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."
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.
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?
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
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.