How have methods changed over time? How are they calibrated? How do you calibrate the differences in means and methods against each other (how do you match up measurements from one method with another, even in the same area?) How have positions of instrumentation changed and why? How does land level changes affect results? Which satellites and instruments aboard are also used in all this? How are they used? What processing is required merely to get a measurement out of satellite based equipment that can be used, in the first place? How long have they been in space? Etc.

What work have you really done, here? Seriously. What puts you in the position of being able to come to your own opinion on any of it?

Where are your callouses? Show me.

Jon

I'm bothered by some of them, too. But you know? The emails I copied out are some megabytes in size and cover _some_ interactions of _some_ people involved. They are a 'random snapshot' of some kind, but also selective by their very nature. I think if the fuller context were out there (all emails by all climate scientists) we'd find more, but still on balance would find serious people working generally hard to do serious and meaningful work, fairly and honestly. There will be exceptions, of course. And some will obviously be less professional and still others will do poor work, as well, that others know about and snipe on about. But I think the _weight_ of it would be something to be proud of.

As I said, though, these are people like you and me.

Jon

I completely disagree with you on this point, Joerg. It shows such naivety that it is shocking to me. I've already talked about, and you admitted, that propaganda works on the bulk of the population. There is no good reason to cooperate in making the job of propagandists easier. Mud simply sticks. That's the end of it. You don't give them more ammo to work with, if you can avoid it.

I'll look later when I get some time. I probably WON'T get enough time to form an opinion about it, though. Too busy over the next few months and I _know_ in advance that it will take me weeks of research to become comprehensively informed, if not months. I even suspect _you_ aren't comprehensively informed on this. So maybe I should wait until you agree with me, jointly, to walk the same walk here and both become _fully_ informed on this issue before I proceed. Why should I waste my precious weeks of life, if you aren't willing?

Jon

Thanks Don. I'd heard there was a decade-long cooling trend, but hadn't checked, not realizing that was controversial.

Hopefully none of that Had-CRUT data came from Phil Jones' outfit. Otherwise we have to worry about stuff like this:

Idiots.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Yes, you would, I think.

I've posted _here_ in this group, perhaps some years back, very specific sources. Others (in particular, Rich), simply ignored them and still kicked sand at me.

At some point, you just stop wasting your time, Joerg. One does have a life. And if others can't even be bothered to act on generously offered time and effort _and_ references to go look for themselves, I'm pretty sure that it becomes _reasonable_ to just stop wasting your breath until the other side shows you they are willing to work.

I've stopped posting here on the subject for that very reason. I have a life, you know? And if others can't be bothered, then neither can I.

It's rational behavior, taken in context.

Jon

It is relevant in showing that even France, despite its advanced use of nuclear power, is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. IOW, ditching carbon ain't all that easy.

I don't think fossil fuels is the right boogeyman. I'm more concerned about mankind and the earth as a whole.

Energy improves peoples' lives. I'd rather Amazonian natives trying to improve their lot burn oil than rainforest, wouldn't you? And since oil is so much more efficient than burning wood, burning oil saves CO2 too, if that matters.

No, I just point to the current anomaly as evidence the models don't reflect reality. Current models, if accurate, would've shown the dip. Extrapolating bad results ad infinitum into the future is just plain wacky.

I do think we should conserve because it's good for the planet, good for the economy, and it plain makes sense on its own merits. Zero technical risk, for the most part, easily and quickly deployed.

I used 166KWHr (9 milliGores) last month. How about you?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Don't remember exactly. IIRC I asked for Asian stations where I couldn't get at the data.

Jon, it doesn't matter anymore :-)

I know it is. But is also has been a few thousand years ago. Back then many people were smarter than today. For example, I read about a French architect who loudly said that building at the place where New Orleans now is was a bad idea. And he gave the reasons. Nobody listened ...

The report you cited is fine. However, since you said glacier melt is the single largest contributor then why are some other estimates so way off? Like this:

No, I was just asking for pointers. Not hours of his time. A pointer, in the sense of your example above, would be suggesting a certain web link or book for further studies. I have done that numerous times when I had the impression the requester was really not of to snuff yet. There have been cases where I thought I'd never hear anything back until half a year later someone thanked me and that he'd now understood how forward power converters really work (using my pointer).

Exactly.

Again, all I wanted was a pointer. Like "If you want to know more about the stations in Taiwan start with this link". That's all.

My comeuppance was when my wife asked for some irrigation "over yonder". I looked, ah, 10 feet tops, I'll do that Saturday. Big deal. Then I hit one rock after the other, big ones where you think the other end of it comes out in China.

