Slashdot Mirror

No. Those who requested the data requested that if all the data couldn't be provided, then the freely available data should be provided. They were refused.

Bzzt. Wrong. Try again.

30.First, in answer to the question of whether the raw data are accessible and verifiable, Professor Jones told us that:
The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic data are available in the United States in something called the Global Historical Climatology Network. They have been downloadable there for a number of years so people have been able to take the data, do whatever method of assessment of the quality of the data and derive their own gridded product and compare that with other workers.

31.In addition, of course, there are the sources of the data, the weather stations, to which any individual is free to go and collect the data in the same way that CRU did. This is feasible because the list of stations that CRU used was published in 2008.

41. Professor Jones contested these claims. According to him, “The methods are published in the scientific papers; they are relatively simple and there is nothing that is rocket science in them”. He also noted: “We have made all the adjustments we have made to the data available in these reports; they are 25 years old now”. He added that the programme that produced the global temperature average had been available from the Met Office since December 2009.

51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

When asked for a list of what data was used, but not the data itself, they refused. Even if the data is available for free on the net, how can the results be replicated if they will not say which data was used?

Jones PERSONALLY refused. The information about what data was used has been available since the original papers and research were performed! IT'S IN THE RESEARCH, DURRRR. Have you ever read any of it?

It has only been replicated by his buddies.

Bzzt! Wrong. Try again.

BEST was funded by the Koch brothers, owners of a giant oil/petrochemical company. Most DEFINITELY NOT "buddies" with Mann. Even still, being "buddies" in science doesn't mean diddly-squat; it's not about WHO you know, but WHAT you know, and HOW WELL you know it. So far, Mann's work has been REPEATEDLY vindicated.

There can be no vindication for trying to "hide the decline".

Ya know, for a minute there, I thought you might be trying to be genuinely serious and skeptical. Then you trot THAT out. /facepalm

It is a well established rule of science that you don't leave out data that casts doubt on your conclusion.

You are correct, it is, and the vast majority of climate scientists and their research faithfully follow that rule, no matter how many intellectually dishonest, ignorant, and gullible idiots falling for charlatans and snake oil salesmen lke Watts, Michaels, Singer, et cetera ad nauseum, try to spin otherwise.

You've fallen for their story.

No, I've fallen for the FACTS of the matter. I've done my homework; I've looked beyond anyone's story; what's YOUR excuse?

Many of us used to think the alarmists were good willed, and we assumed they were honest. I still think they are good

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement

(If you don't immediately recognize BEST then please do before replying)

Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers

I agree.

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#skepticism

Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers

I agree.

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#skepticism

Confirmed what? BEST did not at all look into causes of the warming we've seen since the Little Ice Age.

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.

Also:

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement

Global warming is a done discussion. Governments and corporations are already moving to adapt -- except for a few parasites like the Koch brothers (who are funding much of the anti-science "research" that you are lapping up so eagerly), who simply need to be pried off our nation's neck and burned like the blood-ticks that they are.

Except the Koch brothers latest efforts were less than fruitful: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

That's a completely different BEST you are talking about than the one I was reading, as the one I remember was claiming that the global warming since the 1950ies was at least 1 degree and genereally agreeing with the statements published by NOAA and other organizations.

Just to check: We are talking about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, right?

Depends on how you look at it - the amount of radioactive material released isn't the sole indicator.
No one has died yet from direct exposure to radiation, I remember the reported deaths of two workers but they were killed by the tsunami, not radiation.
However it is estimated that long term there will be a small percentage increase in cancer cases.
There were deaths among hospital patients in the hurried and botched evacuation of the area.
Still, the human impact is absolutely dwarfed by the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami.
I don't think any credible voice has denied the extent of TEPCO's incompetence and failure.

However, if this is the worst case scenario with previous generation reactors, it is rather insignificant compared to the magnitude of the crisis facing humanity in the very near future. I generally despise the far left for their dogged ideological immovability, which is why one person surprised me after Fukushima.

George Monbiot is a journalist for the left leaning Guardian newspaper in Britain. He has strong left wing views and sympathies with environmental movements. Until Fukushima, he was a vocal opponent of nuclear power. And after Fukushima, he changed his views in one of the most amazing displays of intellectual honesty I have ever seen: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/
He has continued to be a strong advocate, taking on people from 'green' movements he previously supported and exposing how the movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation and nuclear power: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
He continues to take on the very unscientific, almost irrational opinions in the green movement: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/

The point is, he is one of the few who demonstrated the capacity to be rational. I continue to be amazed just how badly misguided and stubborn otherwise intelligent, rational people are about anything related to nuclear power. Very few take the initiative that Monbiot did and closely examine all the information thrown at us by the media, environmentalist movements and the plainly ignorant.

