http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html)
QuoteThe director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
Of interest on the topic o Global Climate Change, several emails which appear to indicate that data was manipulated to hide cooling trends and recommendations were made on how to avoid requests for information etc. Here's a bit from an email that has the GL Skeptics in a tizzy:
Quote
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
I have always been in the 'I dunno' category on this since I'm not a climate scientist. However, not poisoning your own environment seems to be a no-brainer to me, just from a survival standpoint.
I'm making no claim as to the validity of the data or the interpretation its currently being given... just posting it because it's interesting.
so the director of a climate research group in Britain is influencing the hundreds of peer reviewed journals (where of course anyone could replicate and look at the same data as the scientists who wrote the journal and draw their own conclusions) in a vast conspiracy according to an internet leek
ya something doesn't smell right here
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 20, 2009, 10:51:38 PM
so the director of a climate research group in Britain is influencing the hundreds of peer reviewed journals (where of course anyone could replicate and look at the same data as the scientists who wrote the journal and draw their own conclusions) in a vast conspiracy according to an internet leek
yay something doesn't smell right here
Hey, if the Illuminati is capable of secretly running the planet... :lulz:
This comment has it right
QuoteThis is sounding more and more ridiculous. Jones "hasn't talked to the police", but for some reason gave an exclusive interview to a web site known for its hostility to climate science.
Is there any evidence their site was hacked into at all? Isn't it more likely the files are just files already released under an FOI request?
And how were they ever on RealClimate's site? I didn't see them.
Even if the files are real, how do we know they haven't been doctored? Some original extracts sounded plausible. Now they're sounding as if they were concocted to confirm familiar right-wing talking-points.
You would have to be crazy to base any conclusions on this information.
and considering that site spends most of its time trying to advertise Ian Wishart book (which is bad by the way)
The best advice I could give is that if your reading something that is giving you a yes or no answer it's probably not that reliable. Because the data is very ambiguous (at least it is in Geology Magazine) As it should be. Climate is incredibly complicated. There's hundreds of factors determining temperature. It would by like trying to maintain a constant temperature in your home with a hundred different furnaces, all in flux.
So when I hear Al Gore, or something that sounds like conspiracy, or anecdotal evidence (like there's lots of polar bears where I live) I usually become very skeptical of the claims.
I will guarantee though that this will circle through the internet like a virus.
Also I will say if it is a conspiracy its a really poor one. Cause as I said in Geology magazine at least the data is very ambiguous, and can be interpreted several ways.
Unfortunately the debate though is almost no longer a scientific one, but a social one.
I wondered about the veracity of the information too, on a quick skimming, but hadn't gone back over it in enough depth to make a decision.
It seems there are multiple points where false information could have been introduced, and no independent verification of the particular claims. So...
you can do text searches of the emails at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/ (they did xxxx out the addresses though, but afaik they can be found in the original data, available from several torrents)
however, what I wonder about most is why these exact 1073 emails? they range from 1996 till current day so I really doubt this is more than just a small part of the total email exchanges that could have been found at that server.
could have been they just did a quick keyword scan of mails that were at all related to the research, as 90% might have been personal communication.
however I wouldnt rule out the selection is rather biased.
I'll trust climatologists over some "hacker" any day.
What I don't understand is if these people wanna take a political position and deny global warming why don't they just drop 20 bucks and get a subscription to Geology Magazine or Lithosphere and just go through the actual data, cause like I said for every article in which the data seems to support global warming in the popular sense there is one that seems to challenge some aspect of it. I can't vouch for Nature or what ever climatologists read.
If these people are going to be nit picky, then why don't they just be nit picky with the actual data rather then this conspiratorial crap?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ also has an explanation of what "nature trick" might mean (but they also might be saying the same thing as you, Thurnez, I didnt quite understand).
Quote from: Kai on November 21, 2009, 04:27:54 PM
I'll trust climatologists over some "hacker" any day.
Sorry but I think that's a really bad reason to discount this information. I agree this information doesn't point out some big global warming eco hippie conspiracy, but I will conclude that from the fact that the information doesn't actually show any super-shady stuff is going on, not because climatologists are somehow inherently more trustworthy than hackers.
even though they might be.
but they are monkeys too.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 21, 2009, 05:44:28 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ also has an explanation of what "nature trick" might mean (but they also might be saying the same thing as you, Thurnez, I didnt quite understand).
Quote from: Kai on November 21, 2009, 04:27:54 PM
I'll trust climatologists over some "hacker" any day.
Sorry but I think that's a really bad reason to discount this information. I agree this information doesn't point out some big global warming eco hippie conspiracy, but I will conclude that from the fact that the information doesn't actually show any super-shady stuff is going on, not because climatologists are somehow inherently more trustworthy than hackers.
even though they might be.
but they are monkeys too.
Maybe its because climatologists are scientists that study climate. Since when can you just sit down and UNDERSTAND climate? I'm guessing this hacker hasn't gone through 8 years of schooling to understand, so why should I trust a damn thing he says?
There is way too much armchair "science" going on these days. Every schmuck thinks they can sit down with a data set and wikipedia and deem themselves an expert. All part and parcel of politicization of science, I guess.
I really wish we had a climatologist on board to talk with about this stuff.
Quote from: Kai on November 21, 2009, 05:55:17 PM
Maybe its because climatologists are scientists that study climate. Since when can you just sit down and UNDERSTAND climate? I'm guessing this hacker hasn't gone through 8 years of schooling to understand, so why should I trust a damn thing he says?
There is way too much armchair "science" going on these days. Every schmuck thinks they can sit down with a data set and wikipedia and deem themselves an expert. All part and parcel of politicization of science, I guess.
but the hacker is not saying anything. he just put the data out there.
in fact, I haven't seen anywhere who this hacker is or how they did it.
but I think I get you now, I suppose you were trying to say that you trust the climatologists more than the people on all the blogs drawing conclusions from whatever they think they can distill from that leaked data. And with that, I would agree.
