NASA doesn't QA the datasets on which global warming fears are based!

[HAL 9000 96]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Because the CFCs were breaking down. You are answering it in the part in bold. As O3 breaks down to O2, so do the CFCs. Coincidentally, there are plenty of O3 measurements from tropospheric and more importantly, the stratosphere- showing depleted O3 levels. Of course, getting a little better now.

[mawilson 2,133]

Didn't the same "scientists" predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms

and all sorts of natural disasters that were supposed to happen in 2008 as a result of global warming?

What happened? Shitty data? Shitty models? Shitty science?

Edited November 17, 2008 by mawilson

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Because the CFCs were breaking down. You are answering it in the part in bold. As O3 breaks down to O2, so do the CFCs. Coincidentally, there are plenty of O3 measurements from tropospheric and more importantly, the stratosphere- showing depleted O3 levels. Of course, getting a little better now.

You're apparently not familiar with Van-der-Waal's rules of thermodynamics.

Basically, a gas's density will depend on:

• molecular mass
• polarity of the gas

(there is also a third factor, that of hydrogen-bonding--but it plays no part in CFC's)

Even the simplest CFC, which is CH₂ClF is denser than Ozone:

• molecular mass of CFC minimum is 68, while ozone's is 48
• ozone (composed of one element) is nonpolar where all CFC's are polar--which will lead to tighter packing and higher density

Have you ever seen a notice posted on an underground parking-garage disallowing LPG-cylinders (and by extension, LPG-powered cars)? Reason for this is because LPG will SINK in air towards the garage floor--as propane is inflammable, this presents a fire-hazard. Molecular mass of propane is 44, which is less than that of ozone but higher than that of air (29 averaged).

In short, there is no way for R-12 (or any other CFC) to rise in the atmosphere from ground to stratosphere!

Edited November 17, 2008 by CherryXS

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[HAL 9000 96]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Because the CFCs were breaking down. You are answering it in the part in bold. As O3 breaks down to O2, so do the CFCs. Coincidentally, there are plenty of O3 measurements from tropospheric and more importantly, the stratosphere- showing depleted O3 levels. Of course, getting a little better now.

You're apparently not familiar with Van-der-Waal's rules of thermodynamics.

Basically, a gas's density will depend on:

• molecular mass
• polarity of the gas

(there is also a third factor, that of hydrogen-bonding--but it plays no part in CFC's)

Even the simplest CFC, which is CH₂ClF is denser than Ozone:

• molecular mass of CFC minimum is 68, while ozone's is 48
• ozone (composed of one element) is nonpolar where all CFC's are polar--which will lead to tighter packing and higher density

Have you ever seen a notice posted on an underground parking-garage disallowing LPG-cylinders (and by extension, LPG-powered cars)? Reason for this is because LPG will SINK in air towards the garage floor--as propane is inflammable, this presents a fire-hazard. Molecular mass of propane is 44, which is less than that of ozone but higher than that of air (29 averaged).

In short, there is no way for R-12 (or any other CFC) to rise in the atmosphere from ground to stratosphere!

HAL 9000 is quite familiar with molecular chemistry and Van-der-Waal forces that work to keep molecules interacting in more ways that those characterized by Keesom interactions . Molecular collisions are Brownian in nature and whose occurence do not depend, on an atmospheric level, on electrostatic force interactions or on non-dispersive forces.

Molecular mass and molecular polarity are contributing factors to microenvironmental, closed systems. Hence why HAL 9000 can conduct mass spectronomy on a monthly basis and receive reliable results from aerosolized peptides with molecular masses into the kilodaltons- much heavier than simpler gaseous substances that do move through air with dispersive forces alongside the chemical forces that occur when you chemically modify even some non-polar molecues.

Arguing, again, that CFCs cannot rise in the atmosphere is not considering the nature of the atmosphere itself. Why assume the atmosphere cannot itself 'lift' molecules that precipitate into the megadalton mass range? We can, at this time, locate particles with molecular masses FAR heavier than CFCs as high up as the ionosphere.

