#21
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:59:59 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:27:43 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: My favorite was the US Federal Weather station that was placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner. Ummm... like this wx station mounted on top of the HVAC units? http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg It's the weather station for the Santa Cruz sales office for KSBW. I'm told it isn't used for forecasting or data collection. All of your local NOAA stations are up in the mountains -- Ben Lomond, above Los Gatos, La Honda. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation -- Jay Beattie. Do you have that wild-eyed look in your face as you're trying to pass this sort of crap off? EVERY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT contains a Federal weather station. In case you're unaware of it, temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and wind direction are important. Most cities contain weather stations that meet Federal standards and that too is added to the temperature and wind records. Tell me, are you preying that the world is going to end like the environmentalists are doing? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 5:14:19 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:14:20 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 3:35:15 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: When I'm presented with a difficult scientific issue, rather than going to academia or industry, I go to the internet. The BEST experts are bloggers on the internet. It's a huge benefit if they have a YouTube channel, too. -- Jay Beattie. Gee, and here I was thinking you got your facts from Wikipedia. AJ Probably from Usenet. Last year, Phoenix AZ was the winner of the record highest temperature award. Just one problem. The weather station is located on the airport runway and seems to suffer from local heating by the jet exhaust. I scribbled something on the problem last year: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.design/XGaahAB4Wfc/8tM1q47dCQAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.design/XGaahAB4Wfc/VgXp6wsCCgAJ Gone to save the world from broken computahs.... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 Quoting: "Garbage in, climate out. -- Jeff Liebermann" Definitely a "wish I said that!" moment. Andre Jute 60 years in the trenches against the weather catastrophists and other nut cases |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 5:53:02 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 8:14:22 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 3:35:15 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: When I'm presented with a difficult scientific issue, rather than going to academia or industry, I go to the internet. The BEST experts are bloggers on the internet. It's a huge benefit if they have a YouTube channel, too. -- Jay Beattie. Gee, and here I was thinking you got your facts from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no less reliable than JoNova. Holy ****, you don't say. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote: On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote: What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/ Fake news. What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training. Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming. The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science. But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics. Andre Jute Just a pity so many of them are cyclists |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote: On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote: What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/ Fake news. What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training. Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming. The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science. But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics. Andre Jute Just a pity so many of them are cyclists If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree. https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 7:09:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:59:59 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:27:43 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: My favorite was the US Federal Weather station that was placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner. Ummm... like this wx station mounted on top of the HVAC units? http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg It's the weather station for the Santa Cruz sales office for KSBW. I'm told it isn't used for forecasting or data collection. All of your local NOAA stations are up in the mountains -- Ben Lomond, above Los Gatos, La Honda. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation -- Jay Beattie. Do you have that wild-eyed look in your face as you're trying to pass this sort of crap off? EVERY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT contains a Federal weather station. In case you're unaware of it, temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and wind direction are important. Most cities contain weather stations that meet Federal standards and that too is added to the temperature and wind records. Tell me, are you preying that the world is going to end like the environmentalists are doing? Say Tom, did you look at the map? Did you check to see where the NOAA stations are near Jeff? Is there even one word about my post that is factually incorrect? I'll answer for you: no. Why are you so invested in ruining the environment? Is it because you live in a godforsaken **** hole that would be improved by a nuclear bomb-blast? I don't. https://www.oregongravelgrinder.com/...ull-36copy.jpg I suppose we could blow the top off Mt. Hood to see if there is coal inside or just run the sewer outflows right into the Willamette, like the old days. Maybe put a steel mill at Crown Point. https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...t-jon-ares.jpg The economic activity would far outweigh any long term degradation of human quality of life. People would have more money to buy Big Macs and Trans Ams. That's far more important than, say, a mountain or forest -- which by the way, produce plenty of economic activity on their own. Don't get me going about the price of a season pass. http://www.firsttracksonline.com/wp-...smountain1.jpg (BTW, getting down from that spot is no easy feat). Whatever the cause of global warming, I can tell you that summer skiing on Mt. Hood has gone down the toilet. -- Jay Beattie. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:27:43 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: My favorite was the US Federal Weather station that was placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner. Ummm... like this wx station mounted on top of the HVAC units? http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg It's the weather station for the Santa Cruz sales office for KSBW. I'm told it isn't used for forecasting or data collection. All of your local NOAA stations are up in the mountains -- Ben Lomond, above Los Gatos, La Honda. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation -- Jay Beattie. Yep. I've been a weather nut for probably 30+ years. Here's my web page for the local weather links. http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx-fire/SLV%20Weather%20Links.htm Also, a page on fire related sites that needs lots of reformatting: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx-fire/SLV%20Fire%20Links.htm Both are somewhat out of date because both NOAA and USGS are reorganizing their web piles. Real-soon-now. The main weather station is at the CYA camp on top of Ben Lomond mountain. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/site.php?station=BNDC1&network=CA_DCP Looks like they finally posted my photos. Cool. It's a fairly typical RAWS type station. Circa 2013: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx-fire/BDC-Weather-Station-01.jpg http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx-fire/BDC-Weather-Station-02.jpg At this time, it's overgrown with brush, weeds, and ticks. The nearby power station have grown fairly close, creating some heating issues when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. At 2600ft elevation, it gets about twice as much rain as in the nearby valley. It's probably the best functioning wx station in the area. I don't have time to write a complete report on the condition of the local weather stations. In general, they're awful. The station at the Ben Lomond recycling station is under a tree. The station at DelaVega Park is in a golf course, which regularly gets watered. Two others appear on the maps, but do not exist. The air quality monitor in Santa Cruz is located upwind, at the bottom of 3 sided valley, near a freeway, which is guaranteed to concentrate CO2, NO, etc readings. Then, there are the crowd sources weather stations, such Weather Underground, CWOP, etc. http://www.wundermap.com These get their data from home weather stations, which are notoriously and chronically badly sitted. CWOP tries to help by flagging stations that produce bad data, but at the present rate of home stations on the internet, the task is hopeless. This is what a properly sitted home weather stations might look like. See Pg 7: https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/CWOP-Siting.pdf However, it doesn't matter. AGW and climate change research do NOT use weather station data, unless the researcher is a masochist. Weather data is short term and intended to help predict the weather a few days ahead. Climate is all about predicting what will happen years and centuries ahead. While weather and climate have much in common, the data collection methods are very different. For example, weather stations can move around quite a bit without causing much of a panic, while stations dedicated to climate change need to be permanently located in an area where encroachment is unlikely. For example, the USCRN is one such network: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/ For the previous 20 years, I helped maintain several mountain top weather stations, mostly at radio sites. It was an unprofitable giant pain in the posterior, but I certainly learned quite a bit about weather stations, sensors, data collection, tweaking data, and administrative politics. Thanksfully, I no longer do this. I can go on forever on the topic, but I'm busy right now and need to do something else. Later... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 07:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: Quoting: "Garbage in, climate out. Jeff Liebermann" Definitely a "wish I said that!" moment. It's one of my tag lines. I contrived it when I heard about the latest abomination in data reduction. Since none of the climate models of the day came even close to predicting past climate events, it was decided that a better result could be produced by simply combining all these models into one "standard" model. Since all the models were known to have errors, but not necessarily in the same direction, the combination of all these will cancel the errors out, leaving accurate data. My reaction was the "garbage in, climate out" statement in honor of the original "garbage in, garbage out" data processing tag line. I'm told that improved satellite data and proxy data accuracy has reduced the need for such averaging, but I doubt it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/are-more-accurate-climate-change-models-worse/ "...as the models are becoming increasingly realistic, they are also becoming less accurate and predictive because of growing uncertainties." I don't get involved much in climate research, which mostly deals with satellite and proxy data. What little I've done with climate was trashed by researchers refusing to provide raw data or indicate what manner of corrections, normalizing, filtering, etc was done. I gave up. For your amusement, see my graph of rainfall records in the San Lorenzo Valley since 1888: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg It's rather difficult to predict if we were on an increasing or decreasing trend in rainfall. With a odd order polynomial curve extrapolation, I can produce a rainfall increase (black line). With an even order extrapolation, a decrease (green line). A more current and realistic graph is at: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.xls Play with the data averaging curves and notice how easily they can be tweaked. I also tried it with some random numbers, and got the same effect. Andre Jute 60 years in the trenches against the weather catastrophists and other nut cases I keep waiting for my subsidy from the oil companies. Aren't all AGW denialists supported by the oil companies? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Settled Science?
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 10:31:23 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 07:09:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:59:59 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:27:43 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: My favorite was the US Federal Weather station that was placed directly in the exhaust of a building air conditioner. Ummm... like this wx station mounted on top of the HVAC units? http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/KSBW-WX-Station.jpg It's the weather station for the Santa Cruz sales office for KSBW. I'm told it isn't used for forecasting or data collection. All of your local NOAA stations are up in the mountains -- Ben Lomond, above Los Gatos, La Honda. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation -- Jay Beattie. Do you have that wild-eyed look in your face as you're trying to pass this sort of crap off? EVERY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT contains a Federal weather station. In case you're unaware of it, temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and wind direction are important. Most cities contain weather stations that meet Federal standards and that too is added to the temperature and wind records. I can't tell if that's addressed to Jay or me. I'll assume it's for me. The two nearest airports to my house is San Jose (KSJC) about 30 miles away, and Watsonville (KWVI) about 20 miles away. KSJC is on the other side of a 3,000 ft mountain range and has radically different weather than from my house in Ben Lomond. The SJC weather station is located in the middle of the airport, which is the ultimate heat island dues to the heat absorption from the concrete and asphalt: https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KSJC Most of the sensors are also affected by jet wash heating and turbulence. KWVI is much better and is located away from the runways and major heat and turbulence sources: https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KWVI Their primary purpose is to supply current weather data for landing and takeoff and are part of the ASOS/AWOS aviation weather systems. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/weather/asos/?state=CA If you fly, such information is vital. If not, don't bother. Tell me, are you preying that the world is going to end like the environmentalists are doing? Not to worry. All we need to do is start another shooting war and all the concerns and activism on behalf of environmentalism will disappear overnight. I watched it happen to ecology and the protest movement after Kent State. Jeff, that was pertaining to Jay who is so far in over his head that it is unbelievable. He implied that there were some sort of magic weather stations when even the weather stations on top of TV stations feed data into the NOAA database. Now that he knows that you're a weather fanatic perhaps he's come up with some other ridiculous subject to be wrong on. This is surprising to me since most of the lawyers I've ever known were extremely conservative because they see life up close and personal every day. Jay appears to be completely blind. He probably thinks that those lawyers defending Trumps Trollops are doing so because they believe them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reprised: Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by97% of scientists? | [email protected] | Techniques | 7 | December 1st 16 07:26 PM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 3 | November 28th 15 02:54 AM |
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?" | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 7 | November 23rd 15 03:27 AM |
Altoona case settled I guess | GoneBeforeMyTime | Racing | 2 | July 24th 10 08:08 PM |
I've settled on a chain lube | landotter | Techniques | 9 | May 25th 10 11:10 AM |