Unless they do have schooling on climatology, which some of them do btw, but then, they are also the people that are skeptical about the whole thing supposedly exposing a big scandal.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 21, 2009, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 21, 2009, 05:55:17 PM
Maybe its because climatologists are scientists that study climate. Since when can you just sit down and UNDERSTAND climate? I'm guessing this hacker hasn't gone through 8 years of schooling to understand, so why should I trust a damn thing he says?
There is way too much armchair "science" going on these days. Every schmuck thinks they can sit down with a data set and wikipedia and deem themselves an expert. All part and parcel of politicization of science, I guess.
but the hacker is not saying anything. he just put the data out there.
in fact, I haven't seen anywhere who this hacker is or how they did it.
but I think I get you now, I suppose you were trying to say that you trust the climatologists more than the people on all the blogs drawing conclusions from whatever they think they can distill from that leaked data. And with that, I would agree.
Unless they do have schooling on climatology, which some of them do btw, but then, they are also the people that are skeptical about the whole thing supposedly exposing a big scandal.
You got it.
I was confusing the hacker with the people on that website drawing conclusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlyorcJ28UA
A TED talk relevant to this thread.
So something keeps bothering me with this...
When I learned about the Scientific Method the value of a theory was specifically around Predictive Power. IE, the model says "IF X then Y" and we see X then Y and say "Oh, good theory!" Thus far, it seems to me that a lot of the support for the Climate Change thing is based on "consensus" between Scientists rather than its predictive power. Now it may be due to the nature of news reports vs. being neck deep in the actual scientific papers... but there seem to be a lot of reports that appear as "NASA Satellites Detect Unexpected Ice Loss in East Antarctica" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125230727.htm
Earlier models predicted steady increases in the temperatures, but we appear to be experiencing bizarre fluctuations instead (no one predicted the 1998-2008 flatline etc).
Now, on top of that, I'm reading through these emails and the notes from software developers and the whole thing strikes me as weird. One developer eventually recommended throwing a whole database of recorded temps out because they couldn't get the numbers to match earlier reports on the same numbers.
I am not claiming its a hoax or the real deal or anything else. I have a friend that has been to the Antarctic 6 times over seven years, spending months there... he seems to think that the place is warming up based on his direct experiences there. I have no reason to doubt him.
Unlike the deniers, I'm not worried that there's nothing wrong and Scientists are making it up in order to take over the world... mostly I'm concerned that they're pretending to know what's going on and keep holding out the "We're not fucked yet" plan, when maybe we should be moving on to the "We are fucked now" plan.
QuoteThe fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Shouldn't scientists say this sort of stuff publicly? The data are surely wrong? I mean, that may be out of context, but I have yet to imagine a context where it isn't uhhh... something a scientist should say.
ESR pointed out a bit in the stolen code which is also disturbing:
Quote;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Quote from: esr
It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.
Making assumptions and artificial corrections may be fine for trying to develop a model... but this code was being written BASED on an existing model.
If the model says X and the data disagrees... what kind of science manipulates the data?
Since I'm not an expert on scientific methods or climate change, I could be completely misreading this stuff... maybe the models being supplied are correctly predicting everything and I just misunderstand. Maybe there's a valid reason to throw out data that doesn't match expectations... or maybe thats not what's actually being done, I dunno.
However, it does appear to me, based on my current mixed level of knowledge and ignorance on the subject, that some rather unsciency stuff is going on at least among these few individuals at IPCC.
Ill reread your post again soon
Im sort of busy so i only scanned it
...so if i get something wrong please forgive me
As with Antarctica, it is warming up, the question is why? hole in the ozone layer, global temperatures (which tends to effect the poles worse) the movement of the continent, ect? There is no accepted theory that I know of. The best explanation seems to be global climate change, but it's only an explanation not a theory - there is a difference in a scientific sense.
The weirdness comes from up north where Greenland is warming up and the ice is melting but the western coast of the arctic is not warming up and the glaciers are advancing. What accounts for this?
Scientist do say these things all the time, the media tends not to report on that, or they tend to spin it as a yes or no answer. Basically the media hate ambiguity and tries to interpret what the scientist is saying rather then what evidence he is trying interpret. There is a distinction. From what I read on the emails I would say this accounts for a lot of what is being reported.
I'm basically just summarizing a report I just handed in on a separate issue
That's kind of weird.
Either way I hope that answers some things...
My opinion is as data is collected we should probably try to act as if it's us screwing everything up. Sort of a best to be safe then sorry kind of attitude, since even if the worse case scenario is only partly right we could really fuck some stuff up.
BTW haven't fully read and looked into the second part of your post so have no opinion on it
EDIT: though I will say I have seen graphs of all sorts, some with with the hockey stick, some that are more ambiguous. The best ones tend to be generated from ice core sampling, since ice core sampling tends to go pretty far back and they tend to go down then back up. The questions comes from when they go back up how fast are they going back up?
Thats hard to interpret since they also tend to be very bumpy and hard to interpret.
So questions about fudging graphs tend not to mean much to me since I've seen graphs that are contradictory. I do find it weird that the public tends to see only graphs that confirm what they already believe, but you could say that about almost all 21'st Century issues. Sign of the times.
Also I want to say I'm not in Environmental Earth Sciences, only Earth Science, so what happens on the surface of the earth or in the atmosphere doesn't interest me as much as what what happens beneath the surface. So take that into account.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=sub
...Twice is coincidence?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/
QuoteBurglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the "Climategate" intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks: Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.
There are lots of vested interests in seeing the status quo on emissions and regulations maintained. Am I paranoid for thinking this is part of a more concerted campaign to discredit climate change experts in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference next month?
No, I don't think you're paranoid. I certainly see it as pre-meditated.
Quote from: Cain on December 09, 2009, 08:15:16 PM
...Twice is coincidence?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/
QuoteBurglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the "Climategate" intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks: Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.
There are lots of vested interests in seeing the status quo on emissions and regulations maintained. Am I paranoid for thinking this is part of a more concerted campaign to discredit climate change experts in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference next month?
I think that is entirely possible.