[NickD 203]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Because the CFCs were breaking down. You are answering it in the part in bold. As O3 breaks down to O2, so do the CFCs. Coincidentally, there are plenty of O3 measurements from tropospheric and more importantly, the stratosphere- showing depleted O3 levels. Of course, getting a little better now.

Says who? Gore for one, in Inconvenient Truth, he stated he fixed ionosphere, but not sure if that was before or after he invented the internet. CFC's were intended as a safe refrigerant, personally did not miss it in my hair spray can, but they are using propane now instead so you better put out your cigarette before spraying. While we have perfectly good biodegradable printed circuit board cleaners in our plant that passed every conceivable test, was forced by the government to give an addition open air spraying with CFC's to honor the contract. Wouldn't miss that either. over 95% of the total CFC production was used in other than refrigeration. So even if there was a problem with CFC's, isn't that enough to eliminate? Couldn't R-12 and R-22 be phased out like leaded gasoline was?

But there never was a problem, carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine are in CFC's, chlorine is never found in nature, and if it does get up there or even stays at ground level, it returns back to nature. And certainly from the ionosphere where the chlorine moleclues are much heavier, they fall, and are replaced by even more O2. And if chlorine and flrorine are used as examples, the fact that billions of tons of this stuff is put into our drinking water is left unmentioned. It is evaporated back into the atmosphere by sewage processing plants and still is. CFC's are biodegradalbe!!!

Suggest you talk to your programmer to get rid of the politics and junk science in your database.

[HAL 9000 96]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Because the CFCs were breaking down. You are answering it in the part in bold. As O3 breaks down to O2, so do the CFCs. Coincidentally, there are plenty of O3 measurements from tropospheric and more importantly, the stratosphere- showing depleted O3 levels. Of course, getting a little better now.

Says who? Gore for one, in Inconvenient Truth, he stated he fixed ionosphere, but not sure if that was before or after he invented the internet. CFC's were intended as a safe refrigerant, personally did not miss it in my hair spray can, but they are using propane now instead so you better put out your cigarette before spraying. While we have perfectly good biodegradable printed circuit board cleaners in our plant that passed every conceivable test, was forced by the government to give an addition open air spraying with CFC's to honor the contract. Wouldn't miss that either. over 95% of the total CFC production was used in other than refrigeration. So even if there was a problem with CFC's, isn't that enough to eliminate? Couldn't R-12 and R-22 be phased out like leaded gasoline was?

But there never was a problem, carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine are in CFC's, chlorine is never found in nature, and if it does get up there or even stays at ground level, it returns back to nature. And certainly from the ionosphere where the chlorine moleclues are much heavier, they fall, and are replaced by even more O2. And if chlorine and flrorine are used as examples, the fact that billions of tons of this stuff is put into our drinking water is left unmentioned. It is evaporated back into the atmosphere by sewage processing plants and still is. CFC's are biodegradalbe!!!

Suggest you talk to your programmer to get rid of the politics and junk science in your database.

Well, maybe you can ask around- I do have enough science training to be able to pick apart science opinion from science 'fact.'

I am not even talking about Gore.

CFCs are what they are. Do realize you answered your own question. I am merely putting the logic where it should be- on the molecular interaction that yields one reason why the CFC is not as detectable as ozone, in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer primarily resides. May I remind you the stratosphere is next up from the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere we breathe in.

Biodegradable means it breaks apart. I wonder why.

And when in liquid solution, chlorinated substances are not divalent chlorine. That would kill water drinkers.

[Pooky 3,929]

So, when even Al Gore's adviser admits he's screwed the pooch more than once, that 1934 was the hottest year on record, and that GISS fudges data and compensates for unscientific monitoring locations, we get images of Hammer House of Horrors villagers out for a lynching. Way to debate the science.

