I would expect an official NASA site to have it. However it may not be in a form thats easy to winnow out. Most of these arguments are based on statistical models. Most non-statisticians simply accept the output. To know what's being done with the data you have to know the base assumption and how the data has been manipulated, as well as what proxies were used for direct data that you don't have available, (having the Model code is good too, and required for peer review, though with most climate change Models the code is "proprietary" so real statisticians haven't actually reviewed and critiqued them. I read an amazing public statement by one of the major proponents of the "Hockey Stick", that when asked for the code that produced the results, his response was "...you just want to discredit it...", well Duh! Peer review is supposed to find mistakes so they can be corrected. (Though if choose your panel wisely what it really becomes is a rubber stamp). What does he think peer review is for, well obviously look in the parenthesis. The NASA site in question may not have the actual data in anything except a machine readable format. Or it may only have the conclusions. However there were a number of squibs about the data change that made it into the news, (heck it embarrasses the Government so it got published, even if the greater implications of the newly sacred "Global Warming" cow were ignored). Now what bothers me is that NASA should put this data out where anyone can easily access it. After all the US Government, that is "we" pay for it. However they don't exactly keep it secret but they don't make finding it exactly easy either. (and they have in the past blocked certain IP address from downloading this public domain data). Today I have on my desktop a machine with more processing power than the main frame that I learned to program statistical analysis on. Why shouldn't I or anyone else with such equipment and knowledge have the ability to play with these numbers?
keith_w wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Actually CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas. The really strong greenhouse >> gas is water vapor, (partly because there's so much of it in the >> atmosphere). It's just much easier to model CO2 which has much less >> complex interactions. However climate change models based on CO2 >> studies are so flawed as to be useless for prediction. More >> interestingly NASA has been shamed by an amateur Canadian researcher >> into revising it's temperature data for the last 50 years due to an >> incorrect normalization procedure. Not that it gets a lot of publicity, >> (enough that it should be like a nagging low level tooth ache maybe for >> the Global Warming Fans), or gets much credence from the Global Warming >> fanatics, in fact is discounted by some who should know better because >> it doesn't fit their prejudices. Using the newly re-corrected NASA data >> the 10 hottest years on record are no longer in the later half of he >> 20th century, but mostly in in the first half. This was known before >> Former VP Al, got the Nobel Peace Prize, (and you have to wonder, if you >> read the selection criteria for that prize the selection board should >> all be fired), for his movie. The inconvenient truth of which is that >> much of the premise, and supporting evidence was just plain wrong, but >> that never stopped a good story before. If you dig into the model used >> by Discovery you'll probably find it's based on a CO2 model and uses the >> correspondence to the uncorrected NASA data for it's corroboration. >> > > Presumably this site will have the newest data? > > http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html > > keith > > -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