There are many lessons to be learnt from Fukushima, but the world is learning all the wrong ones. It is concerning to see two engineering powerhouses, Germany and Japan abandon nuclear power. With Japan it was quite inevitable after the events, there is a point where the reasoning ability of the general public breaks down, even in a highly educated and technologically advanced nation like Japan. However, it was incredibly disappointing to see Germany pick the cowardly and backward looking option of abandoning nuclear power. Now they are again importing power from France, and the question I wish more had asked is do they really think Germany would be unaffected in the case of a large scale nuclear disaster in France?

The worldwide drive pushing for the acceptance of the validity of the science and evidence supporting the existence of climate change has involved robust debate and repeated re-examination and testing of the science and supporting evidence in a classic application of the scientific method. Recent evidence may be the tipping point and the support for deniers should dwindle relentlessly hereon.
A different kind of milestone is the fact that a democracy like Australia voted for a pioneering carbon tax; the vote represents an implicit acceptance of Anthropogenic global warming. However the ultimate goal would be for the idea to be overwhelmingly acknowledged around the world. This may sound optimistic, but then I am sure no one a hundred years ago would have expected the overwhelming agreement on the basic principles of human rights, equal rights for women, racial equality.

There needs to

How very repetitive. "Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Mod "Prune" redundant or troll. He's astro-turfed the same link 8 times in this thread. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. It seems only reasonable to rebut them all the same way:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Another "Prune" astro-turf post. The answer is in the FAQ:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Rather than get your knowledge of the study from the Daily Mail, you'd do better to consult the FAQ,

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped

Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

I'd raise your sights in terms of the quality of your reading material if I was you.

So your claim is that BEST only shows a 30 year warming trend. And that's too short.
And the case made by your link is that BEST shows no warming for the last 10 years.
You're saying that 30 years is too short, yet 10 years is significant.

How desperate are you?

The reality is that BEST finds warming since at least the mid 1950s.
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct
And they show that global warming has not stopped.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped

So your claim is that BEST only shows a 30 year warming trend. And that's too short.
And the case made by your link is that BEST shows no warming for the last 10 years.
You're saying that 30 years is too short, yet 10 years is significant.

How desperate are you?

The reality is that BEST finds warming since at least the mid 1950s.
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct
And they show that global warming has not stopped.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped

"Climate is a statistical science."

No, climate is the temperature, pressure, and humidity measurable to the degree of the precision of our instruments and how accurately the instrumentation can be read and results recorded. Imposing imaginary decimal point precision upon pronouncing a conclusion was never in the cards. But if you are looking for "Statistical Sciences", you want to head on over to politics and religion, or perhaps omphaloskepsis if you're the quieter type. Sorry if I sound skeptical of things commonly espoused by an intellectually handicapped media and other dogmatic institutions, but you'll get taken for a ride if you believe everything they tell you. The public has a rather short termed memory, but I still vividly remember the "bad science" of Ponns & Fleishmann, how quickly the Russians and French duplicated their results and then quietly retracted those proclamations when poor methods and misstated precision cast doubt on the "reality" of cold fusion.

"You're not going to search the individual records for that variance, you're going to use statistical methods."

And then one day you find out that the custodians for said records destroyed all of the original data, wrote programs to filter the remaining data to fit a proposed model, and in spite of emails informing their colleagues of their wholesale abandonment of empirical methods, the pre-destined conclusions were made and agenda driven sycophants and legions of the naive and bewildered cheered on an extreme agenda that was not only misplaced, but maligned at best. I'm not sure how you can find room for "science" in such flurry of activity, so it's probably moot to ask for properly stated decimal point precision other than to see it as a red flag for detecting bad "science".

But to address the larger topic, "Global Warming 'Confirmed' by Independent Study", I would have to assume that the "new" study re-collected the old data from uncompromised sources or preferably generated an entirely new set of untainted data, and upon conclusion, stated results fitting the actual data instead of the proposed model, and did so with decimal point accuracy no greater than the accuracy of the worst of the data points. This is how "scientists" earn their pedigree and engender the trust of the greater community. Once someone has blown that trust, their research is tainted and there's very little worth salvaging. It's kind of a Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker moment.

