Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
That's about the FOIA requests, not data. It was probably illegal, but has nothing to do with the science.
The hottest shit right now I guess is their making up of non-existent non-moved Chinese weather stations to "disprove" UHI.
And this is rubbish. Noone has ever tried to "disprove" UHI. The paper, "Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, P. D. Jones, P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W-C. Wang & T. R. Karl, 1990" claimed "The results show that the urbanization influence in two of the most widely used hemispheric data sets is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale.", i.e. the effect exists but it doesn't explain observe warming.
The data for this paper has been lost, which is pretty sloppy, but do you think that this (published 1990) is the last paper ever published on this subject?
It isn't, In fact Jones himself published a paper in 2008:
Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
P. D. Jones (CRU), D. H. Lister (CRU), Q. Li (National Meteorological Information Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China)
Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands UHIs). We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1C per decade over the period 1951-2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81C over this period.
Now say why you're going to ignore this study.
Otherwise, "Hide the decline" offers an interesting case study. Consensus Cultists love to say the quote is "taken out of context", etc. - but this merely confirms that they are indeed... cultists. The more context you get, the more you see that the point was indeed to... fudge the presentation of the proxy record (to prevent any embarrassing... declines).
You've left out the part of the code where valadj is used.
And this code was used for what exactly? Oh, for drawing a pretty picture for a magazine cover. Not used in any published paper.
Oh, and back to point 2, the fudge factor wasn't in the version that was used (hint: it's commented out, second hint, it prints the text "Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline" [2]).
So, what was your point, exactly?
[1] It's a joke, I started life as a Fortran programmer, I know the difference between Fortran and IDL. I also know what an IDL comment looks like.
[2] You know, the decline they hid by publishing papers about it?
The "paper" argues that the sun is made of iron, which explains why global warming is not caused by man.
ABSTRACT The Sun encompasses planet Earth, supplies the heat that warms it, and even shakes it. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed that solar influence on Earth's climate is limited to changes in solar irradiance and adopted the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun--the Standard Solar Model (SSM). They did not consider the alternative solar model and instead adopted another consensus opinion: Anthropogenic greenhouse gases play a dominant role in climate change. The SSM fails to explain the solar wind, solar cycles, and the empirical link of solar surface activity with Earth's changing climate. The alternative solar model--molded from an embarrassingly large number of unexpected observations that space-age measurements revealed since 1959--explains not only these puzzles but also how closely linked interactions between the Sun and its planets and other celestial bodies induce turbulent cycles of secondary solar characteristics that significantly affect Earth's climate.
... and when you've finished counting, subtract all the scientists who asked for their names to be removed due to being misquoted
[citation needed] I've never heard of anyone complaining about being cited in the WG1 section if IPCC AR4.
in the summaries and conclusions (written by politicians and influenced by news reports and other media)
Of the people who wrote the WG1 report (which is were the list of references Capsaicin points you to comes from) which ones, according to you, are "politicians"?
There you go - one of the most influential and powerful AGW proponents using his influence to keep journals from printing papers that contradicted some of the basis for his work. Even if he has to "redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!"
Miss.
This isn't about whether the papers be published or not - they were, it's about whether they be cited in the IPCC report or not.
Jones's conspiratorial powers were so great that the papers were cited by the report ("McKitrick, R., and P.J. Michaels, 2004: A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Clim. Res., 26, 159-173." and "Kalnay, E., and M. Cai, 2003: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423, 528-531.").
It turns out that the papers are crap, as Jones was pointing out in this email. If skeptics wanted to point to bad science in the IPCC reports these are some of the things they would be shouting about the loudest,
The head of the CRC (that group that fudged their data) has made a personal fortune from it
Perhaps you mean CRU (The University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit)?
Where do you find evidence that they "fudged their data"?
Where do you get the idea that Phil Jones (assuming that's who you're talking about) "has made a personal fortune" from being an "AGW proponent" (or anything else - hint: UK universities don't pay enough for people to make personal fortunes)
In MicroB you hover by dragging your finger or stylus from the left side of the screen. You get a mouse cusor that follows your finger/stylus and a place you can click to start select mode.
The article is, as many other people have pointed out, purest apple fanboi crap.
Abramopoulos, F., C. Rosenzweig, and B. Choudhury, 1988: Improved ground hydrology calculations for global climate models (GCMs): Soil water movement and evapotranspiration. J. Clim., 1, 921-941.
Achatz, U., and J.D. Opsteegh, 2003: Primitive-equation-based low-order models with seasonal cycle, Part II: Application to complexity and nonlinearity of large-scale atmospheric dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 478-490.
AchutaRao, K., and K.R. Sperber, 2002: Simulation of the El Niño Southern Oscillation: Results from the coupled model intercomparison project. Clim. Dyn., 19, 191-209.
AchutaRao, K., and K.R. Sperber, 2006: ENSO simulation in coupled ocean-atmosphere models: Are the current models better? Clim. Dyn., 27, 1-15.
AchutaRao, K., et al., 2004: An Appraisal of Coupled Climate Model Simulations. UCRL-TR-202550, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 197 pp.