There do appear to be some cranky bits within that pile of stolen data... but it certainly doesn't appear to take out AGW (it does though appear to indicate that even scientists are imperfect... I for one am shocked!).
On the other hand, speaking from my personal experiences... I see a number of possible reasons for this:
1) Coordinated attacks by 'vested interests' in the status quo.
2) Coordinated attacks by hacktivists... because lots of hackers are libertarian and disbelieve AGW, considering it 'junk science'.
3) Copycat hackers aiming to capitalize on Climategate.
All those do seem possible.
I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".
Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle. Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.
once again, the question to ask is, CUI BONO?
Quote from: Cain on December 09, 2009, 08:25:17 PM
All those do seem possible.
I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".
Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle. Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.
I was thinking along the lines of industry/political operatives, but visiting Eric Raymond's site makes me wonder about the second option...
ESR, for those who don't know, is an old 'hacker' in the 'wrote cool code' sense. He became a sort of cult personality in the Open Source movement after the Jargon File/New Hacker Dictionary (my first brush with Eris) and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" an essay on the Open Source development model as applied to corporate code. He got to preach to lots of company heads and CXO's and made a big push around '00-01'
Anyway, he's very anti-AGW because he thinks its junk science (and it a typical libertarian hacker in his views on government). His blog has a lot of geeks who agree.
Of course, I suppose a group like that would be Useful Idiots for people with a vested interest in the status quo...
Quote from: Cain on December 09, 2009, 08:25:17 PM
All those do seem possible.
I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".
Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle. Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.
or they're on to the fact it's not the British scientists but us evil Canadian's behind the climate change conspiracy...
:scared:
substantially if there ever was a Canadian conspiracy it would be one of those conspiracy's that just makes the rest of the world go, "aww that is sooo cute."
best thing coming from this is I recently discovered a ton of global warming denialists on youtube. Now Im far from Al Gore but these people are completely unreasonable. Also I found out through comments and watching other videos many of them tend to be anti-vaccine nuts and libertarians. Not all of course just the ones I conversed with. Which goes into what Rat was saying.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 27, 2009, 08:58:50 PM
ESR pointed out a bit in the stolen code which is also disturbing:
Quote;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Quote from: esr
It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.
That code was never part of the final model.
Popular Mechanics did a piece on this. And to be honest I think they were the most fair, and probably the best I read on the leaks. In my opinion on these conspiracy stories they tend to be the best
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1
Saudi Arabia is using climategate to advance its own position at Copenhagen:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html
QuoteSaudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into "climategate" Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.
"We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the 'climategate' scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations," the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.
Now why would the world's biggest oil producer want to do that?
Edit: it has been alleged that Russia was behind the original hack
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.
QuoteThe news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.
The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.
The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide "unhelpful" research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.
The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices, deeming them "an expression of their position as citizens, and one worthy of respect". The Kremlin has also been accused of running co-ordinated cyber attacks against websites in neighbouring countries such as Estonia, with which the Kremlin has frosty relations, although the allegations were never proved.
"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services," Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. "It's a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random. This is 13 years of data, and it's not a job of amateurs."
Now why would one of the world's biggest oil producers want to do that?
So this is what Ive found. I have been opening random e-mails and reading them.. Some are boring, talking about grant proposals and stuff, others a little more interesting. I personally think from what Ive been reading that the climate changes have more to do with the Sun and its activity (sun spots, magnetic field, etc), than anything a measly ole human could do(or a bunch of em). Anyway, I thought I would copy a more interesting email I found, since the only ones that have been quoted in MSM (if at all, not word one on American media yet. Thank god(dess?) for the Guardian, at least) have been pretty vague. I have truncated this message, but the complete one actually explains how this guy fudges the data (the method he uses and a bunch of technical jargon). Just wanted to add an excerpt I thought was a little more revealing. Of what Im not sure. Maybe these guys spent 20 years doing this and just wanted to keep the research money coming. Maybe they really want to 'save the world', and found the only way they could get people behind them is by altering data and perceptions about the seriousness of it all.. All it seems to be indicative of is the major underlying theme of lies and deceit that seems to envelop every facet of our lives these days. In case you were wondering I didnt spell check the email, just copied it over.
Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise. Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data. Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue Nov 4 09:42:07 1997
Tom
please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff.... been reworking the idea of looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read biomass) uptake of carbon. The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they demonstrate major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent... Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the
start of a density decline - we have a paper coming out in Nature documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from temperature forcing. I have been agonising for months that these results are not some statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can't see how. For just two species...we can push the method far enough to get an indication of much longer term growth changes but whether this incorporates a defensible relative waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years - and beyond! Without these implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is mega important. There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant vegetation changes - at least as regards well-dated continous trends.
I wouldn't put much weight in tree rings. Trees tend to grow locally and growth can be affected from simple pollutants in the air, and there's a study, which i could find later today (exam time so Im low on interweb time) which shows that when temperatures get over a certain amount growth in certain trees actually starts to decrease.
I think for paleoclimatology the most reliable data is ice core samples. The poles tend to take the brunt of temperature changes and you could compare north to sout, rather then trying to get thousands of specs of data from different continents, which all have climates and are effected differently from different climate fluctuations.
also
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
QuoteABSTRACT:
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
I don't have a subscription to Nature... but I have subscriptions and access to online catalogues of Geology, Lithosphere, Geological Society of America and Geosphere if anyone wants me to look something up Im willing to do a search...
To be honest I usually skip over all the stuff on climate, cause I'm not interested in it, unless it has to do with the Mesozoic era, lol.
But if it's an interest to people here I could read and post the abstracts of any related article I come across (my subs come in once a month).....
also (cough cough) I'd be posting them from the PDF's (they come in electronically) if you guys ketch my drift
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 10, 2009, 06:30:01 PM
To be honest I usually skip over all the stuff on climate, cause I'm not interested in it, unless it has to do with the Mesozoic era, lol.
