Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Here is a clear discussion that cuts through all the BS on this topic, written by an astronomer friend of mine who writes science textbooks. In language we can all understand (yes, that's me too, I am not a climate expert), with real data, and a focus on the important, overarching issues:

1. There is no doubt that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make planets warmer.
2. There is no doubt that human activity has been raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3. There is no serious doubt that the Earth's temperature has risen roughly 1.4 degrees f in the past century
4. There is strong evidence that natural cycles are not responsible for the level of warming that has been experienced
5. The remaining uncertainty is in regards the timing and consequences of global warming

That's a very brief summary, but he also addresses questions of skeptics far better than I could. He added an addendum over "climate-gate", where he summed up the situation as follows
quote:
the failings of these individual scientists do not change the laws of physics

There's a problem with your assertions, for #1:
quote:
Building on a methodology published 15 years ago in Nature, climatologist and NASA medallist John Christy and colleague David Douglass studied global temperature impacts of volcanic activity and ocean-atmospheric oscillations (the "El Nino" effect) and separated these from global temperature trends over the past 28 years.

The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.

Does it make the planet warmer, barely.

For #2, that's quite literally a crop in the bucket. A paltry 0.117%. There is no evidence to suggest this minimal amount does anything of significance - and with an amplification factor of one, we can probably ignore it.

For #3, this is now highly questionable. Recent reviews of raw data show that past temperature records are inexplicably adjusted downward and more recent temperatures are adjusted upward - in one case in Australia the adjustment is almost 6 degrees upward per century. So far, there is no justification for these adjustments. When looking at records from well sited stations, we see warming so small that it remains with historical variability. The end result of these adjustments is to create warming where none existed.

For #4:
quote:
Pearson's work [recently published in Nature ] contains a couple of remarkable results.

First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.

We can't be sure what triggered the Earth to cool despite, or because of, its changing green-house atmospheric blanket, but once it did, cycles of ice cap formation and glaciation commenced, apparently governed by the same variations in the Earth's orbit that govern the ice ages of the past million years.

Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

CO2 levels 3-4 times present day levels, and the result was global cooling. While continuing to cool, CO2 rose dramatically. Certainly these global temperature swings and CO2 levels from those periods cannot be assigned to man.

For #5: That uncertainty is ridiculously high. Remember, we're supposed to be warming now but we're cooling; hurricanes should be Katrina-like every year with more of them but the opposite happened, sea levels should be rising but are at best increasing 2-3mm per year, etc, etc, etc. we could get better predictive results by literally throwing darts at a board or letting a chicken at the local county fair make them based on which square it pecks.

Not a single one of the apocolyptic predictions is working out. The hypothesis of AGW is being directly contradicted by observed results. Normally observed data contradicting a hypothesis would result in throwing out the hypothesis. Instead, we've had a cabal of scientists and politicians alter the data so that the hypothesis looks real.

[ December 09, 2009, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just how out of touch is the climerati on the Climategate issue? Al Gore, a.k.a. "The Goreacle" being interviewed in Slate:
quote:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they’ve thought this is a bigger deal than it is.

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

Gee Al, maybe just this once you should get a handle on what the hell you're talking about. The most recent emails in Climategate were from November 2009. Last month, this year. G2 is looking at one right now from Phil Jones dated Nov 12, 2009 10:18:54. There are dozens, hundreds even, from this year and the last 10 years, not "more than 10 years old" as Al wants you to believe.

But you know what? More than a few people are going to believe what Al just said. You will see this parroted on blogs and probably in the media. It's a complete fabrication but it supports the great lie so it's too good to check.

[ December 09, 2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, it's spreading! Via ClimateAudit:
quote:
An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned B.C. researcher.

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.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can ... take out of context," Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

"People don't like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it," Mr. Weaver said.

<snip>

"The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?" Mr. Weaver said, noting the Jones controversy was not the result of a "lucky hack" days before the Copenhagen conference. "They're trying to find anything. They don't care what it is."

He believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion."

Those dirty, evil skeptics! Will they stop at nothing!?!?!

