Hacker Gets the Goods on Global Warming... or something

[Hangshai]

I dont know if anyone watched the interview I posted(besides dr.rat, I think), but an interesting point he makes in there is that the actual OBSERVED data hasnt been collected long enough to know ANYTHING.  Most of the data is based on computer models, and thats what NO ONE is letting anyone look at, i.e. what is used to plug into the equation to get the models.  Last I heard, something like only 20% of the arctic had had ice core readings done, and most of the surface of the earth is water, so a constant measurable 'average ground temp.' is not only a misnomer(unless you consider ocean 'ground'), but not even possible to accurately measure.

But, like i said, Freeman Dyson does a much better job of explaining it than I.

P.S: 2 more interesting snippets of info...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/surface-temperature-record/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/

[Requia ☣]

Last I heard, something like only 20% of the arctic had had ice core readings done,

Um, 20% is a *lot*.  Far more than I would expect really.  You don't need to do the whole thing in order to get an average.  sampling 1 in 10000 is probably enough.

Also, what is with focusing on attacking the IPCC data (the Hockey Stick Graph).  If anything the IPCC data is the one AGW types should be embracing, its the only reconstruction I've seen that supports a non anthropogenic theory (sunspots).

[Hangshai]

Again, arguing with me just to argue.  If you would have READ the article, you would have realized it actually DEFENDS the 'hockey stick graph', but again, you've just shown your incapacity to listen to anyone else and how much of a closed mind you really have.  Here, I have copied the part of the article that is relevant to you.

"The simulations all show that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution from anthropogenic forcing factors, and, in particular, modern greenhouse gas concentration increases. A healthy, vigorous debate can be found in the legitimate peer-reviewed climate research literature with regard to the precise details of empirically and model-based estimates of climate changes in past centuries, and it remains a challenge to reduce the substantial uncertainties that currently exist. Despite current uncertainties, it nonetheless remains a widespread view among paleoclimate researchers that late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth."

Taken from:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/

[rong]

Taken from:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/

hey - can i but in and ask a question?  i will fully admit up front that i did not read this article, but i did look at the graphs (engineering school does that to you).  i'm just wondering if i'm interpreting them correctly: it appears that since they are plots of temperature change (not just temperature) vs time, that, up until very recently, the planet has been getting colder every year.  is this right?

[Reginald Ret]

sounds right. afaik we were heading for an ice age

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Again, arguing with me just to argue.  If you would have READ the article, you would have realized it actually DEFENDS the 'hockey stick graph', but again, you've just shown your incapacity to listen to anyone else and how much of a closed mind you really have.

No.

[Hangshai]

poop.  Why no?

[Iason Ouabache]

I was told that CRU had released 95% of their raw data and that the other 5% they couldn't legally release because it was purchased off of another research center. The deniers were requesting this data to be a nuisance.  I'll try to find my source on that.

[Iason Ouabache]

Found it:

http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/07/the-climategate-fiasco/

What about e-mails about refusing freedom of information (FOI) request for the raw data, and the accusations that the CRU "destroyed" their raw data? Again, very concerning – as a rule raw data should always be preserved, and should be made available for independent analysis. No one can reasonable deny this. But the emerging story is more complex.

For example, Jeff Masters explains that resistance to FOI requests was not an attempt to conceal fraud, but was resistance to harassing trivial requests by amateurs who were putting an undue burden on the data managers. In fact they suspected that some of the requests were meant to distract them from their work and eat up their resources.

What about destroying data? This refers to the fact that the CRU threw out raw data backups in the 1980s (before the scientists responsible for the e-mails) that were on paper and magnetic tape when they moved their facilities. Further, they claim that much of this data is still available from the original sources and not lost at all.

Very good article, btw. Dr. Novella has been a good voice of reason on this.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Thanks Iason!

Any chance you can get your mitts on the paper released by Prof. Qing-Bin Lu on CFC's and Cosmic Rays? Looks like there's a lot of buzz but only from the usual biased sources

http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5152

[Hangshai]

Ok, I think that when people say 'oh the e-mails are taken out of context, trick doesn't mean fixed data...', thats bullshit.  A trick is something like Cantor's proof, not withholding certain data, and changing certain variables to get different results (allegedly picking and choosing samples from a greater number of sites, putting pressure on peers that had opposing viewpoints by not publishing their work in peer reviewed journals, etc).  From the charts I've seen that go farther back and add the medieval warming period, and especially the cooling period that we're in right now, plus, there is also data that shows that even though we are producing MORE co2, the earth is still absorbing the SAME amount, which means the earth is compensating, a little, and also, warming can also occur because of things like lowered volcanic activity, etc, so, you know, there are a lot of factors.  Im not saying that there is no human affected climate change, Im just saying that withholding data and not allowing serious debate on the issue is just plain fucking stupid.  It is an insult to my intelligence for some bureaucratic agency somewhere is deciding whats best for me based on an arbitrary decision making process and that I do not have a right to know any details.

[Cain]

Oh goodie, another internet master of climate change science telling us how the people who have studied this all their lives really should've gone about doing their study.

[Triple Zero]

Personally I think the most important part about the Climate Change is not whether we caused it, or even how we can slow it, but how to deal best with the unavoidable disasters that will occur in a few decennia (years?) whether we slow it or not.

What I heard from the Copenhagen top they didn't give that too much attention though.

Also, assuming that we caused it, do we have any estimate on whether actions to slow it down will have any effect? [Not being skeptic, just honestly want to know]

[Cain]

Copenhagen was always about Obama and Jintao swinging their dicks at each other, before coming up with a compromise to fuck the G77 in the ass.

The scientists seem to be saying we are entering a critical stage, that unless we can halt temperature increases now, then dramatic climate change may become unstoppable.  2 degrees celsius is the number I keep hearing, that we have to keep temperature increases below that.  It is possible, I guess, but it would require massively rejigging the world economy which is, of course, dependent on things like oil and transnational transport.  And, well, we had a chance to do that last year, and we fluffed it, so it aint gonna happen now.  Hell, there had to be a meeting to decide whether or not there was going to be a meeting at Copenhagen, which just shows you how seriously they are taking this (ie; not at all).

I personally already wonder if its not too late, given the difficulties in modelling the data and how long it might take to effect such a reconstruction of energy, manufacturing and so on and so forth.

[Hangshai]

Oh goodie, another internet master of climate change science telling us how the people who have studied this all their lives really should've gone about doing their study.

Cain - Are you just going to talk shit or are you going to do something about it?

Im all ears, if you know I am wrong then by all means enlighten me.