Slashdot Mirror
Where the Global Warming Data Is
Several readers noted the latest fallout from the Climate Research Unit's Climategate: the admission by the University of East Anglia that the raw data behind important climate research was discarded in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue" according to the Times (UK) article. The Telegraph quotes Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them." Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate site: a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate. From the former link: "In the aftermath of the CRU email hack, many people have come to believe that scientists are unfairly restricting access to the raw data relating to the global rise in temperature. ... We have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc."
please please PLEASE don't try to speak for all of us. Some of us that actually have a different opinion than you find it offensive.
The "jews" seem to be doing this replacing themselves, quite nicely - without any of your calls for action.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.
Hippie.
It probably wouldn't suprise you then that when you look at who are funding climate skeptic research
http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm
are the same people funding the creationist whackos
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm
Yeah, its the same guys lecturing climate scientists and accusing them of fraud that lecture biologists and accuse THEM of fraud.
No agendas here folks, move on citizen.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Look, the lid is blown off a scam of Große Lüge proportions.
Deal with it like an adult, or deal with it like a leftist.
You're lovely either way, PMF, and we love you you for it.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The data doesn't matter. If any of you have looked at a cross section of a Redwood tree that was 2000 years old (which you can do within a 30 minute drive of the SillyCon Valley), you will see decades and even hundreds of years with small rings and large period of time with big rings. You can see simply there that our planet (without the help or cause of man) goes through cycles and does not have a constant balance. The climate ebbs and flows over centuries.
Even with data, the scientists will still admit that they cannot definitively state WHY the temperature goes up or down. It is the rash decision of some to throw billions of dollars at a solution when they don't have confidence of the cause. I hope my grandchildren will be able to laugh at the history books that show we had nothing to do with the temperature changes and though we take drastic steps, the temperature will raise or fall on its own.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
How have you done better? I mean, quoting blogs and editorials?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
or we could look at the Antarctic Peninsula, and wail about its ice loss, but it's only 0.5% of the land mass down there, while on the other 99.5% the ice mass has been increasing over the last 50 years. But what have all the sound bites by the Global Warming scientists been about, but "oh my gawd the poles are melting". So here you go cherry pick some tiny slice of the earth's mass that is having a "climate change", while the rest has been cooling down because solar activity is down.
where is your evidence of "anthropogenic change", you are aware we are now at 1934 levels of average global temperature and *falling*. Why is the scientific method and uncooked data so hard for the climate alarmists to understand?
And sea levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years, for most of that far more rapidly than today, good thing the rate decreased a couple thousand years ago. Again, what is so hard to understand?
And the Antarctic ice has been *building* since the 1960s, save for on the peninsula (half of one percent of the land mass) the alarmists have cherry-picked as their "poles are melting" wailing sound bite.
the alarmists must massage and model and cook the books, then they understand
Why take your existence out on the dog? That's not very fair. Give him to a good home and get on with it.
And best of all Real Climate.org tends to censor posts. I just asked Gavin how he responded to Phil Jones email (just to him) saying that they'd found a loophole around having to release their data through FOIA requests. (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt) For someone so hot and heavy about publicizing all the data, it certainly seems that he was fine with it way back in 2008. Of course, he might have responded to Jones about it, but it wasn't in the published archive. Hence, I asked.
My favorite quote so far from the leaked emails:
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" -Phil Jones
Climate science isn't computer science. There only a few temp datasets and 'collecting' a new one isn't an option. If you want a century of records you either use an existing set or wait on i/o for about a century.
Of course you can collect another temperature dataset. They were collected in the first place. The historical records are typically held by a library, not by some hoarding researcher in a lab, if for no other reason they're expensive and contrary to public perception, scientists don't have money. If you want, you can get them. You just have to go the library and get them. Even if you can get the ship's log from the HMS Haberdasher, you can get the ship's log from HNLMS Scheef.
Gathering tree ring data, ice core data, and all the other proxy records are recoverable. You just have to go and get them.
My point is that there are always other sources for comparable data. It's not impossible. It requires leg work, that's it. And if you think the data was collected in a biased manner, then you have to collect it yourself anyway.