But if it's an interest to people here I could read and post the abstracts of any related article I come across (my subs come in once a month).....
also (cough cough) I'd be posting them from the PDF's (they come in electronically) if you guys ketch my drift
Sounds awesome... I would really like to read what research is being done, rather than the media's buzzword/soundbite versions ;-)
new article I found. Not really hacked emails, but, there is so much of this shit out there now, I just thought this was a different angle I hadn't heard yet.. Really though who fucking cares. Earth has been frozen over a bunch of times and its probably going to happen again. so fucking what, good riddance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor.html
The cooling prediction is based on the Milankovitch Cycle, which has to do with the earth's orbit and axial tile. According to that we should have been in a period of cooling for some time now. There is some argument that it will overcome global warming and end the interglacial period hundreds of years from now, but its failed to be dominant so far.
It's actually important to note, since it means the warming trend of the last couple hundred years has been occurring *despite* the fact that we should be cooling according to astronomical effects.
The sunspot stuff is interesting. Especially since it specifies that sunspots have only been peaked for the last 70 years, which means it can't be used to explain a warming trend for the last 250 years.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2009, 10:07:26 AM
Saudi Arabia is using climategate to advance its own position at Copenhagen:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html
QuoteSaudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into "climategate" Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.
"We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the 'climategate' scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations," the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.
Now why would the world's biggest oil producer want to do that?
Edit: it has been alleged that Russia was behind the original hack
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.
QuoteThe news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.
The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.
The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide "unhelpful" research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.
The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices, deeming them "an expression of their position as citizens, and one worthy of respect". The Kremlin has also been accused of running co-ordinated cyber attacks against websites in neighbouring countries such as Estonia, with which the Kremlin has frosty relations, although the allegations were never proved.
"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services," Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. "It's a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random. This is 13 years of data, and it's not a job of amateurs."
Now why would one of the world's biggest oil producers want to do that?
It seems Peter Sinclair agrees with you and makes some predictions on what is coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AyjLTaP0i0&feature=sub
Take into account thought that Sinclair is in the Al Gore camp, and a bit of an asshole. But he does do his research and is generally pretty reliable.
It seems to me that the whole concept of global warming is made up of hundreds of variables, each pushing the sum of the data in a certain way.
In a way, you can think about it like a sound wave. One set of data looks like this:
(http://www.sprags.com/images/mainpower_sine_wave.jpg)
But when added to another set of data, it looks like this:
(http://bodmas.org/blog/images/PhaseAngleDemo.gif)
(the yellow line is the sum of the red and the blue lines)
And when you add a bunch of them together, it starts looking like this:
(http://setterfield.org/ZPE-Plasma_model_clip_image001_0001.gif)
(note the red line doesn't look much like either the green or the blue lines)
And when you get hundreds of data sets, you get this:
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/images/batsig.gif)
Notice that while it looks like a jagged mess, there are two rough peaks, one being slightly higher than the other.
What seems to be happening is that the email articles in question concern one data set out of hundreds; the equivalent of discussing the data that caused the 23rd point from the left in the last graph above. Even if the values that caused that point are not 100% precise, you are still left with the overall shape of the sound wave, i.e. two rough peaks.
That is to say, the concept of global warming is sound, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it is partially man-made. However, since the amount of variables are so large, there is very little possibility of saying, "Humans cause 74.8976% of global warming."
found a good video on global warming. I wanted to share it with you since we were discussing it earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&NR=1
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 02:04:20 PM
It seems to me that the whole concept of global warming is made up of hundreds of variables, each pushing the sum of the data in a certain way.
In a way, you can think about it like a sound wave. One set of data looks like this:
(http://www.sprags.com/images/mainpower_sine_wave.jpg)
But when added to another set of data, it looks like this:
(http://bodmas.org/blog/images/PhaseAngleDemo.gif)
(the yellow line is the sum of the red and the blue lines)
And when you add a bunch of them together, it starts looking like this:
(http://setterfield.org/ZPE-Plasma_model_clip_image001_0001.gif)
(note the red line doesn't look much like either the green or the blue lines)
And when you get hundreds of data sets, you get this:
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/images/batsig.gif)
Notice that while it looks like a jagged mess, there are two rough peaks, one being slightly higher than the other.
What seems to be happening is that the email articles in question concern one data set out of hundreds; the equivalent of discussing the data that caused the 23rd point from the left in the last graph above. Even if the values that caused that point are not 100% precise, you are still left with the overall shape of the sound wave, i.e. two rough peaks.
That is to say, the concept of global warming is sound, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it is partially man-made. However, since the amount of variables are so large, there is very little possibility of saying, "Humans cause 74.8976% of global warming."
The other bit is that if you don't know what half the variables are and you don't know how much weight to give to the ones that you *can* measure, you can't reliably predict much.
Of course, normal consumers of news media don't want to think about this stuff. Instead, we get something dumbed down: carbon dioxide causes global warming, methane causes global warming, warm baths cause global warming, global warming is natural. Usually phrased as an either-or, not an and-also, causing people to fiddle with some of the variables that are known and ignore the rest. This is the kind of logic that makes people think Priuses are good for the environment (actually, they are worse than some modern non-hybrid cars one you take into account battery disposal and such).
I am still stunned that any scientific community is OK with not releasing the raw data with all scientific studies/papers etc. If the reason we can 'trust' science over religion is because we can repeat experiments etc... then without the raw data and public disclosure of details, what are we trusting? At the very least, even if the data isn't incorrect, the behaviors of the humans involved seems rather non-sciency to me...
Secret Raw Data that you have to sign contracts to see or use (and you get blackballed if you disagree)... I wonder if it involves Theatens and Volcanos?
:lulz:
Rat, while I admire your idealism, just look at what the wingnuts did with the emails: took one sentence out of context, and used it as "solid evidence" that ALL scientists are lying about climate change.
You give a campaign manager a bunch of conflicting data and an agenda, and they'll have a dozen attack ads on the TV by Tuesday.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:16:38 PM
Rat, while I admire your idealism, just look at what the wingnuts did with the emails: took one sentence out of context, and used it as "solid evidence" that ALL scientists are lying about climate change.