The amount of bad scientific practice coming out of NASA and GISS would condemn most scientific experiments/theories to the dustbin, but not Global Warming. Therefore, it can't be the science driving the bus on this one. Good scientists abhor bad data. They go back and remeasure. they obtain independent validation. They don't fudge, they don't adjust, they don't compensate for incompetence.

So why do the Global Warming proponents stick with data that is being (not so) slowly picked apart as unsupportable?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(Here's the rest of the article I posted from RealClimate)

There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). This compares with an average of about 16 stations each year in the last decade (some earlier years have bigger counts, but none as big as this month, and are much less as a percentage of stations). These other cases seem to be mostly legitimate tropical stations where there isn't much of a seasonal cycle. That makes it a little tricky to automatically scan for this problem, but putting in a check for the total number or percentage is probably sensible going forward.

It's clearly true that the more eyes there are looking, the faster errors get noticed and fixed. The cottage industry that has sprung up to examine the daily sea ice numbers or the monthly analyses of surface and satellite temperatures, has certainly increased the number of eyes and that is generally for the good. Whether it's a discovery of an odd shift in the annual cycle in the UAH MSU-LT data, or this flub in the GHCN data, or the USHCN/GHCN merge issue last year, the extra attention has led to improvements in many products. Nothing of any consequence has changed in terms of our understanding of climate change, but a few more i's have been dotted and t's crossed.

But unlike in other fields of citizen-science (astronomy or phenology spring to mind), the motivation for the temperature observers is heavily weighted towards wanting to find something wrong. As we discussed last year, there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn't been warming, that the sea ice hasn't melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking - and quite telling.

A few examples from the comments at Watt's blog will suffice to give you a flavour of the conspiratorial thinking: "I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.", "could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?", "There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—-PERIOD!!!!!!" (exclamation marks reduced enormously), "these people are blinded by their own bias", "this sort of scientific fraud", "Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying", etc… (To be fair, there were people who made sensible comments as well).

The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive - the GISS press release declaring the October the 'warmest ever'? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent. One clearly sees the relief that finally the grand conspiracy has been rumbled, that the mainstream media will get it's comeuppance, and that surely now, the powers that be will listen to those voices that had been crying in the wilderness.

Alas! none of this will come to pass. In this case, someone's programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of a single month's anomaly. No heads will roll, no congressional investigations will be launched, no politicians (with one possible exception) will take note. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?

In contrast to this molehill, there is an excellent story about how the scientific community really deals with serious mismatches between theory, models and data. That piece concerns the 'ocean cooling' story that was all the rage a year or two ago. An initial analysis of a new data source (the Argo float network) had revealed a dramatic short term cooling of the oceans over only 3 years. The problem was that this didn't match the sea level data, nor theoretical expectations. Nonetheless, the paper was published (somewhat undermining claims that the peer-review system is irretrievably biased) to great acclaim in sections of the blogosphere, and to more muted puzzlement elsewhere. With the community's attention focused on this issue, it wasn't however long before problems turned up in the Argo floats themselves, but also in some of the other measurement devices - particularly XBTs. It took a couple of years for these things to fully work themselves out, but the most recent analyses show far fewer of the artifacts that had plagued the ocean heat content analyses in the past. A classic example in fact, of science moving forward on the back of apparent mismatches. Unfortunately, the resolution ended up favoring the models over the initial data reports, and so the whole story is horribly disappointing to some.

Which brings me to my last point, the role of models. It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring. Even downloading the output (from here or here) is eschewed in favour of firing off Freedom of Information Act requests for data already publicly available - very odd. For another example, despite a few comments about the lack of sufficient comments in the GISS ModelE code (a complaint I also often make), I am unaware of anyone actually independently finding any errors in the publicly available Feb 2004 version (and I know there are a few). Instead, the anti-model crowd focuses on the minor issues that crop up every now and again in real-time data processing hoping that, by proxy, they'll find a problem with the models.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-and-molehills/