As the leaked data now makes clear, access to the raw data would have scuttled these idiots. The data was dodgy enough it wouldn't have withstood even the most cursory review. The temp data is full of gaps they averaged over and did even worse to.
First, it's email that was stolen, not data. Second, the were was years of investigation into the MBH98 methods and conclusions after MM03 was published. Not just peer review, but a full audit, by climatologists, statisticians, politicians, and whoever else wanted to get into the game. And you know what? After all that investigation, the conclusions held up. Even as Edward Wegman of the American Statistical Association put it, "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
You seem to really really want these emails to be some sort of smoking gun, but they just aren't. The "explosive" conclusion from 1998, that northern hemisphere temperatures have risen to unprecedented levels, has repeatedly held up to analysis.
One of the more referenced tree ring studies ends up being based on a grand total of twelve cores. Twelve samples!
And what was the confidence level? What was the confidence interval? What was the geographic range of the samples? What was the geographic range of the conclusions? 12 samples by itself doesn't say anything. Without this information, your objection about the sample size simply isn't meaningful. No more so than someone that doesn't like the latest national poll and loudly proclaims, "But they only asked 600 people!", because they don't understand how statistical sampling works.
Several problems with that statement. One, had source been required for publication there is a very non-zero chance the problems would have been caught in peer review.
Well I can assure you that while that probability of detecting an error maybe non-zero, it would remain asymptotically zero. No one is going to read the code. Tons of bugs get through formal code reviews in industry, and that's by people that understand what the code is doing. It almost certainly not going to happen when the "code" isn't actually one program, but a smattering of perl scripts that may or may not still exist, some random pieces of matlab, and maybe some scipy thrown in.
Second, peer review is not, nor has it ever been an audit. It's a reading of a a tersely worded 10 page paper. You read the paper, looking for errors in methodology, unexpected results, unsupported conclusions, and above all novelty. At no point has it ever involved replicating the experiments presented. There isn't enough time, the cost-benefit ratio is just way too low, and even if it was possible, no one wants to do that.
I'm not an expert but from reading about the case the flaw wasn't exactly obfusca
You make seroius errors of fact in your first post and now I'm supposed to accept that you have corrected the studdied opinion of every scientific institution on the planet.
Get off my fucking lawn, NOW!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I'm prepared to lose my excellent Karma on this issue. To be honest I'm not prepared to lose it over whether Microsoft is better than Linux, or Linux is better than Microsoft:
Research has shown Mount Kilimanjaro has been losing glaciers/snow cap over the last 150 years or so. The reasons for this are micro-climate issues, particularly deforestation around the base on the mountain. Now, will you just shut-up about Mount Kilimanjaro being somehow proof of CO2 based warming hypothesis. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.
Secondly, this whole topic is posted by a Real Climate shill and is nothing more than a propaganda piece to try to limit the damage from the unfolding scandal. The datasets aren't entirely independent as they both take data from the same poorly sited, poor maintained and poorly analysed surface station networks. Moreover, there are big data quality problems with NASA's GISS data. If CRU data agrees with GISS and CRU data has been fixed, I conclude that either GISS data has been fixed too, or that they're both crap.
Here's a brief analysis of data quality issues with GIStemp. Here's information about the poor quality of the surface station network.
Their predictions were off by 80%, but you still put value in their prediction method?
Think about it. I'd say that apparently they have no fucking clue whats going to happen next because their models are missing something important, because being wrong by 80% either direction means exactly that.
"His name was James Damore."
All I read in that e-mail is a snarky comment, a facetious remark that is humorous in context, and NO PROOF that actual peer review was fixed.
I saw people admitting the limits of their knowledge, not an admission that they know nothing at all.
You have no proof. You have ambiguous e-mails, only partially reproduced, presented selectively and without context, and edited with an obvious agenda of damning the CRU.
But the most important thing is that even if everything in those e-mails is true, and even if the CRU is corrupt to the core, those e-mails still don't prove what you claim they prove. You need evidence of "fixed" peer review, and evidence of "ignorance". You don't have evidence. You just have ambiguous e-mails and conspiracy theories.