Alexander, M.A., et al., 2004: The atmospheric response to realistic Arctic sea ice anomalies in an AGCM during winter. J. Clim., 17, 890-905.
Alexeev, V.A., 2003: Sensitivity to CO2 doubling of an atmospheric GCM coupled to an oceanic mixed layer: a linear analysis. Clim. Dyn., 20, 775-787.
Alexeev, V.A., P.L. Langen, and J.R. Bates, 2005: Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in "ghost forcing" experiments without sea ice feedbacks. Clim. Dyn., 24, 655-666.
Alexeev, V.A., et al., 1998: Modelling of the present-day climate by the INM RAS atmospheric model "DNM GCM". Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Moscow, Russia, 200 pp.
Allan, R.P., and A. Slingo, 2002: Can current climate forcings explain the spatial and temporal signatures of decadal OLR variations? Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(7), 1141, doi:10.1029/2001GL014620.
Allan, R.P., V. Ramaswamy, and A. Slingo, 2002: A diagnostic analysis of atmospheric moisture and clear-sky radiative feedback in the Hadley Centre and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) climate models. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D17), 4329, doi:10.1029/2001JD001131.
Allan, R.P., M.A. Ringer, and A. Slingo, 2003: Evaluation of moisture in the Hadley Centre Climate Model using simulations of HIRS water vapour channel radiances. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 129, 3371-3389.
Allan, R.P., M.A. Ringer, J.A. Pamment, and A. Slingo, 2004: Simulation of the Earth's radiation budget by the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts 40-year Reanalysis (ERA40). J. Geophys. Res., 109, D18107, doi:10.1029/2004JD004816.
Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224-231.
Alley, R.B., et al., 2002: Abrupt Climate Changes: Inevitable Surprises. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 221 pp.
Alves, O., M.A. Balmaseda, D. Anderson, and T. Stockdale, 2004: Sensitivity of dynamical seasonal forecast to ocean initial conditions. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 130, 647-667.
Amundrud, T.L., H. Mailing, and R.G. Ingram, 2004: Geometrical constraints on the evolution of ridged sea ice. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C06005, doi:10.1029/2003JC002251.
Annamalai, H., K. Hamilton, and K.R. Sperber, 2007: South Asian summer monsoon and its relationship with ENSO in the IPCC AR4 simulations. J. Clim., 20, 1071-1083.
Annan, J.D., J.C. Hargreaves, N.R. Edwards, and R. Marsh, 2005a: Parameter estimation in an intermediate complexity Earth System Model using an ensemble Kalman filter. Ocean Modelling, 8, 135-154.
Annan, J.D., et al., 2005b: Efficiently constraining climate sensitivity with palaeoclimate observations. Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere, 1, 181-184.
Meteorologists' models make huge assumptions, they must. I won't believe a thing they've said until they clearly state their assumptions and make at least some attempt to find error bounds.
And:
I haven't even been able to find the papers to read. There are some whitepapers on the IPCC site, but I would like to find peer reviewed papers.
So you're complaining that they don't state their assumptions or make any attempt to find error bounds, but also that you haven't read any peer reviewed papers.
Meteorologists' models make huge assumptions, they must. I won't believe a thing they've said until they clearly state their assumptions and make at least some attempt to find error bounds.
Which papers have you read that don't state assumptions and make some attempt to find error bounds?
No, global warming is proved by the rise in global average temperatures.
Is that simple enough for you?
Models seem to show that global warming will case increased precipitation in some places, drought in others, but that isn't necessary to prove global warming.
I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier, and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file. And for producing the science it is not. Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later, claiming that the scientists were "actively engaged" in hiding data is judging them too harshly.
No, the main problem with the CRU FOI requests, and the reason that they were denied, is that they were clearly a DOS attack on the CRU.
Check out FOI 09-97 ! Clarification sought indeed.
Here's a bit, for flavour (an FOI request was made requesting a list of FOI requests...)
(Note that it was almost impossible to get this past the slashdot junk filters, read in to that what you will).
FOI_09-69 Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL, NAURU 1. the date of such agreement; 2. the parties to the agreement; 3. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further transmission
of the data to non-academics or others 4. a copy of the entire agreement In addition, I hereby request the following information: 1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee
responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements. 2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee
responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements. 3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into
verbal agreements. 4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests.
Response: Clarification sought.
FOI_09-72 Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR/FOI request for any confidentiality agreements covering CRUTEM station data involving station data in Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, and Myanmar. [...]
FOI_09-73 I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: Chile, Finland, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland. [...]
FOI_09-74 Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in Russia, China and India: [...]
FOI_09-75 Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR/FOI request for the following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements affecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Ukraine: [...]
FOI_09-76 Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby make an EIR/FOI request for any confidentiality agreements covering CRUTEM station data involving station data in ARUBA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ASCENSION ISLAND. [...] ... FOI_09-97 I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different
Uh, whadayya mean, if - we are in the middle of a mass extinction. Whether it includes us or not has not yet been determined. Get back to me in a coupla hundred years (an insanely short timespan for this kind of event, but that's the way it's going).
oh fuck, it's an AC, why am I bothering. Oh well...