Meanwhile, in related news also from the University of Victoria, the Department of Anthropology issued an urgent warning about numerous break-ins throughout the campus, an excerpt from which follows:
quote:
Subject: FW: Urgent/Campus break-ins
Hello all,

I’ve just learned that there have been a number of office and lab break-ins across campus in recent days–initially Science & Engineering buildings, but now Cornett & BEC. Psychology has had several offices and labs broken into, and last night there were break-ins in second-floor offices in BEC. Entry seems to be happening by jimmying/forcing locks.

In the short term, you need to ensure that small, portable valuables are NOT LEFT IN YOUR OFFICES, particularly at night when the break-ins appear to have been happening. Consider what would happen to your teaching and research if your laptop went missing–back important files up today …

Keep an eye open and report suspicious activity

Steve McIntyre has it nailed:
quote:
GCM (General Crime Modelers) believe that the break-ins at the Psychology Department at the University of Victoria are the proverbial “smoking gun” that proves the teleconnection between American fossil fuel interests and the Russian secret service, that resulted in Climategate.


As crime vigilante Weaver asks:

“The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?”

[LOL] [LOL]

[ December 09, 2009, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'ma hack G2's porn accounts and private correspondences and share them with the world. Prove he's really just an AI agit-bot. I'm a skeptic too!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, I wrote a long response but I will replace it with a shorter one. Based on my experience with your postings, I don't have faith in anything you say. And it's not worth the time to point out why you are wrong.

Life is too short.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It sill astounds me that there is such a thing as Borg porn. O brave new world that has such wondrous TV pilots in it!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So are you saying that arguing in defense if your positions regarding AGW is a waste of time Greg? I only ask because in a forum like this your posts are out there for everyone to see, not just the person you are arguing directly with. It seems to me that you are either avoiding stress at the expense of defending a position you seem to be passionate about, or you are engaging in the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away and let the grownups talk". If you post arguments in support of what you are saying you just might reach an open-minded reader. On the other hand, if you treat your opponents like they are not worth engaging in debate you are likely to turn away open-minded readers.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
G2, I wrote a long response but I will replace it with a shorter one. Based on my experience with your postings, I don't have faith in anything you say. And it's not worth the time to point out why you are wrong.

Life is too short.

Your problem is that G2 quoted, in his last posts, several scientists and their work. It's not just G2 you have to dismiss so you can continue to hold onto the great lie.

You can say it's not worth your time, call G2 names, threaten G2 again, whatever you want to do, but the truth has a way of getting out and it is finally getting out in a way that cannot be simply dismissed. G2 will continue putting that truth out whatever you do, or don't do.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup, waste of time. The G2 abides in self-satisfied and apparently self-sustaining ignorance.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting video here done by a 6th grader and his father. He found some of the rural sites which are presumably well sited and compared them to a nearby urban sites within the US. They walk you through it so you can replicate their experiment ... novel concept!

They found that the rural sites show no significant heating over the last 100 years.

Only when the data is adjusted as part of homogenization are we able to create a heating trend. This homogenization process relies on the idea that the urban heat island effects are inconsequential. This video shoots a pretty big hole through that theory.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, crud. Looks like I had the last post on the page. Pyrtolin, MattP, Greg, Opsanus, and anyone else that thinks that ClimateGate doesn't matter in terms of the underlying science behind AGW, make sure you read it. I'm sure it'll be ignored anyway, but I won't let the forum software be used as an excuse.
Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So are you saying that arguing in defense if your positions regarding AGW is a waste of time Greg?
The problem is that G2 is doing a AGW denier gish gallop. He's not presenting and defending a position, he's just copying and pasting excerpts from multiple articles on skeptic web sites, each of which would take some effort to research thoroughly enough to effectively rebut. It's not reasonable to ask even a passionate lay-person to single-handedly respond to all of it when the response will be ignored and another barrage of copy/pastes will follow.

G2 isn't making an argument to be countered. He's not even making someone else's argument in his own words (which is about the best most of us can manage on the topic.) He's just pasting stuff from people who's opinions he would prefer to be correct.