"If a study such as BEST which had two statistical scientists on its team and two known climate skeptics (Muller and Curry) is willing to express their results in fractions of a degree then I accept that they know what they are doing and the results are valid."

False assertion. I judge the results not based by who made them (other than wholesale disregarding exposed charlatans), but on the rigor of the means by which the data was gathered, the integrity of methodology by which results were synthesized, and a peer review. Prior research tainted by bad actors isn't made whole simply by a peer review, even by skeptics. Individually, I don't want to look over a million data points to draw personal conclusions about the state of the world, but upon discovery that the research is contaminated, it needs to be tossed wholesale and started again. It's like when someone pees in the pool, there's no way to sequester the urine, separating it from the good water. Rather, you drain the pool and start again. Yah, it spoils the party but at least no one ends up in the ER with urinary tract infection.

"Events like the raising of the Isthmus of Panama leave clues to their age that geologists can interpret."

Again with the omphaloskepsis.

"Cutting off the currents between the Atlantic and Pacific as the Isthmus did leads to evolutionary d

Climate is a statistical science. One temperature measurement is a weather report. The average of temperature over several decades is a climate report. The data does show the variance but when you're dealing with 1.6 billion data points as the BEST study did you're not going to search the individual records for that variance, you're going to use statistical methods. If a study such as BEST which had two statistical scientists on its team and two known climate skeptics (Muller and Curry) is willing to express their results in fractions of a degree then I accept that they know what they are doing and the results are valid.

I can't even begin to imagine the data sources by which geologists are contriving these age numbers ...

Just because you don't know enough about geology to imagine how they came up with the numbers doesn't mean they aren't valid. Events like the raising of the Isthmus of Panama leave clues to their age that geologists can interpret. Cutting off the currents between the Atlantic and Pacific as the Isthmus did leads to evolutionary divergence of the species in the area. Radiometric dating can tell you how long ago a particular formation was formed. I'm sure there are any number of other clues the geologists used. I guess you don't believe the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago either.

Science isn't about TRVTH. You're asking for a level of exactness that seldom if ever exists in science. 24 hours in a day is a useful average but it's not exact. The earthquake in Chile changed the length of a day by nanoseconds. Should we all go out and get new clocks because of that? The tilt of the Earth varies over time. Should we get new maps every year because the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are constantly changing by millimeters per year?

2) Were these research able to get their hands on the RAW data coming from these instruments?

From the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature data set page:

Whenever possible, we have used raw data rather than previously homogenized or edited data.

Further down the page under item 11:

... and previously manipulated GHCN-M and Hadley Centre data was ignored in favor of other data sources when possible.

You should read the whole page I cited to understand what they did with the data.

From this very study:

Goto http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI

Scroll down to page 10.

Look at that map, it clearly shows that the dataset they're pulling from isn't even meaningfully above the noise level. They say ~33% of the stations they surveyed had negative temperature trends (over 70 years... two stations within the same city have completely opposing trends over seventy. goddamn. years.)

This study and those like it will have zero credibility until someone can explain WHY stations right next to each other have such large discrepancies, and can ACCURATELY model those discrepancies.

Once someone can give me sensible and reproducible information on the data these studies are based on, I will start giving the conclusions drawn from it some weight. There simply is no conclusion to be made until the data is sound.

That was nicely done, particularly the summary video http://berkeleyearth.org/movies.php. I'm glad we can consider the question on 'warming' settled.

Oh wait, that was only a peripheral question. Most 'deniers' I know conceded that in fact the globe probably WAS warming - although this well-done study pretty much removes any question.

Of course, it's a big step from "this is happening" to "this is WHY this is happening", and an ever-larger conceptual step to "this is what we all agree should be done about it".

This study shows that the CRU team (who were the victims of the climategate hack) actually underestimated the warming. So instead of "hiding the decline" they were actually masking the warming. The red line on the following graph shows the CRU temperature reconstruction. http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg

This study confirms that NASA GISS results are more reliable.

That's why all the people who like to blather about "no warming since 2000" quote the CRU data rather than the satellite data.

Ironic.

Here's their report on the urban heat effect:

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI

The graph from the BBC article was drawn by the Berkeley team, not a local ass clown:

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

This study shows that the CRU team (who were the victims of the climategate hack) actually underestimated the warming. So instead of "hiding the decline" they were actually masking the warming. The red line on the following graph shows the CRU temperature reconstruction. http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg

This study confirms that NASA GISS results are more reliable.

