Banter? Yeah, right! 🙄 -
I really don't think you believe that yourself do you rprt? If it was just banter, why did they repeatedly refuse the FOI requests for the raw data and code?
Edited to add: I suppose the "HARRY READ ME" files were just banter as well? Have you read them - its pretty reflective of the quality of the data!
Really.
Ian
I seem to recall that the reason the data wasn't released was that they didn't own the data and as such wasn't theirs to release.
As for the other two papers, if they were rubbish then why not "go to town on them".
Crankboy, i resist engaging you in conversation in fear of "feeding the troll" however.....
The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.
Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?
These models just look backwards not forwards.
Heaven forbid we learn from the past!
Those who belive that global warming is man made and a problem, are basing their theorys on measuring the actual temperature the actual atmospheric co2 and observable trends
What are they comparing it against?
Your "historic fact" is based on how thick a layer of sediment is or how thick a layer of ice is and wether certain levels of chemicals retained in those layers indicates anything usefull about the world at the time the layer was formed.
but this data is gathered by the same scientists who are creating you models for you, are you saying that the data is not valid in anyway?
The dificulty with your position is that you seek to rubbish the use of models by climatologists by pointing to the historic records which are in fact the product of the use of models.
WTF? You've just contradicted yourself about 4 times over! 😯
Why is the raw data not published?
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Thats how it works believe me, I've been at the sharp end as both reviewer and reviewed.
Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that.
hainey have you addressed any of the scientific points put to you, and you accuse someone who is trying to be constructive of being a troll you are beyond help.
You make no sense
The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?
just what exactly does this mean of course people are manipulating the data, thats because the ice cores do not contain thermometers hidden away for thousands of years.
I give up.
Don't give up, its quite simple.
The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?
I havnt the time at the moment to sift through 12 pages of argument/debate to see if these links have already been posted...but please read these
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html
Weather is completely different to climate and 'global warming' is a misnomer - atmospheric warming causes a change in climatic patterns which can change weather patterns.
Most predictions show that more 'extremes' of weather is expected if atmospheric warming continues - the UK could well see harsher winters and hotter summers (we are coming out of La Nina as well so its been a colder period).
The UK isnt the world, a cold snap here does not mean one iota on the grand scale of things. The Daily Mail and The Daily Express are headline grabbing using bad science and opinions to grab peoples attention.
[i]Are man made emissions causing atmospheric warming?[/i]
The science and logic appears to say yes, evidence appears to back this up.
[i]Will atmospheric warming lead to climatic change?[/i]
Science says yes, logic says yes, solid evidence is difficult as there is no precedent for this.
[i]How bad will climate change be?[/i]
The truth is that no model will be 100% accurate, but they all seem to point to change of somekind - change in itself is bad for humanity, but rising sea levels and more extreme weather events (droughts, flooding etc...) are some of the things that are touted. This may well lead to greater levels of immigration, greater spread of disease, loss of species...
But the thing is you can take climate change out of the argument completely, and the case for needing to change our current way of life still stands firm. We are completely dependant on fossil oil, gas and coal. These are not going to last forever (and by most accounts, oil and gas wont last for much longer at all).
Cleaner fuels, less pollutants and particulates, cheaper than fossil fuesls after the first generation are up and running...
So why not change whilst we still have the available energy resource to actually do this? There is little point us going 'lets go to renewables' when there is no oil and gas left to make the electricity to run the factories to build the next generation of power sources (whether that be wind, solar or fusion).
Why not make the world better for the hell of it? Sod the economy...as soon as the oil and gas runs out we are screwed financially anyway - we should become as self-sufficient as we can whilst we still can.
This says it better though (may have already been done):
[img] 
[/img]
"Mark - Resident Grumpy
Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that."
Hi Grumpy
So why not release all the raw data as it proves what the climate change case and that would go part way to ending some of the anti's. Would it not? Am not trying to be difficult but that seems very simple to me.
Mark
i) if that was true, there are elements within FOI regulations that allow refusal of request as vexatious, this was not the reason given for refusal at the time - only the story given AFTER the emails were released!
ii) Steve Mcintire has detailed all UK FOI requests he has made ( http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/ ) - There should never have been a need for an FOI request for the actual data, as its supposed to be published in accordance with the IPCC protocols!
iii) of course, one reason to refuse to release the data, was to hide the fact that they had deleted a huge chunk of the raw data - as any scientist knows, thats pretty much the no-no of all no-no's!