You give a campaign manager a bunch of conflicting data and an agenda, and they'll have a dozen attack ads on the TV by Tuesday.
Ok... but thats kinda the same thing the Scientologists say "Well, they take Xenu out of context..."
Is this science in pursuit of truth or science in pursuit of convincing everyone else that they're right?
For fucks sake, since people started using science to better understand the world, good scientists have buggered up data and come to wrong conclusions... its through open peer review that buggered up data can be fixed. If there isn't open peer review and if the people that disagree are blackballed... that doesn't sound like science to me...
And its not just this... how much other scientific work is being done today and locked behind contracts and Intellectual Property? Why the hell should we 'trust' any of it to be any more reliable than "Bob's Guide to the Afterlife" (He has video of ghosts and absolute evidence of Gozer returning soon. That's all Intellectual Property though and you aren't allowed to see it.)
If thats how 'science' is gonna be done, fine... but in that case, we just need to label it as another belief system, where the lay people believe the clergy... cause only the clergy can read the language...
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?
I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:45:10 PM
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?
I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."
If one of the main values of science is "anyone can repeat the experiment" so that we can rule out confirmation bias or error... what does science become if that's no longer true? How does this not turn science into a belief system?
"You're not capable of understanding this data on your own, I'll interpret it for you and tell you what it means..."
Maybe the interpretation is true... but for most people it would still be belief... accepting what someone else tells you with no way to check for yourself.
(Again, not being a AGW denier... trying to focus on the larger question here)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:16:38 PM
Rat, while I admire your idealism, just look at what the wingnuts did with the emails: took one sentence out of context, and used it as "solid evidence" that ALL scientists are lying about climate change.
You give a campaign manager a bunch of conflicting data and an agenda, and they'll have a dozen attack ads on the TV by Tuesday.
Ok... but thats kinda the same thing the Scientologists say "Well, they take Xenu out of context..."
Is this science in pursuit of truth or science in pursuit of convincing everyone else that they're right?
For fucks sake, since people started using science to better understand the world, good scientists have buggered up data and come to wrong conclusions... its through open peer review that buggered up data can be fixed. If there isn't open peer review and if the people that disagree are blackballed... that doesn't sound like science to me...
And its not just this... how much other scientific work is being done today and locked behind contracts and Intellectual Property? Why the hell should we 'trust' any of it to be any more reliable than "Bob's Guide to the Afterlife" (He has video of ghosts and absolute evidence of Gozer returning soon. That's all Intellectual Property though and you aren't allowed to see it.)
If thats how 'science' is gonna be done, fine... but in that case, we just need to label it as another belief system, where the lay people believe the clergy... cause only the clergy can read the language...
I agree with both your points here. The raw data should be available. The thing is, people who don't understand it and have an agenda will misuse it, take it out of context, etc. Global warming is no longer just a part of science: it's mostly become politics, and not releasing things that will be easy for your opponents to use against you (regardless of context) is simply realpolitik. It may be completely legitimate to say something, but still be off message -- and it's a good idea not to say things that are off message because the laypeople will take it out of context (like what happened with the creationists and the term "theory").
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:45:10 PM
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?
I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."
If one of the main values of science is "anyone can repeat the experiment" so that we can rule out confirmation bias or error... what does science become if that's no longer true? How does this not turn science into a belief system?
"You're not capable of understanding this data on your own, I'll interpret it for you and tell you what it means..."
Maybe the interpretation is true... but for most people it would still be belief... accepting what someone else tells you with no way to check for yourself.
(Again, not being a AGW denier... trying to focus on the larger question here)
It may be a good idea to let the raw data out, do the real interpretations for particular audiences (wikipedia and peer-reviewed science journals), and put the dumbed-down on-message ones into mass-dissemination general-audience media. Only people who are trained can probably make heads or tails of the data anyway.
So when the message and realpolitik becomes more important than the data and the method... what value can we place on the claim?
Most of us know about confirmation bias, most of us seem to agree that beliefs can modify perceptions... and yet, we're saying that the Scientists here are so concerned that the MESSAGE may be manipulated they're not willing to share the data. That means they must BELIEVE the message. If they BELIEVE the message, how can we trust their perception without open access for others to repeat their experiments? If the BELIEVE the message, why should I trust their motivations for blackballing scientists that disagreed?
If they BELIEVE their message, should I simply the people that say "I'd rather destroy the data than hand it over"?
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to extract belief and bias... the only reason that science can provide us with better models than religion is because the models don't have a amorphous blob that says "GOD DID IT". Simply changing the name of the blob to "You Can't Grok This" is not any better, is it?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."
True. And now that the bible is available in dozens of translations,
plus in the original coptic, aramaic, and hebrew,
plus the gnostic gospels...
...the majority of Christians
still believe it says whatever the Church tells them it says.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:09:09 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."
True. And now that the bible is available in dozens of translations, plus in the original coptic, aramaic, and hebrew, plus the gnostic gospels...
...the majority of Christians still believe it says whatever the Church tells them it says.
And the same is true of science, I mean most of us don't go out and perform experiments to test the validity of claims... BUT WE COULD.
Even though most people don't read the Bible and examine it honestly... its there if people want to. It was there when I did my research and got out of the crazy bullshit belief system I had. Its what my Dad has been using which has led him to recently decide "hey, I don't think all of this is supposed to be literal... maybe this belief system is incorrect." (That was an awesome conversation!)
It's only BECAUSE the data is available that we were able to compare and contrast the Official Word and the actual book.
If controlling the message is more important than open, repeatable experiments, fine... but that doesn't sound like something I would put much trust in.
Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.
But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."
Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it. Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?
*or something similar.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:45:10 PM
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?
I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.
I have to agree with this. Data is a double-edged sword, especially when you have lots of data on any particular subject area. I think it's important for actual scientists and researchers to have access to all available data, because they know what to do with the data. They know how to put data together. They understand how one data set relates to another data set. Joe Schmoe sitting on his couch watching American Idol simply does not have the mental faculties to process that data and gleem a proper meaning from it.
