quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
A super computor just produces doubtful speculative unproveable results quicker than...well a computor thats not super !Simple really !

Uh, no. Actually a super computer allows for spatial and temporal resolutions that are increased by orders of magnitude over what you might be able to render on a single processor PC. That's why all these fancy scientists use them, see, and how they get all these peer-reviewed results that all show that we are cooking our nest faster than you can say "fill 'er up".

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

I actually did skim through and read some of the comments, trying to reverse-engineer what your urgent breaking story was, Pollux. It wasn't much help unfortunately. Forgive me though if I don't get exercised about some uncredentialled blogger saying he's pulled the curtain out from in front of the Great Climatology Oz. There are literally hundreds of them on the web, and they are nearly all either making mountains out of molehills or flat-out misrepresenting the science. That's why we have a little thing called "peer review". If you want to read something worthwhile on the subject, go to your public library and thumb throuhg some issues of Nature, Science or even Scientific American (the latter not peer-reviewed but pretty faithful to the current mainstream).

I did click on some links someone supplied there to some strings of temperature offset (atmosphere vs ground) data. I don't know what his point was, whether he was defending or rebuting the blogger, or what the data was supposed to say. Remember that when you are shown a column of numbers out of the blue, without a context, generally it is a poor bet to try to discern much from it. You don't know where it's from, what needed corrections have or haven't been applied yet, or even if it's just one set of data among a larger sample. It is meaningless to try to make something of a blog post like that. Again, read real scientific publications if you desire real information.

When McIntyre's website comes back online I'll be sure & bump the thread

quote:

The latest wrinkle in the global-warming controversy finds the National Aeronautics and Space Administration quietly correcting its historical data to compensate for an earlier error, a correction that should deflate some of the recent panic-mongering about an apparently warming Earth.

   The correction reduced the average temperatures for 2000-2006 in the continental United States by about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (with many stations showing lower readings and many showing readings much above average). That dethroned 1998 as the hottest year on record, a distinction in the NASA data set that now belongs to 1934 (by an insignificant margin over 1998). Several other recent hot years were moved down in the rankings, and the 1930s now account for four of the top 10.

   The number changes don’t greatly affect worldwide averages - but they reveal a disturbing arrogance among scientists in the community of global-warming true believers.

   The data-handling error - the assumption that one set of numbers was identical to another when it was not - was discovered by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, who notified NASA on Aug. 4. NASA almost immediately corrected its Web site, but without any notice of the changes. You can bet that if the correction had shifted the data the other way, there would have been press releases, news conferences and lugubrious music on the TV news. As it was, it was left to the conservative blogosphere to spread the word; the mainstream media ignored the episode.

   That’s not the worst of it. NASA refused to release to McIntyre the computer codes it used to make the correction, though a huge amount of the agency’s other climate codes are online. McIntyre believes there are “real and interesting statistical issues” involved in the records of the observing stations on which NASA relies, issues of whether the proper corrections have been made for the well-known “heat island” effects of urban areas. Most warming believers take it on faith that they have; McIntyre says he knows of too many instances where a thermometer has been placed closer than 100 feet to a paved surface.

   Science is not supposed to work by secrecy. Stonewalling by NASA will only increase the number and fervor of the skeptics.

quote:

speaking of climate modelling
CandF said
We don't even understand a vastly complicated system which we have little historical data on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseff

Can someone point to a good computer model that can tell, with accuracy, what the weather will be like next week?
Joseff