No, neither do I. I don't owe but can volunteer it. With a group of scientists working for and paid by our tax Dollars that can be different. There are some where I wouldn't want my tax Dollars to go to but they do anyhow. What can ya do?

Great.

All I did was ask a simple question. True, my only work was reading publications which sort of didn't jibe with their numbers. And I wanted to know or find out why. But let's leave it at that now. It doesn't matter anymore.

After an initial request? Never.

VERY different. I haven't kicked sand at them in my requests. Just politely asked. Just like the guy who asked me about a publication of mine, stating that he didn't understand the math behind it. I swallowed hard and wrote a letter back (no email back then), explaining it. Nowadays I could have sent him a link. He sent me a thank you note back and that he'd shared it with his group, and that now the others also understood. All guys in the first semester ...

True. However, you and I are just regular engineers. When it's someone working on the taxpayer nickel it is slightly different. And that's exactly why I think FOIA is an excellent tool. We needed that.

Maybe. But Bill later said he meant France as an example of independence from fossil fuels. So, a fact check as to the extent that independence was entirely appropriate.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to work for the common good.

I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point.

ian

Funny!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Even just contemplating to skirt the law (by dodging FOIA) is not my understanding of ethical work. But ok, we'll never agree on this one.

powerful.

time.

All I want is that AGW folks take this stuff into consideration. I have looked for this because when I read in one AGW-related article that such glacier conditions have never existed in civilized times I remembered details from history classes, about the Romans, and that just didn't jibe. Sure enough, it didn't.

The CRU in HadCRUT is Climate Reasearch Unit of University of East Anglia. That is one reason why I also showed the least-warming of all 5 major indices of global temperature trend, from Christy and Spencer.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

saw

en

le

The implication was that putting the e-mails in context revealed them to be saying something rather different from what the denialist commentators are claiming. Presumably the actual activites being discussed weren't - in reality - criminal. Ravinghorde will be heart- broken.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yep. And that's essentially what you have when climate guys tweak the zillion factors in their models empirically, until they converge.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

You'd best take good care of yourself then--otherwise we shills might just pull out all the stops and plaster the internet with Exxon- Mobil / Royal-Dutch propaganda in your absence.

So there, that's something to live for! ;-)

-- Best wishes, James Arthur

I understand it well enough. You had a solenoid and bunch of wires and you wanted to play with them.

What I don't understand is why you think that you can get away with claiming that I said anything about a solenoid, when the Google Groups search engine makes it perfectly obvious that I didn't.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

n a

O Lord I dread sussing and fishing that out. Maybe this HOWTO file extract will appease you:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D begin quote =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (from the GISS model) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/climate/GISSmodelE1/modelE1_pub= /doc/HOWTO.html)

A: How to TUNE a specified ocean run (using U00ice/HRMAX)

It is desirable to run a specified ocean model in such a way that it is in RADIATIVE BALANCE, i.e. that the net flux of energy into the ocean (which has no effect, since ocean data are specified) is zero if averaged over a whole year. One way to roughly achieve this goal is to pick the right values for U00ice/U00wtrX/HRMAX. These parameters influence the cloud formation where the temperature is below/above 0C and the cloud formation in the boundary layer respectively, and can therefore be used to change the radiative balance.

Run the model for a year and find the annual mean net heating at the ground (GLOBAL: NET HEAT AT Z0, or OCEAN: NET HEAT Z0+RVR budget pages). That quantity can change from year to year within .5 W/m2. Increasing U00ice by .01 decreases the cloud cover and planetary albedo. Increasing U00wtrX to be larger than 1 reduces cloud cover in the low latitudes. HRMAX can vary between 200 and 1000 m. Increasing HRMAX increases the cloud cover in the boundary layer which has a warming effect. Note HRMAX is only affective if the do_BLU00 option is set (which is not be default). Rerun that year with the new values and hope that the annual mean net heating at the ground averages out to less than .3 W/m2 in absolute value over the next few years.

Other obsolete ways to handle the rad. balance problem: Change the solar constant until rad. balance results (most people hate that way), change the solar irradiance into the ocean when running the Qflux model (using the old SRCOR parameter) offsetting the imbalance (advantage: no need to repeat the control run, disadvantage: Jim hated it, no longer part of the code). =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D begin quote =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Now that's perfectly clear, reasonable documentation on how to tweak factors for clouds, solar irradiance, albedo, and the model's radiative balance into balance--I applaud that, and the public disclosure.

But, so tuned, what is it that we're predicting?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

hat

d how

And here I thought you were going to say GI=3D=3D> GM =3D=3D>"Policy" !

-- Grins, James Arthur