Comments on: Revised Climate Data Released http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/ Jeff Nolan's take on investment, innovation, entrepreneurship and the technology industry Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:27:53 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: geoff goedde http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-157361 geoff goedde Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:15:16 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-157361 Mount St. Helens released more noxious gases in 5 days than all of mankind since 1900. Add in the others (Pinetubo, Krackatoa, Vesuvius, etal.) and humankind has has very little effect. Climate change, perhaps. Man made climate change, unlikely. It's all about taxing US. Mount St. Helens released more noxious gases in 5 days than all of mankind since 1900. Add in the others (Pinetubo, Krackatoa, Vesuvius, etal.) and humankind has has very little effect. Climate change, perhaps. Man made climate change, unlikely. It’s all about taxing US.

]]> By: morgan http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-156642 morgan Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:35:19 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-156642 this is a very big deal. NASA allowed a rudimentary mistake to sit in the data for over 7 years, skewing it and public policy debate. they still refuse to release their temperature averaging algorithms for scrutiny or peer review. this mistake was so glaring it could be found by backing into it. who knows what else is in there. this is VERY heavily massaged data. if the methodology is sound and the results accurate, why not release it? is their interest accuracy or monopoly and quite possibly politics? and this is NASA. imagine what the data from russia, china, africa, and wherever else looks like. this data has never lined up with global satellite data compiled by spencer and christy, which, in spite of several smear campaigns has been validated by NOAA weather balloon data, which shows only a .03 C warming per decade since 1979. GIIS shows more like the .17 put forth by the IPCC. why do we reject the geographically complete, peer reviewed data and accept the data sets calculated in secrecy and in which serious flaws are emerging? laughable. this is a very big deal. NASA allowed a rudimentary mistake to sit in the data for over 7 years, skewing it and public policy debate. they still refuse to release their temperature averaging algorithms for scrutiny or peer review. this mistake was so glaring it could be found by backing into it. who knows what else is in there. this is VERY heavily massaged data. if the methodology is sound and the results accurate, why not release it? is their interest accuracy or monopoly and quite possibly politics?

and this is NASA. imagine what the data from russia, china, africa, and wherever else looks like.

this data has never lined up with global satellite data compiled by spencer and christy, which, in spite of several smear campaigns has been validated by NOAA weather balloon data, which shows only a .03 C warming per decade since 1979. GIIS shows more like the .17 put forth by the IPCC. why do we reject the geographically complete, peer reviewed data and accept the data sets calculated in secrecy and in which serious flaws are emerging? laughable.

]]> By: Jackie Danicki » Time to edit those PowerPoint slides, Mr Gore http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-155292 Jackie Danicki » Time to edit those PowerPoint slides, Mr Gore Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:16:10 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-155292 [...] releases revised climate change data for the US. Posted by Jackie Danicki [...] [...] releases revised climate change data for the US. Posted by Jackie Danicki [...]

]]> By: DealBreaker.com http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-155246 DealBreaker.com Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:03:25 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-155246 <strong>Opening Bell: 8.10.07...</strong> Sponsored by Bloomberg.com European Stocks Slump On Subprime Woes (The Wall Street Journal) There was a small part of us that was almost fearful to turn on the computer and start scanning the headlines this morning. Did the world end...... Opening Bell: 8.10.07…

Sponsored by Bloomberg.com European Stocks Slump On Subprime Woes (The Wall Street Journal) There was a small part of us that was almost fearful to turn on the computer and start scanning the headlines this morning. Did the world end……

]]> By: Jeff http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-155177 Jeff Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:07:32 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-155177 Mark, Yeah, not intentional... I really don't have a dog in this fight. It was my mistake to not point out that this is U.S. data, at least for the GISS database we are talking about. I have to disagree with you about the big deal aspect because this db is highly referred to by the Al Gore types in this debate, and much of it is still a debate (for the broad array of issues related to this). Having said that, I'm glad we can agree that single sourcing data is not a good idea. Mark,
Yeah, not intentional… I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

It was my mistake to not point out that this is U.S. data, at least for the GISS database we are talking about.

I have to disagree with you about the big deal aspect because this db is highly referred to by the Al Gore types in this debate, and much of it is still a debate (for the broad array of issues related to this). Having said that, I’m glad we can agree that single sourcing data is not a good idea.

]]> By: Mark http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/comment-page-1/#comment-155161 Mark Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:16:39 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/08/09/revised-climate-data-released/#comment-155161 You left some context out of your post, hopefully by mistake. If you had quoted the very next line then this news isn't so huge after all. The incorrect numbers are for North America but the overall effect on global temperature change is very very minor. It is still trending upward with an overall increase of about 1 degree C over the past century. That may not sound like so much but calculating the energy required to heat the earths atmosphere, water and surface land by 1 degree shows a different side. However, this news does show us why it is bad to use just one source for information and having all North America temperature trends measured solely by the NOAA is a bad thing. You left some context out of your post, hopefully by mistake. If you had quoted the very next line then this news isn’t so huge after all. The incorrect numbers are for North America but the overall effect on global temperature change is very very minor. It is still trending upward with an overall increase of about 1 degree C over the past century.

That may not sound like so much but calculating the energy required to heat the earths atmosphere, water and surface land by 1 degree shows a different side.

However, this news does show us why it is bad to use just one source for information and having all North America temperature trends measured solely by the NOAA is a bad thing.

]]>