I'd say about 70% of my job involves data. I have to constantly assess what data I'm going to share in any particular situation based upon the audience. While I want to educate parents on the dangers of substance abuse, throwing a glut of data from SAMHSA does me no good. It is too much for them. It is my job, as the professional social scientist, to package the data in a way that is digestible by the general public. And the data around substance abuse is by miles, easier to comprehend than global warming data. Fuck, when I see that stuff I start scratching my head. And I fancy myself a pretty intelligent guy (not to get too DK on everybody).
And LMNO's right. When the public gets their mitts on this stuff, politics gets involved, and when (more) politics gets involved in scientific research, the process becomes tainted.
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.
But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."
Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it. Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?
*or something similar.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be talking about it ;-)
"We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." - CRU
Of course, this is interesting because they have also stated that they have the data... in one emaail Mr. Jones said "I would rather destroy the Raw Data than let them have it" (discussing FOIA).
The "Harry Read Me" file, however shows the poor developer trying desperately to use 'raw data' to rerun the models... but he can't for multiple reasons... including the models giving him different answers that the published ones. Is this fraud? is it bad code? Is it bad input data? Who the hell knows?
It's just crazy... not the AGW claim*... just er 'science' with obfuscated data and scientists that would rather destroy data than share it... it seems absurd to me.
* As stated before, a close friend of mine spent the past 6 years doing a science geek Tour of Duty in Antarctica: http://penguincentral.com/
His direct observations seem to support the idea that things are warming up. I find that helps me push climate change well into the "likely" position... but that doesn't excuse bad science, or secret science or whatever this is.
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"
What is the MPP?
"Moronic Political Person"?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"
What is the MPP?
Sorry, Marijuana Policy Project.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.
But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."
Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it. Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?
*or something similar.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be talking about it ;-)
"We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." - CRU
Of course, this is interesting because they have also stated that they have the data... in one emaail Mr. Jones said "I would rather destroy the Raw Data than let them have it" (discussing FOIA).
The "Harry Read Me" file, however shows the poor developer trying desperately to use 'raw data' to rerun the models... but he can't for multiple reasons... including the models giving him different answers that the published ones. Is this fraud? is it bad code? Is it bad input data? Who the hell knows?
It's just crazy... not the AGW claim*... just er 'science' with obfuscated data and scientists that would rather destroy data than share it... it seems absurd to me.
* As stated before, a close friend of mine spent the past 6 years doing a science geek Tour of Duty in Antarctica: http://penguincentral.com/
His direct observations seem to support the idea that things are warming up. I find that helps me push climate change well into the "likely" position... but that doesn't excuse bad science, or secret science or whatever this is.
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"
I have no idea why they would be afraid to release the raw data, unless they think that other scientists will think they are manipulating it out of proportion. The raw data won't make much sense except to those trained to interpret it. I was suggesting it was a bad idea (politically speaking) to send out the interpretation in technical terms to a general audience.
Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited. Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process. IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs. If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP. And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to. But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes. I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data. If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.
Actually, this raises a good point.
Rat, are you saying that the reports from these scientists aren't citing their sources?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited. Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process. IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs. If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP. And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to. But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes. I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data. If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.
Hrmmm, but without raw data, how can someone duplicate your results? How can someone verify your interpretation... how can someone see if perhaps you made a mistake in your math or your data manipulation?
This seems especially important with Climate data, as its now clear that only some data was used (the homogenized data) lots of data was tossed and the computer programs that manipulated the data appear to produce results now that don't match.
So the CRU data is based on a subset of measurements that were then run through a computer model (which can't now be replicated at least not according to the developer in the Harry Read Me file).
So even if your research protocols are good and your data collection is sound... the code used to manipulate the data might be buggy... if so, how is anyone going to discover the error, if they simply accept your report because the IRB said you were cool?
It seems absurd to me that we're even having this discussion... how does refusing access to raw data get us closer to knowledge?
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 06:24:44 PM
Actually, this raises a good point.
Rat, are you saying that the reports from these scientists aren't citing their sources?
I am saying that they are basing their argument on interpreted data, based on source data which is apparently secret and not publicly available (even though its been requested through FOIA). The CRU claims that it DESTROYED the source data and ONLY has their 'quality controlled and homogenized' data.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
However, they have also made other comments about the 'raw data' which seems at odds with this.
I am not claiming that anyone is intentionally fudging data... I am simply stunned that honest scientists would not keep the raw data, not share the raw data, even with other scientists (forgetting about releasing it to the plebs... but not releasing it to the professor of environmental studies at Colorado University?).
It seems like the CRU (and any other science based on this sort of methodology) are saying, in effect "Have faith in us and our methodology".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited. Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process. IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs. If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP. And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to. But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes. I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data. If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.
Hrmmm, but without raw data, how can someone duplicate your results? How can someone verify your interpretation... how can someone see if perhaps you made a mistake in your math or your data manipulation?
This seems especially important with Climate data, as its now clear that only some data was used (the homogenized data) lots of data was tossed and the computer programs that manipulated the data appear to produce results now that don't match.
So the CRU data is based on a subset of measurements that were then run through a computer model (which can't now be replicated at least not according to the developer in the Harry Read Me file).
So even if your research protocols are good and your data collection is sound... the code used to manipulate the data might be buggy... if so, how is anyone going to discover the error, if they simply accept your report because the IRB said you were cool?
It seems absurd to me that we're even having this discussion... how does refusing access to raw data get us closer to knowledge?
If my research is published, it has already gone through this process. If I'm simply gathering multiple sources of indicator data, then anyone is free to gather that as well and they'll have the sources I cite to refer too.
Also, I'm entirely open to being shown that my interpretation of this situation is incorrect... If they are sharing data and methodology and I just missed it... I would like to know!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited. Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process. IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs. If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP. And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to. But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes. I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data. If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.
Hrmmm, but without raw data, how can someone duplicate your results? How can someone verify your interpretation... how can someone see if perhaps you made a mistake in your math or your data manipulation?
