With respect, the 'models' are moot. Not one (sic) has served to gain CRU or Mann credibility, as this code-slop demonstrates.
This is a rapidly moving and agile debate, no, push. Gore was not wrong, the science is (effectively) settled, but he was wrong about the debate being over. Not even the Nittany Lion is defending the 'science'. He has been busted repeatedly with morphed DATA, let alone considered conclusions. His Tiljander graph was submitted with flipped data (Twice) to 'Science' magazine, and they published it, knowing the graph was specious. 'Science' is at the top of 'reputable' publications, and since the gravity of their "mistake" will not be felt for some time, it is clear they were trying to help salvage some of Mann's credibility, with atrocious consequences for themselves.
This should serve to frame the importance and immediacy of action at Copenhagen. 'Science' will be held up by the advokaten often, and the "Press" will be dazzled.
ORAC thank you for your presence here. Your data and comment have been crucial to the struggle.
bear
will fraser (from Streetwise Professor))
"It is beyond poor science, and has manifested as outright criminal activity....... Grants are a species of Public Assistance, and as such are subject to the People's Laws. The 'Scientist' in destroying DATA or in preventing its release, is guilty of crimes that can be punished by Prison. A new Breed of politician may not be restrained from enforcing the People's Laws."
Last edited by bearfoil : 29th November 2009 at 17:55.
As I was saying, why trust some guy on youtube but not the scientists? Blind faith is a bad thing no matter which way you take it.
I presume you do understand why we take the AGW scientists currently with a pinch... erm.. a truckload of salt?
Thanks for evaluating the youtube code video. Care to evaluate also the Harry_Read_Me file (aka data horribla)? In this files there are comments such as:
Quote:
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
My bold.
or
Quote:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density' records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures."
So when temperature rises acc the tree rings all is dandy and as soon as the temperatures drop they're not valid anymore and data has to be modified? Cherry picking perhaps? Surely not science..
another interesting one:
Quote:
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
My bold.
BTW is it correct that Hadley has stated that all original data has been deleted and we have to do it with the optimized version, so no possibility to determine how they optimized the data? The dog ate my homework. Another inconvenient truth...
Last edited by Capt.KAOS : 29th November 2009 at 20:45.
Korhola, Finnish professor of environmental change (caveat: not a denier)
Quote:
Atte Korhola: "Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world's most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science - or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often - that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem."
I won't re-post the Mann 'Science' graph, and that is the reference our dendrologist is referring to.
I have been here almost two years in three different iterations, saying the same things, plainly, as I see it. Criminetly, Icemang, No one wants simple, every tool in the box has to have 'complicated'.
The tree rings as used for the Hockey Stick (Mann, et al.) based temperature on the width of pith v. cambium each growth cycle. In any growth cycle, there are dozens of growth factors, not the least of which is the short growth cycle itself, as little as two weeks, and usually after thaw, though not always. In any given year, the tree may grow in a hot/short Spring bust out, in a year that may have been uncommonly cold expressed as GMT.
The tree rings are bogus, bogus, bogus. It's like three card monte with one card, and you still lose. Peepo............. get a grip. The Stick was debunked years ago, OK?
What would be really interesting would be to be able to read the e-mails that have been flying about between Jones and Mann over the last couple of weeks.
I have had the task, on several occasions, of updating computer code that was written by people who were experts in their field (heat transfer, thermodynamics, instrumentation, etc.), and often it took me a substantial amount of time to decode their code. What I frequently found was programming that was logically incomplete; math models without bounding, missing error traps, etc. (In the days of FORTRAN, we called this "spaghetti code", because of all the "GO TO ___" statements that wound around the program.)
The resulting output was very good if the raw data was high quality, but if it was garbage in, the output might or might not look reasonable.
I took it upon myself to include error traps to insure that the process worked as intended, and if an internal parameter violated a "sanity check", a warning flag would be raised so the operator would know the output was questionable, and perhaps dead wrong. I was never sure if management recognized the time bombs I had defused.
In the spirit of Simenpro's warmer/cooler argument, here's some hot-off-the-press data ...
S 171 O 200 N 192 D 178 J 206 F 198 M 195 A 185 M 199 J 202 J 233 A 208 S 234 O 200 N 206 D 212 J 205 F 213 M 234 A 211 M 220 J 195 J 213 A 194 S 201 O 256
In isolation, What statistical information does this data provide?
Is there a trend apparent? If so, how strong is it? If no trend, why not?
If a trend is apparent, where would future extrapolatation take us (statistically)?
Given answers to these questions are uncertain, then how much additional data would be needed to remove any significant uncertainty? (eg more data points?, What the data represents? The estimated distribution of the data, etc)
How much uncertainty (and however much, why) would be removed by each of those?
Without knowledge of what the data represents, how hesitant will Simenpro be to explain how he would analyze the data statistically and provide his rationale?
NEW YORK Money on the table perhaps $10 billion a year or more could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.
Quote:
"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.
His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.
Quote:
The proposed emissions targets by industrialized nations for 2020 and China's plan to slow emissions growth fall short of what scientists say is needed to head off damaging climate change. But if developing nations accept the quick-start financing, a deal might be reached at Copenhagen on a framework for putting all elements in a binding agreement next year, with an eye toward deeper emissions cuts and heftier financing beyond that.
"Short-term finance would be used as an opportunity to get a political buy-in for the other elements of an agreement," said Athena Ballesteros, a climate-finance expert at the Washington think tank World Resources Institute.
Chucking $10 billion dollars to third-world countries for "political buy-in."
The most obvious thing that strikes anyone wading through the CRU documents is how easy it was for a small number of "experts" to propel their data-raped conclusions first into a "peer-reviewed" "consensus" and then up through western governments into the international fait accomplis of Kyoto, the IPCC and now Copenhagen. I initially assumed stuff like this was just a bit of naked obstructionism toward a few troublemakers:
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren't any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers.
But no, it was systemic. Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals stored on paper and magnetic tape were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.
The CRU is the worlds leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible*.
No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
But don't worry. It'll all be very scientific. Your carbon allowance numbers will be kept in a big database. Maybe in East Anglia?
Is that paragraph about the proposed carbon swipe card really true?
pb- It isn't important whether it's true or not, it's possible, and perhaps likely.
What's the difference between an ATM (which represents 'money') and an ACM (which represents 'not-Carbon'). I have less Carbon than you, nyah nyah na nyah nyah. 'Exchange' is not difficult, one only changes the portrait on the holograph. I simply don't want Gore on my Billion Benzene 'dollar'
The ramifications of Climategate have started. Mr.David Holland, an electrical engineer by training, was one of the people who had submitted FOI requests for raw data to UEA in the past.
In one email dated May 28, 2008, one academic at UEA writes to a colleague having received Mr Holland's request: "Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??"
After the Climategate scandals broke last week, Mr.Holland made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, forcing them to take action. Mr.Holland is seeking prosecution of some of these scientists for holding back information in breach of disclosure laws. The ICO has written back promising to investigate the complaint against UEA and also investigate the other universities linked to Hadley CRU.
Immediately the University has confirmed that it would release the data as soon as possible once they " negotiated the data release from a range of non-publication agreements '!! Since when did temperature raw data become a non-publishable item? They are not " state secrets ", aren't they? And why hide raw data, unless there are nefarious reasons? The university states that it may take" several months because some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data ". What a joke? What's the " economic value " in historical data of past temperatures? They are supposed to be a matter of history for anybody to refer, isn't it?
Kudos to Mr.Holland for carrying through with his quest and ensuring that the forces of law will now come into question while dealing with these climate frauds.