When you stick to one basic, easily verifiable factual claim (such as the New Zealand adjustments mentioned earlier) it's easy to show whether a given claim is correct.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
CRU admitted they lost vitally important data.
What vitally important data was lost. CRU doesn't produce climate data - they are a consumer of it. Anything they have "lost" would have been local copies of other peoples data or (potentially) adjusted versions of other people's data.

quote:
We know from the release that the code is a mess and extremely poorly documented.
All code is a mess and poorly documented. I wouldn't expect scientists to be better at this than professional programmers. The better question is whether the code did what the programmer wanted it to do and did it do so reliably. I'd be interested in seeing a particular snippet of code that you think is representative of the problem. The ones that I've seen so far have not seemed problematic to me.

quote:
We know from the emails that some people were attempting to manipulate it to make it look good.
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.

quote:
We also know from experience that it is very, very easy to manipulate temperature data.
How so?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave at Work, I would be happy to think hard about a critique written by anyone else here other than G2. Only G2 has passed below my filter for worthwhile discourse.

And actually I am not enormously passionate about climate change. I have not followed every comment in this thread (as I might do if the topic were Keynes, NASA, cancer, or the Dallas Cowboys)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. [Big Grin]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
dailytelegraph.au

quote:
We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

quote:
Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not fully understand.

Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

Yet the public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?

quote:
Despite all the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
philnotfil,
Your source, Professor Bob Carter, has his Ph.D in Palaeontology. A person's background does not render their arguments invalid, but he offers no arguments other than his expertise, and in that instance, his expertise is relevant. As reported in this news article, his case that there is no global warming rests solely on his assertion that "no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change"

My source is also not a climatologist by degree, but at least he cites data (and shows the data on his website).

quote:
Question 3: Is there any doubt that Earth has been warming up during the past century?

Answer: Not any more. For awhile, there were questions concerning whether temperature data were being analyzed correctly, but those doubts have been almost entirely dispelled (see the "postscript" section below). For the past several decades, we've had satellite data from which to make measurements of Earth's global average temperature. Data from earlier times were local rather than global, which means there are greater uncertainties in converting them to a global average. However, by studying a great variety of data sources (ranging from newspaper temperature reports to natural records like those in tree rings), the uncertainties have been reduced enough to make the trend quite clear. The graph below shows the results: The global average temperature has increased about 0.8°C (1.4°F) in the past century.

Key point for Question 3: You will no longer find any serious disagreement about the fact that Earth's global average temperature has warmed about 0.8°C (1.4°F) in the past century. What about the claim that the warming trend has stopped during the past decade? A look at the graph shows that the warming has indeed slowed or stopped during this period — but you can also see that 10 years on a graph like this are not enough to establish a trend, and that the past decade has still been the hottest on record. Indeed, the fact that the warming slowed or stopped during this time fits well within the expected range of variability that can occur due to natural effects. The well-understood theory of the greenhouse effect clearly predicts that the warming trend will resume, and at this point there is nothing in the data that suggests otherwise.



Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It may be that he is only implying and the basis for his article doesn't actually come from there, but it seems like he is using the core samples being dug up by the team on this boat to support what he is saying.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:

G2 isn't making an argument to be countered. He's not even making someone else's argument in his own words (which is about the best most of us can manage on the topic.) He's just pasting stuff from people who's opinions he would prefer to be correct.


G2 provides considerable data to support his argument and opinions. The professional opinions of scientists in the field, the results of their studies and historical records, all are important and provided by G2 to support his opinions. If G2 did not provide that support, guys like Greg Davidson (and presumably you now) would say it should be dismissed because it's just G2's uninformed opinion. So you are trying to play it both ways here, a bit of a lame tactic but one that no doubt plays well to the Greg Davidson's of the world.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:


quote:
We know from the emails that some people were attempting to manipulate it to make it look good.
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.