This seems especially important with Climate data, as its now clear that only some data was used (the homogenized data) lots of data was tossed and the computer programs that manipulated the data appear to produce results now that don't match.
So the CRU data is based on a subset of measurements that were then run through a computer model (which can't now be replicated at least not according to the developer in the Harry Read Me file).
So even if your research protocols are good and your data collection is sound... the code used to manipulate the data might be buggy... if so, how is anyone going to discover the error, if they simply accept your report because the IRB said you were cool?
It seems absurd to me that we're even having this discussion... how does refusing access to raw data get us closer to knowledge?
If my research is published, it has already gone through this process. If I'm simply gathering multiple sources of indicator data, then anyone is free to gather that as well and they'll have the sources I cite to refer too.
"The British Meteorological Office is to launch a review of its temperature data and has asked 188 nations - including Australia - for permission to release raw weather data in the wake of the so-called ''Climate-gate'' email scandal." - Dec. 7, 2009 from an Austrailian source "The Age") http://www.theage.com.au/world/climategate-forces-weather-data-review-20091206-kcrk.html
The government is ASKING permission to release the raw data, indicting that the raw data is NOT currently 'free to gather'.
If the data was all open and available, then sure we only need the methodology to repeat the testing. If the data isn't available, how can the conclusions be 'peer reviewed'?
EDIT:
QuoteI am sure that, over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other groups -- primarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also in Russia -- WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results. - Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
This sounds good.... but it doesn't seem to fit with being required to ask countries to allow the Brits to release the data...
I wonder how much of this mess is just horrible reporting?
EDIT 2: Hrmmm, apparently not just bad reporting...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/#more-2452 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/#more-2452)
QuoteIt should be a common courtesy to provide methods requested by other scientists in order to speedily get to the essence of the issue, and not to waste time with the minutiae of which year is picked to end the analysis.
The reason why Gavin and I were not able to repeat Scafetta's analysis in exact details is that his papers didn't disclose all the necessary details.
That is the thing that bothers me...
I really wish you guys would have watched that video link I posted. Its a 2 part interview with Freeman Dyson. He talks about how he was on a climate study for a while and they were watching the intake of co2 by vegetation, and even though the amount of co2 has risen in the atmosphere, the data shows in some places (brazil and somewhere else, I cant remember) the co2 is being absorbed by forests and what not. Canada, not so much I guess. Maybe because of all the industrialization in N.A. I dont really know. But then he goes on to explain how most of the data used for climate change is computer models, and not actually OBSERVED data. He also states that the observed data hasnt been going on long enough for anyone to even know WHAT is going on. All they know is something is going on. Anyway, Im sure he can say it a lot better than I can, but, it pretty much seems to invalidate any data based on computer models.
Quote from: Hangshai on December 18, 2009, 08:46:47 PM
I really wish you guys would have watched that video link I posted. Its a 2 part interview with Freeman Dyson. He talks about how he was on a climate study for a while and they were watching the intake of co2 by vegetation, and even though the amount of co2 has risen in the atmosphere, the data shows in some places (brazil and somewhere else, I cant remember) the co2 is being absorbed by forests and what not. Canada, not so much I guess. Maybe because of all the industrialization in N.A. I dont really know. But then he goes on to explain how most of the data used for climate change is computer models, and not actually OBSERVED data. He also states that the observed data hasnt been going on long enough for anyone to even know WHAT is going on. All they know is something is going on. Anyway, Im sure he can say it a lot better than I can, but, it pretty much seems to invalidate any data based on computer models.
*nods* It was an interesting interview... but its separate from my basic issue which is how can one trust 'science' if we keep bits of the process secret? If we can't see what your choices in computer code, choices in data manipulation etc. then how can we trust your conclusion?
(And I've heard others in the business say the same thing about the models)
So I guess this boils down to two questions:
1. In general how much source data should be available when someone produces a scientific paper?
2. If computer models/code are used, should that source be available for review?
I guess it's just seems stunning to me that any scientist would not want all the data out there to provide support for their position... and more importantly, to double check their work. Its good that other groups have done other studies and they are very similar in their results, but it seems absurd to be against the free exchange of information if you peruse knowledge. I'm not sure "well assholes will misinterpret it" is a good excuse.
this just in from the Beeb. A preliminary agreement has been made by USA, China, India, And EU. It is not THE treaty, but a 'first step'. What does this mean, who knows. They did also say America will be passing climate legislation in the senate next year though(because of this).
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 09:18:43 PM
2. If computer models/code are used, should that source be available for review?
preferably, but a detailed description of the algorithms used should be enough.
Oh and in addition, it's a bit of a "me too", but Rat has been wording it excellently and I have nothing useful to add, but Rat is riding the correct scientific motorcycle, a lot.
I can think of some valid reasons for not releasing raw data, for instance a friend of mine measures cosmic particles using sattelite dish arrays in argentina, and it produces several gigabytes of raw data per hour (or something like that), so naturally they just keep the filtered stuff, which is a lot smaller.
Another reason could be pending patents, but that data can be released when it's not "sensitive" anymore.
In practice, its more that 'Anybody who is one of us' can repeat the experiment. People outside the academic community are not only locked out of the raw data, but locked out of everything else as well by the paywalls journals set up.
It has nothing to do with climate change in the specific though, just arrogance and profit motive in general.
NOTHING in those emails surprised me even a little bit, its business as usual from what I can see.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 18, 2009, 10:11:44 PM
Oh and in addition, it's a bit of a "me too", but Rat has been wording it excellently and I have nothing useful to add, but Rat is riding the correct scientific motorcycle, a lot.
Agreed.
Quote
I can think of some valid reasons for not releasing raw data, for instance a friend of mine measures cosmic particles using sattelite dish arrays in argentina, and it produces several gigabytes of raw data per hour (or something like that), so naturally they just keep the filtered stuff, which is a lot smaller.