I certainly didn't say "scientists" before in this tread because that was my only post (until this one) in the thread. But in general if I say scientists it's in the context of the field being discussed, not every scientist in the world. I guess the GP did use the term "*Some* scientists" but I don't consider those not working the field in question to have much authority to comment on it.

In regards to surface temperature there's a project called Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature lead by the physicist Richard Muller who has expressed some skepticism of global warming that is examining that right now. They still have a long way to go for their final report but the initial findings don't do anything to discredit the current science.

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation, or other potentially influential biases.

I left the second sentence in because I acknowledge they have much work to do yet but I will be surprised if their results don't largely validate the current science.

Throw out all of the proxy data and it doesn't matter that much. It's merely corroborating evidence. What matters is the science that's being done today on today's climate.

Economics don't matter until you decide what to do about it which is a political question. It doesn't change the science one bit.

The CRU's paleoclimate temperature estimate code is not a computer model. It is code to process a large dataset. Code for several of the major GCM's such as NASA/GISS Model E are available so feel free to analyze them yourself. Not sure what you're getting at with that last sentence.

The only thing that isn't reproducible in climate science is the data about what happened in the past. It's easy enough to redo the research that determined the effects of different factors on the climate. It's true that it isn't particularly amenable to much lab experimentation but even that occurs (the CERN CLOUD project).

I largely agree with your third point.

I think you see bias because the findings don't say what you want to hear. Someone's going to have to make a much more solid case on that before I'll take the accusation seriously.

An argument from authority isn't necessarily wrong.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

        The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
        A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

I would argue that climatologists are indeed legitimate experts on the subject and the study I cited demonstrates there is a consensus in the field. Therefore it is not a fallacious appeal to authority.

BerkelyEarth.org's initial findings show:

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU.

I'll admit they have a lot of analysis yet to do but I'd bet money they won't find anything drastically different when they're done than what has been reported by those other groups.

while water vapor is necessary for thunderstorms, extreme weather events, including those without precipitation, such as tornadoes, are driven by pressure and temperature differentials.

Two points to consider: 1) We haven't eliminated the diurnal temperature differential but we have increased water vapour which does feed storms. 2) It is possible to eliminate the diurnal temperature differential and still have spacial differentials - and we have increased water vapour which does feed storms.

You are taking a curious position. When faced with facts that are in conflict with your theory, you chose to change the facts rather than your theory. The facts are that diurnal temperature differential is decreasing, but severe weather events are increasing. You seem to think that this system is too complex to understand, but you know for sure that these facts must be wrong because they don't align with your understanding. I'm not trying to be confrontational here but you may want to step back and think this one through. It doesn't seem like your method of inquiry will direct you towards the truth.

why would we assume that the atmosphere is driving ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around?

1) Because we are increasing the temperature of the atmosphere 2) Because equilibrium is required in the system 3) What do you propose is increasing the temperature of the ocean surface? The energy needs to come from somewhere. This is a very significant amount of energy - the equivalent of the energy released by about 56,000 nukes every hour. You are not proposing free energy are you?

As examples, see PDO, ENSO, ADO, etc.

This is an exchange of heat between atmosphere and ocean or northern and southern hemisphere. How do you propose that an exchange of heat between different parts of the system will add heat to the system?

Why would we assume that a trend of 30 years or more eliminates any trends caused by natural variables?

Well, it will eliminate ENSO and solar cycle, it will not eliminate Milankovitch cycles

The logarithmic rate will always limit any linear progression

No, you could have an accelerated input which dwarfs the logarithmic rate. You need to count all GHG, and you need to count feedbacks (including the release of methane (a GHG) from the arctic).

I believe your point is "the temperature is increasing *and* it's because of human produced CO2".

No, go back through the history. You stated that the temperature is not increasing. I stated that it must be because we just had the hottest year in the hottest decade. You stated that this only shows that the temperature is increasing. I stated that yes, that's what I said.

And on the scale that matters to me and my neighbors, we have been seeing dropping temperatures.

So which is it? Do you agree that the temperature has been rising (as you stated in the previous quote, or that temperature is not rising, as you stated in this quote?

They can adjust their global average temperature to whatever they want

Please, no more of this crazy conspiracy talk. Here is the temperature reconstructions from Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

here is the analysis by Richard Mueller and the BEST team (funded by oil interests no less!): http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Here is the analysis by Anthony Watts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/#more-39705

Three vehement skeptics wh

Also, here is his website if you are interested: http://berkeleyearth.org/