Tricks to hide the decline, code where "very artificial" adjustments were made to force data to conform to desired results. You must have seen these talked about in some detail here.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 knows that MattP and perhaps some others don't like it when he refers to the results of studies and other hard data but he's going to do it anyway so that people can understand what's going on. What we have here is the temperature record from a central Greenland ice core. As the author says, "it gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years." We are looking at the actual, unadjusted data. The real temperatures over the past 50,000 years.

What is clearly shown is that any current warming is well within the range of past warming events. The current temperatures are actually on the low end of the average over the last 12,000 years and the rate of increase is within normal rates. In short, nothing unusual is happening. Everything is within the normal variation that has occurred over the past 400,000 years. It is only when we cherry pick the time to start at the end of the little ice age that it begins to look like something unusual is happening.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
philnotfil,
If he has core sample data, then he should present that data (with enough background evidence to indicate that that data represents global and just not local temperature trends). I would tend to think that is is very hard to get global coverage with core samples, and most climate models predict that localized sampling will not be adequate to measure global trends.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, now, here is the information that G2 doesn't want you to see. Click on the detailed analysis of the e-mail contents and their significance.

Enjoy. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Complete apologetics. Simple, biased, pseudo-analysis in a failed attempt to right the sinking ship.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Donald. I can't believe I missed that.

I guess I was suckered in by those point-by-point discussions, many with specific examples.

What really fooled me was this first one:

quote:
In an emal dated Nov. 12, 1999, Prof. Phil Jones stated that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline." The email doesn not say what decline he was talking about, so it has been widely misreported that he was hiding a decline in temperatures. Those reports are not correct, nor is it accurate to say that he was actually hiding data, even though he chose the word. The word "trick" was used as it is in common parlance to mean a clever solution to a problem (e.g. "I know a trick to get that stain off your shirt."). The decline he said he was hiding referred to one series of high-latitude tree ring data from 1960 to 1994 that did not follow measured temperatures at the same locations, even though they had followed measured temperatures for about a century before 1960. That set of tree ring data incorrectly implied a downward temperature trend after 1960. It cannot be said that Jones was literally hiding this fact because two years before he wrote this email he was co-author on the first paper to document this "divergence" issue. That paper, published in Nature in February of 1998, concluded publicly that these post-1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature estimates... Hence, "hiding" this decline simply meant following the advice that Jones and colleagues had already aired in peer-reviewed literature two years earlier. Many more papers have since been published on the same topic.
How foolish I am! Just because something is published in Nature and then in many papers since doesn't mean it isn't being kept secret. Only an idiot would find that explanation plausible in any way.

That you again, Donald. Your statement revealed how unbelievable it all is.

[Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, G2 does want that read ... once again you've let your bias dictate your beliefs. It's a 15 page pdf so G2 will have to wait to read it all when time allows but rest assured he will and encourages everyone to do so. G2 prefers that all the facts and data come out and be open to review - something the AGW crowd has worked to suppress.

As for the "trick" to "hide the decline", your snark is not entirely accurate. If you look back through this thread, you'll see it mentioned exactly that way. We were well aware here that it was about the divergence and discussed why we should rely on tree ring data for past temperatures - perhaps they provide false readings more often than just this once? Why is it inaccurate only after 1960 but considered reliable for all past readings?

No, "it cannot be said that Jones was literally hiding this fact". Notice the weasel word there, "literally"? It can't be "literally" said. Why do you think the author felt compelled to add that word?

BTW, do you know why this "trick" was done" The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.

[ December 10, 2009, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.
I can't imagine why they'd do that. As we know, the skeptics are very good about determining full context before jumping to conclusions about a the ramifications of given piece of information.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it inaccurate only after 1960 but considered reliable for all past readings?
Perhaps because there is a high correlation with the measured temperatures before 1960, and perhaps because it is not the only way temperatures were estimated before 1960.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A prophesy, or two: nobody who previously believed that Jones was in fact hiding 'the decline' will be swayed by the discovery that Jones was one of several people who initially observed the tree ring/summer temp divergence and who subsequently published said observation for all the world to see.