First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science. It's the sort of stuff that no self-respecting scientist would ever want to be associated with, in the slightest way.
[citation fucking needed] you lying piece of shit.
All it has really taken is a bit of good UI design and they start losing sales massively to Apple
Massively?
From Nokias 4Q 2009 results:
Of the total industry mobile device volumes, converged mobile device industry volumes in the fourth quarter 2009 increased to 52.4 million units, based on Nokia's estimate, compared with an estimated 47.0 million units in the third quarter 2009. Our own converged mobile device volumes, comprising our smartphones and mobile computers, were 20.8 million units in the fourth quarter 2009
They sold 20.8 million S60 (*) devices in 4Q 2009! How many iphones did Apple sell?
Slashdot Mirror
How could it be about manipulation if the so called fudged graph was never used.
And then you change the subject, showing some peer review in progress.
Don't worry, the papers will be published in Energy & Environment and you'll be happy.
That's about the FOIA requests, not data. It was probably illegal, but has nothing to do with the science.
And this is rubbish. Noone has ever tried to "disprove" UHI. The paper, "Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, P. D. Jones, P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W-C. Wang & T. R. Karl, 1990" claimed "The results show that the urbanization influence in two of the most widely used hemispheric data sets is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale.", i.e. the effect exists but it doesn't explain observe warming.
The data for this paper has been lost, which is pretty sloppy, but do you think that this (published 1990) is the last paper ever published on this subject?
It isn't, In fact Jones himself published a paper in 2008:
Now say why you're going to ignore this study.
and this proves that you yourself are a troll.
Fail.
So, what was your point, exactly?
[1] It's a joke, I started life as a Fortran programmer, I know the difference between Fortran and IDL. I also know what an IDL comment looks like.
[2] You know, the decline they hid by publishing papers about it?
This is, in fact, a real argument used by denialists:
Taken from the 500 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"
The "paper" argues that the sun is made of iron, which explains why global warming is not caused by man.
[citation needed] I've never heard of anyone complaining about being cited in the WG1 section if IPCC AR4.
Of the people who wrote the WG1 report (which is were the list of references Capsaicin points you to comes from) which ones, according to you, are "politicians"?
Could you please be more specific. "A CD", "a FOIA request", "a court battle". What the fuck are you talking about?
If, perchance, you're talking about the CRU emails/files leak then you know very well that the source code shows exactly nothing.
(P.S. What court battle?)
Nobody claimed it was hard. The claim is that most people don't bother. I have no idea whether it's true.
The man of straw returns.
Miss.
In MicroB you hover by dragging your finger or stylus from the left side of the screen. You get a mouse cusor that follows your finger/stylus and a place you can click to start select mode.
The article is, as many other people have pointed out, purest apple fanboi crap.
Well, for example in Chapter 8: Climate Models and their EvaluationYou'll find the references.
So, let's get this straight:
And:
So you're complaining that they don't state their assumptions or make any attempt to find error bounds, but also that you haven't read any peer reviewed papers.
Uh, the date now is 2010. "global cooling" since 2007 is what we would call weather. Climate is not weather.
Which papers have you read that don't state assumptions and make some attempt to find error bounds?
I know it's not worth responding to an AC, but I notice some clown has modded this up:
This is in untrue.
No, global warming is proved by the rise in global average temperatures.
Is that simple enough for you?
Models seem to show that global warming will case increased precipitation in some places, drought in others, but that isn't necessary to prove global warming.
Must resist temptation to godwinize....
No, the main problem with the CRU FOI requests, and the reason that they were denied, is that they were clearly a DOS attack on the CRU.
Have you seen them? http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=shewonk.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Frequest%2F25032%2Fresponse%2F66822%2Fattach%2F2%2FResponse%2520letter%2520199%2520100121.pdf
Check out FOI 09-97 ! Clarification sought indeed.
Here's a bit, for flavour (an FOI request was made requesting a list of FOI requests...)
(Note that it was almost impossible to get this past the slashdot junk filters, read in to that what you will).
Absolutely.
Of course if it's GPL licensed you'll keep the binaries to yourself while you're at it.
Or do you mean does his definition of freedom allow you to profit from the work of others without allowing them the freedom they allow you?
What ever happened to the THNS064GF8BEAA?
Announced Jan 2009:
And where is it now?
Uh, whadayya mean, if - we are in the middle of a mass extinction. Whether it includes us or not has not yet been determined. Get back to me in a coupla hundred years (an insanely short timespan for this kind of event, but that's the way it's going).
If you fuck a Real Doll (TM) who gives consent? If you eat a big mac who gives consent?
I'll worry about that after you've explained why canibalism and necrophilia should be illegal.
(I'm serious - why should they be illegal?)
oh fuck, it's an AC, why am I bothering. Oh well...
[citation fucking needed] you lying piece of shit.
Massively?
From Nokias 4Q 2009 results:
They sold 20.8 million S60 (*) devices in 4Q 2009! How many iphones did Apple sell?
Ref: http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/financials/quarterly-and-annual-information/q4-2009
(Well, that number includes a tiny number of Maemo devices as well, but if you think it's more that a few hundred thousand you're dreaming).