Z11
You just added a bit after I posted.
The first bit was banter.
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.
Was anything deleted, or was he just talking tough?
hainey - Member
Don't give up, its quite simple.The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?
it does show what happened in the past not what is happening now as
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Unless your claim is you understand the paper better than the authors?
Therefore they are sayin gthe model can no longe rhold it is broken as there is more C02 NOW than when the models were "true or proof ".
Assuming you agree with cause and effect why has the unprecedented levels not affected the cycle? Is it impervious to external factors? Does forcing no longer occur?
sorry rprt - see the point I've just made above:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Draw your own conclusions!
If the CRU leak had actually contained anything that did show unanswerable flaws in the CC methodology, then the anti-CC lobby would have jumped on it and published it for the world to see.
Havt seen anything conclusive yet from it though...
The papers got the facts out of the expenses receipts quickly enough!
Tim, did you notice the emails that leaked through despite saying "delete this after reading"?
and the ones telling people to delete anything they had on certain subjects?
How are we to know what was in the emails that have been deleted?
so we should assume it was conclusive proof they were liarsand they made it all up?
I agree they should release all the data but it would not alter the opion of most people I suspect.
Other datasets, recordings and readings exist or is everything faked and only internet scientist have seen the truth?
Zulu
I wasnt aware of the deletion of data - that is indeed, very poor. Raw data is the most important part of any scientific process.
You cant read anything from it (it may well have just been bad judgement on their behalf), but i do agree that it doesnt help their cause at all.
Draw your own conclusions!
I'm not saying they weren't stupid to lose data, but clearly this is different data to that discussed in the e-mail.
Data mentioned in e-mail is "a file" that he talks about deleting. Data lost is physical paper and tapes that were thrown away.
My conclusion is banter + stupidity.
when I was a scientist we had to not only keep all raw data for a specified lenght of time ut we had to keep the samples too. Funders demanded it.
Again with the "other datasets exist" - no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!
Edit - RPRT - just review your own comment in light of the fact that the Raw data has been deleted:
But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time. And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.
Doesn't the Global Historical Climatology Network have a copy of the original lost data anyway?
Zulu-Eleven - Member
Again with the "other datasets exist" - no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!
so we have no datasets from the ocean or the atmosphere then
What do they show?
The sad thing, is that a fair few people (not on here, just generally) seem to be denying CC as it effects their own interests - car enthusiasts, fossil fuel industry etc...
Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt. I'm into classic cars myself, and I will no doubt end up buying something older (e.g. NOT a prius) when the current car is worn out, but I dont want to be doing starship miles in it at the same time..people need to be a bit more grown up about it and not just kick the toys out of the pram because they dont get what they want.
If you don't feel that it stacks up, then thats fine, thats your opinion and your right to it, but please support this with data if you want to deny it to others...I'll happily read any data people give me that shows the CC isnt happening - the problem is that there seems to be little peer reviewed and solid evidence that has been touted.
If it is all a hoax, where is the rival to the IPCC with the support of Climate Scientists - its not as if the Oil Industry can't afford the research - this report details that ~97% of Publishing Climate Scientists (admittedly its not a huge no. of people) agree with the main theory that CC is occuring and that it is manmade. 82% of all Publishing Scientists (all fields) agree with this.
Junkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?
Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.
how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?
Yep, you guessed it!
House of cards!
Edit - Tim, how can someone demonstrate the science is wrong when the "gatekeepers" to the data wont let them have it, and even if they do get it, the scientific journals wont publish their papers?
Zulu-Eleven - MemberJunkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?
Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.
how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?
Yep, you guessed it!
House of cards!
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - we have reached the limits of what we can calibrate against (we dont have a spare world to use as a control!)
Does that mean we should just jack it all in, use up the oil and gas, leave a time capsule to our grandkids saying "sorry!" and piss off to the pub?