And years from now, people will still be citing how Jones was in fact using a trick to hide the decline in global average temps.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"As we know, the skeptics are very good about determining full context before jumping to conclusions about a the ramifications of given piece of information."
If you start using "skeptic" as an insult, then goddess Athena will smite you, and rightly so.

The full context can only be perceived by *revealing* information, not by hiding it.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you start using "skeptic" as an insult, then goddess Athena will smite you, and rightly so.
I'm only using the term there in response to a sentence using the same term, to avoid confusion. I don't think skeptic is a bad word and I consider myself to be, broadly speaking, a pretty skeptical person.

quote:
The full context can only be perceived by *revealing* information, not by hiding it.
All of the information was revealed, as has been pointed out multiple times. The only people who are likely to be thrown off by the "hide the decline" stuff are those who are looking at individual data in isolation, attempting to cherry pick evidence to support a political agenda rather than intelligently comment on the science. Climate scientists - even the skeptical ones - are aware of the "divergence problem."

It would be best, of course, to make sure that the "trick" is disclosed in the methodology summary of any papers that includes it. And, for all I know, it has been.

[ December 10, 2009, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 wrote:
quote:
BTW, do you know why this "trick" was done" The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”.
quote:
So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
quote:
THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion on this point, since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.

We have shown that this is not the case: (see here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and historical/instrumental data are used!



[ December 10, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I continue to note with amusement that the BELIEVERS continue to either do what some have accused G2 of doing (merely posting links to the arguments of the holy Priests of the church of AGW) or seizing upon one tangent or another as some sort of reason to throw out the entire bigger picture that the sum totality of what these emails reveal.

This is why I find the term "useful idiot" so apropos. [Exploding]

"Hide the decline?"

What about HIDING, DELETING and/or LOSING the Raw Data so that no one else may attempt to duplicate their models?

Dear Ornery scientists, what about applying the most sacred principle of the Scientific Method and Peer Review?!??!

In which your raw data is provided so that other scientists can also test your hypothesis?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which raw data, specifically, do you allege to have been deleted or lost? For that matter, what raw data do you believe that CRU produces?

[ December 10, 2009, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I continue to note with amusement that the BELIEVERS continue to either do what some have accused G2 of doing (merely posting links to the arguments of the holy Priests of the church of AGW)...
So the Pew Trust is part of the Holy Church? Could you provide a list of all of those who are part of the Church?

OTOH, it might be easier for you to list those who aren't part of the Church. [Smile]

quote:
What about HIDING, DELETING and/or LOSING the Raw Data so that no one else may attempt to duplicate their models?
As explained previously, the Raw Data is out there. None of the modellers created Raw Data. They only utilized it.

In fact, some even published papers about some of the Raw Data that was deleted (such as Jones above). How's that for "deleting" raw data? [LOL]

Yes, all of the computer code is not available for examination. But that doesn't stop anyone from creating their own computer code and duplicating the work that way. From what others have reported, something like nine or ten teams have managed to do so. And all have come to similar conclusions.

So duplication of the experiment is not only possible, but has been successfully done, satisfying the Scientific Method. So where are your models showing the other ten to be wrong?

I would toss back to you the phrase "useful idiot," but that wouldn't be fair. After all, I don't think the first part of the term really applies. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP:
quote:
What vitally important data was lost. CRU doesn't produce climate data - they are a consumer of it. Anything they have "lost" would have been local copies of other peoples data or (potentially) adjusted versions of other people's data.
Here's what CRU says: Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

So in order to validate the adjustments they did, we need to know what adjustments they did. But we don't know what adjustments they did!. Without the raw data, there's no way of knowing. Yes, presumably the raw data can be obtained from the original sources, but how can we be sure exactly what data sets were used? How can we tell what adjustments were used?

quote:
The better question is whether the code did what the programmer wanted it to do and did it do so reliably. I'd be interested in seeing a particular snippet of code that you think is representative of the problem. The ones that I've seen so far have not seemed problematic to me.
The Harry_Read_Me file is sufficient evidence of that, I think. From what I could tell, Harry was attempting to replicate the data and finding it nearly impossible. So if someone inside the CRU who presumably has access to a lot more resources than we do can't do it, then how are we supposed to?

quote:
This is the anti-AGW spin. No email said "I'm manipulating this to make it look good." Perhaps you could quote what you are specifically referring to.
Gah, I don't remember off the top of my head. Basically, someone was talking about ocean temperatures in 1940, and picking a number (0.15C?) to adjust it down so that it'll still be there but not be as problematic. It was basically an example of choosing an adjustment to fit what you want, rather than based off a set of algorithms or whatever they do. I may have misinterpreted this email, but I'm too lazy to look it up. In any case, it's basically irrelevent.