Some individuals and organizations with interest in this type of thing have big disks and fat pipes. Although there is no full precedent for this, I could imagine something like wikileaks popping up dedicated to caching raw data, and maybe a bunch of concerned laypeople keeping it around in chunks with bittorrent or some other distributed system. Mind you, it would be fundamentally different from both, so I may be making a failanalogy, but if it keeps this kind of situation from happening I could see people being interested in distributedly caching big chunks of raw and ostensibly useless scientific data that would otherwise be pitched out.
Quote
Another reason could be pending patents, but that data can be released when it's not "sensitive" anymore.
Would patents on the sensors and other things correspond to restrictions on the data recorded? That doesn't really jive with my understanding of IP law -- it's kind of like claiming that everything written with Word belongs to Microsoft and everything written using a mac keyboard belongs to Apple.
no, I meant if the research is about to discover something that can be patented, you might want to wait releasing the data until you get the patent approved.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 18, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
In practice, its more that 'Anybody who is one of us' can repeat the experiment. People outside the academic community are not only locked out of the raw data, but locked out of everything else as well by the paywalls journals set up.
It really shouldn't matter much WHO has access to raw data, since only the experts with the equipment and intimate knowledge of the subject can make sense of it. That's something that hits me funny about not releasing the raw data -- releasing only cooked data makes sense for dead tree stuff, and sometimes (when there's lots) for other forms, but it doesn't seem like the size is the issue here. The only people who could benefit from raw data in terms of a zero-sum situation is experts, and so when someone says they'd "rather destroy the raw data" than let it leak, I can't imagine these guys are paranoid about lay-people.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 18, 2009, 10:51:00 PM
no, I meant if the research is about to discover something that can be patented, you might want to wait releasing the data until you get the patent approved.
My bad. Still, I don't think you'd be publishing stuff in scientific journals in the first place if you are doing it for industry. There's probably counterexamples (those harmonic motors that Dyson did, some types of experimental dextrous manipulators for robot arms, etc -- terribly applied stuff novel enough to represent lots of original research).
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on December 18, 2009, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 18, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
In practice, its more that 'Anybody who is one of us' can repeat the experiment. People outside the academic community are not only locked out of the raw data, but locked out of everything else as well by the paywalls journals set up.
It really shouldn't matter much WHO has access to raw data, since only the experts with the equipment and intimate knowledge of the subject can make sense of it. That's something that hits me funny about not releasing the raw data -- releasing only cooked data makes sense for dead tree stuff, and sometimes (when there's lots) for other forms, but it doesn't seem like the size is the issue here. The only people who could benefit from raw data in terms of a zero-sum situation is experts, and so when someone says they'd "rather destroy the raw data" than let it leak, I can't imagine these guys are paranoid about lay-people.
I'm talking more about access to the research in general, not the raw data. But as for raw data:
Part of it is that everything still revolves around dead tree publication, your career in academia depends on which particular dead trees you get published on, and what other people write about your work on dead trees, the other part is that the filtering method is more important than the raw data itself, anybody (outside of the very expensive to run experiments) can get new raw data. In fact, you're *supposed* to go get new raw data. It covers against faked data/statistical anomalies/unknown variables.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on December 18, 2009, 10:54:24 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 18, 2009, 10:51:00 PM
no, I meant if the research is about to discover something that can be patented, you might want to wait releasing the data until you get the patent approved.
My bad. Still, I don't think you'd be publishing stuff in scientific journals in the first place if you are doing it for industry. There's probably counterexamples (those harmonic motors that Dyson did, some types of experimental dextrous manipulators for robot arms, etc -- terribly applied stuff novel enough to represent lots of original research).
Thanks to the Hatch act, universities can patent the work of their students/professors now too, and they frequently do.
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/
QuoteLast 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).
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/
Quote from: Hangshai on December 19, 2009, 06:46:19 AM
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?
sounds right. afaik we were heading for an ice age
Quote from: Hangshai on December 19, 2009, 06:46:19 AM
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.
poop. Why no?
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.
Found it:
http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/07/the-climategate-fiasco/
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
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
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.
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.
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]
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 23, 2009, 08:38:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 21, 2009, 05:11:21 PM
What I don't understand is if these people wanna take a political position and deny global warming why don't they just drop 20 bucks and get a subscription to Geology Magazine or Lithosphere and just go through the actual data, cause like I said for every article in which the data seems to support global warming in the popular sense there is one that seems to challenge some aspect of it. I can't vouch for Nature or what ever climatologists read.
If these people are going to be nit picky, then why don't they just be nit picky with the actual data rather then this conspiratorial crap?
Cause conspiracies are FUN!
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 21, 2009, 05:11:21 PM
What I don't understand is if these people wanna take a political position and deny global warming why don't they just drop 20 bucks and get a subscription to Geology Magazine or Lithosphere and just go through the actual data, cause like I said for every article in which the data seems to support global warming in the popular sense there is one that seems to challenge some aspect of it. I can't vouch for Nature or what ever climatologists read.
If these people are going to be nit picky, then why don't they just be nit picky with the actual data rather then this conspiratorial crap?
That was kind of what I was saying. The fact that the data ITSELF seems questionable, whether its based on computer models(where do they get the data for the models, make them up? Averages? Pull them out of a hat?), or on actual observed data, when you hear an actual scientist who HAS studied the thing say that the data observed is not enough to know WHAT is going on. Scientists know SOMETHING is going on.
Triple Z had the right idea, whether its man made or not, something is happening. Whether its 'just another ice age' that seems to come in regular intervals every so often or whatever, or if industrialization is causing it seems to be moot at this point. I personally think that the discordian way of affecting big change my making small change that directly influences more small change is the way to go here. I also think if we (meaning everyone/civilization) were just to do something as simple as, oh, cut down on fast food, then that would lead to less deforestation of rain forests for cattle, which would lead to more forests for co2 to air, etc etc etc. Probably wishful thinking, but, there is no reason TPTB need to go to Copenhagen and make a bunch of new laws for me to follow.
But you know, fuck me, what do I know.
Quote from: Cain on December 23, 2009, 11:10:00 AM
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.
I wish someone would WOMP this.