Tim -
Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt
on the other hand you could be sceptical about the politics surrounding global warming and yet still think that consuming fossil fuels at the current rate is unsustainable - because, of course, it clearly cannot be sustained for very much longer.
So, compare a sceptic who changed their electricity supplier to a green energy co., tries not to drive too much (but won't have a wasteful hybrid or a polluting diesel) with, say, someone who thinks the government should do something about it, drives a vehicle with a large diesel engine on pointless small journeys, takes 3 or 4 holidays a year, one long haul the other short haul but they "offset" (their guilt, not their consumption) this by paying into a fund that pays people in the third world to stay poor (which on a larger scale is what western governments find so attractive about the global warming concept).
Which of these two people would be worse?
Tim, personally, I think that we should start at the top and review and QA the raw data properly, as it would be in a lab, and only when we've done that, reanalyse from the bottom up, in a more critical manner, justifying any data adjustment with recorded, agreed reasons and protocols - and then seeing what the outcome is.
Huge project, but if its as important as people claim, then entirely reasonable!
This entire process should be data led!
Of course the 2nd person...i'm not blindly following the course of offsetting (cant see how it does any good really - at best its just sticking another plug in the dam), i do like to think that i have a brain in my head 🙂
the thing that gets me is when people try and convince other people its not happening, using bad, bad science and speculation (The Daily Express is a prime example)
Junkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.
how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?
Yep, you guessed it!
House of cards!
Z11 - Now you are talking complete crap.
You think that satelites, are calibrated against the historical data set?
How would that work then?
Surely they would be callibrated in real time against very carefully made measurements taken by the institutions that launch them?
gosh this is fun Hainey.
The point of my last post was intended to be simple: you can't say future predictions are rubish if they are based on models and then use data based on models of past climate as sound evidence to contadict the predictions about the future . The use of models is either a good tool or a bad one . If you can actually show a defect it a particular model that is a different argument, which you have yet to advance.
I'm not actually challenging the historic data you have refered to however i do challence the conclusions you and you alone draw from it. You have the conclusion from the source of your graph which contradicts your interpretation of the graph.
I do actually enjoy learning from history so far I have learnt that you do not deal with any direct question . Please for the sake of my sanity ,the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available, the climentologists think that erratic cycle is a good theory and does account for cyclical heating and cooling,but the changes are gradual, so that "natural cycle" does not account for current climate change.
You apear to suggest different interpretations of this historic data , what is your qualification? I ask only because your proposition contradicts that of those whose qualifications are known. If the area of dispute is really the interpretaion of data then i think that qualifications are relevant when one asks oneself whose interpretation is likely to be best.
I doff my cap in your general direction super response.
Z11 - Now you are talking complete crap. You think that satelites, are calibrated against the historical data set
Where the hell did I say historical? I said the most [b]complete[/b] data set!
The satellite baseline point is calibrated by comparison between radiosonde measurements, which produces a tropospheric temperature calculation, this is then analysed into usable data by comparison with surface records.
As we only have approx 30 years worth of satellite data, and prior to that a small set of atmospheric records taken by weather balloons in a limited number of locations. to draw any conclusions for more than 30 years, you have to link that data against surface records, in the same way that the ice core proxy data has to be calibrated against the surface record.
Crankboy:
the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.
Serious question, did they think that before they analysed the data?
By that I mean, was the conclusion drawn from analysing the data, or did the data support the thesis - its an important scientific distinction!
brrr cold today. must be this 'global warming' rubbish I hear about of the tv.
Now you are talking unintelligable complete crap.
If you can't beat them with brilliance....
Of course it's not the [b]complete[/b] data set.
Satellite calibration is done V actual measurements taken at the time the satelite measurements are taken.
Or in [url= http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/ ]this case[/url] V an on-board stable calibration target.
Again, read the words - I said
notthe most complete data set
the complete data set.
I do try and choose my words carefully!
The on-board calibration target still has to be cross referenced with a baseline, otherwise you're left with pretty much useless set of 30 years worth of data that bears no relevance to analysis of global temperature changes over any period longer than the satellite record.