Take this as an example. For those that don't click on links, it's basically a comparison between the raw GHCN data for a specific site in Australia and the adjusted data. The raw data shows a slight cooling trend, which actually looks like a step change in 1940 (the city was bombed in 1941, for what it's worth). However, the adjustment not only deals with this step change, but also adds plenty of other adjustments as well, turning a stable or cooling record into a hockey stick.

Why? How? It's impossible to calculate the reasons for this without adequate documentation or without the code. This is NOAA, of course, but you can assuredly find the same sort of thing in CRU as well. If there's no original code, or if everything's too much of a mess to make it work, how can you justify this scientifically? You basically have to assume the original adjustments were correct. But how can you assume there's warming in this town that saw no warming with five different temperature records? Where did that warming come from, and why didn't it show up in their thermometers?

Can you see why this is suspicious?

Again, the adjustments make up a very large part of the overall warming trend. We've seen in CRU's code for 1000+ year reconstructions artificial fudge factors that were applied to make the data look like what it wants. Without the code, without the raw data, without the documentation, how do we know it didn't happen here? We've seen GISS readjust the 1930s downward well after the fact. Obviously it's not due to any new temperature data, so why the change? How can you change the past like that?

If you see one trend in the raw data and see an entirely different trend in data that has been aggregated, manipulated, and adjusted in certain ways, are you going to accept that blindly? Or are you going to scrutinize every step you took to make sure you didn't make a mistake?

Greg, your astronomer friend is wrong. Simply asserting that there's no debate about the warming doesn't make it true. For one, there's an error present which makes one question how much he knows (he suggests that tree ring data is included in the NOAA graph he shows; this data is solely from raw thermometers and adjustments). For two, he doesn't mention a thing about the issue at question here, which is whether these adjustments are reasonable (NOAA actually shows how much of the warming is due to adjustments, and IIRC it's about 40%). So if nearly half the warming comes from manipulating the data and we have no idea how it was manipulated, how can there be broad consensus? It's impossible, other than to have a leap of faith. And for three, his only comment on the discrepency between satellites and warming was in regards to the troposphere, but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS).

Wayward, when I first saw the explanation for "hide the decline" from the AGW folks, I was a bit confused. They claimed it was all there in the article, but I seemed to recall that the brouhaha was because it wasn't (remember, it was discovered that this was what they did several years ago). In fact, I distinctly remember Mann himself angrily denying that grafting real records onto reconstructions was never done. But I figured I was wrong, and that some word on the issues was mentioned in the fine print. But after both you and vulture brought this up as vindication (ie, that it was adequately mentioned in the original Nature paper), I decided to look up the original.

It's not there. The explanation of what they did, I mean.

Here's the only mention of tree ring limitations:

quote:
Standardization of certain biological proxy records relative to estimated growth trends, and the limits of constituent chronology segment lengths (for example, in dendroclimatic reconstructions), can restrict the maximum timescale of climate variability that is recorded9, and only a limited subset of the indicators in the multiproxy network may thus 'anchor in' the longest-term trends (for example, variations on timescales greater than 500 years). However, the dendroclimatic data used were carefully screened for conservative standardization and sizeable segment lengths.
I suppose one can reasonably argue that that is sufficient discussion of the divergence phenomenon, but I doubt it. There's nothing specifically there about divergence, and since he saw a divergence from 1960 on then the statement that the data was "carefully screened for conservative standardization" seems false. The divergence happened. We know it did from these emails and their explanation. But from the paper, it sounds like they're saying "it's tough to estimate temperature from ring growth, but we were careful and made sure it was done correctly". Yet we know that it wasn't, and that temperature did not correlate with tree rings for an important part of the data set.

But did they discuss it in their results? They mention some sensitivty in terms of the types of proxies used, including the dendroclimatic ones (where the issue lies). So surely, if (as your quote states) the paper "concluded publicly that these post-1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature estimates", then it should be here, right? Here's what they say (emphasis mine):

quote:
But certain sub-components of the proxy dataset (for example, the dendroclimatic indicators) appear to be especially important in resolving the large-scale temperature patterns, with notable decreases in the scores reported for the proxy data set if all dendroclimatic indicators are withheld from the multiproxy network. On the other hand, the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network, suggesting that potential tree growth trend biases are not influential in the multiproxy climate reconstructions.
Nothing in there specifically mentioning the post-1960 divergence. Nothing about inaccurate temperature aspects. On the contrary, they say it doesn't matter. Yet if it didn't matter, why did they have to hide the decline?

Even more damning is their claim that grafting the temperature record onto the reconstruction was known. I pored through the methods section and managed to not fall asleep in the process. I don't understand half the statistics, but I know I'd be able to find something that important. It wasn't there. Anywhere.

There is no mention anywhere in this article about grafting temperature data on to the reconstruction. On the contrary, they state several times that their reconstructed temperature after 1960 was high, even though we know it was actually low before they hid the decline. Their method section doesn't even begin to mention it. There's nothing in there at all. Anyone reading this paper would assume the 1960+ part of the reconstruction was determined in the same manner that the rest of it was. Why? Because the methods didn't state what they did!

All this talk about "trick" being synonymous with "technique" may be true, but it's also true that you need to document your tricks or techniques in your manuscripts. Mann didn't.

In other words, CRU's explanation of this email is still bunk.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yet we know that it wasn't, and that temperature did not correlate with tree rings for an important part of the data set.
I believe the answer to this is in the e-mail that G2 referenced (above). After 1960, the tree-ring data diverged from the measured temperatures, while before 1960, they correlated nicely. Why it suddenly diverged, they don't know. So they threw out the data after 1960, since they knew that it didn't reflect the real temperatures.

Why didn't they throw out all the data? Because, before 1960, it seems to correlate well, so they wanted one more "data point" (points?) in their historical reconstruction.

What I find most telling is the paragraph I quoted above from the private e-mails (not intended for public scrutiny):

quote:
We have shown that this is not the case: (see here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and historical/instrumental data are used!

If I'm reading this right (and, admittedly, I do not fully understand the term "low-frequency variability--perhaps our more learned members can explain?), what the author is saying is that including the tree-ring data makes their temperature estimations more uncertain than without it! If the tree-ring data was omitted, there would be less variability of the temperature ranges as indicated from the other sources.

So throwing out tree-ring data that they knew was inaccurate, and including tree-ring data that apparently increases the uncertainty of their estimations, does not indicate cherry-picking the data to fit their hypothesis. Rather, it shows integrity in trying to use as much good data as possible.

If I am correct in the above, then it also vindicates the authors concern that highlightig this would just provide fodder for the nay-sayers. After all, look what happened when the nay-sayers found out--"the skeptics [had] a field day in casting doubt." This in spite of the explanations in the very same e-mail.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1

That's old news. They forgot to calibrate the satellite readings to account for the fact that they've drifted further away from earth over time. The further away the satellite is, the cooler the readings were. Once they properly corrected for that drift, the temperature trends matched the projections reasonably well.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[DOH]

"but doesn't even mention the drift that is occurring between satellite surface data (both UAH and RSS) and surface station data (NOAA, CRU, GISS)."

"skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm"

The surface is not the troposphere, Pyrtolin.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't call things that sit on the ground to measure temperature "satellites".

G2 was inaccurate in describing the nature of the measurements that had seemed to diverge. That doesn't change the fact that the problem that he was referring to has been tracked to a mathematical error and resolved.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1