As your own link says:
so, by their own admission, the data calibration is unreliable with an unascertained level of error.For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record.
zulu eleven "Serious question, did they think that before they analyised the data?" fair point 'experimenter bias' is always a consideration the hainey graph appears to date to 1999 so i can't really answer your question easily , but given the apparent unanimity of scientific opinion (97% of specialists in the field 87% of scientists in other areas) it may be fair to assume some expectation as to out come on their part . On the other hand at the time the administration in the USA and the oil company's were massively anti man made climate change and funding a knocking campaign so one would imagine the figures and conclusions would have been debunked if 'experimenter bias' had tainted them. British Antarctic Survey (2004, June 11) which deals with the worlds oldest ice core again seems to accept global warming as man made, so we end up either with nearly all scientists are wrong and the Russians the media and the man down the pub are right or maybe there's something in these worries after all. ("the Russians" is a spurious reference to climategate 2)
dont worry I have the graph ready if they really mention the russian cherry picking data lie.
Z-11 much of what you say, measuring error and expectation can be labelled against most/all of science. I doubt anyone really investigates things they dont believe at all - moon cheese will have few studies for example.
However I doubt someone one day said I know lets come up with global warming now lets start a conspiracy and start forging evidence. There would have been a starting point when climatologists were just gathering data to see where it led. Once it suggested certain things we investigated them - this seems an entirely sensible approach unless you suggest we just pull out random hypothesis[what is the plural?} and just test them. I mean the great haderon collidor has not been built just to see what will happen but that does not mean they will forge the data for the higgson-boson particle .....they are scientists not Tony Blair with a dossier.
Z11
so, by their own admission, the data calibration is unreliable with an unascertained level of error.
You're almost stooping the the hainiesque "prove it" level of argument
I wonder why they bothered launching another nine satellites after the first one? Maybe they just didn't spot the flaw you did in their thinking and they thought that measurements with "an unascertained level of error" might still be worth something? That was a few billion wasted then wasn't it?
I see what you mean now by complete data set. You mean geographically widespread? Does that matter? Presumably nowadays we can take pretty accurate temperature measurements without making errors such as painting the sensor box with the wrong sort of paint? In which case, how many calibration points are needed?
The use of models is either a good tool or a bad one.
You can't determine either way until you have proven the model. So at the moment it is just a prediction right?
If you can actually show a defect it a particular model that is a different argument, which you have yet to advance.
I haven't professed to any defects in models, just to what i stated above. The issue i have is that scientists could, and unfortunately have, manipulated data to swing data to suit their own needs.
I'm not actually challenging the historic data you have refered to however i do challence the conclusions you and you alone draw from it. You have the conclusion from the source of your graph which contradicts your interpretation of the graph.
Not true, i have merely posted a graph which in many peoples opinion shows a cyclic trend over a historic period. The conclusions i draw are shared by many more in the scientific community
Please for the sake of my sanity , the quailfied scientists who drew up the ice core data think man made climate change is an issue.
Wrong, some do, some don't.
The geologists think the world orbiting the sun and spinning on it's axis erratically is a cool theory but does not fit all the sedimentary data available
Wrong, some do, some don't
What is your qualification?
As discussed previously, not important, a lot of people have professed to be more knowledgeable than me, they could be right, the could be wrong, or they could be 16 year old nigerean scammers for all i know.
I ask only because your proposition contradicts that of those whose qualifications are known.
Wrong, it does for some, doesn't for others.
If the area of dispute is really the interpretaion of data then i think that qualifications are relevant when one asks oneself whose interpretation is likely to be best.
I have never said that i am right, that is the problem you have. Unfortunately i have dared to question the greater good and that is unacceptable. Like a lot of religion i need to have it rammed down my throat until i become a believer!
Why do you struggle to debate in a manner other than screaming down other peoples opinion? Its sad.
Junkyard, glad you have found a friend to play with!! 😉
Rightplace - sure, we can make very accurate measurements now - but it remains very difficult to compare that data [i]reliably[/i] with older, less accurate data - when we're looking at trends over a couple of centuries worth of data, we have to consider the serious risk that the level of error exceeds the level of variance in the global temperature anomaly.
We can probably say that the records for the past twenty, maybe thirty years of satellite data are fairly accurate, but by their own admission not entirely.
[img] 
[/img]
Nte that that only goes back to 1979 - It does not attempt a comparison with the historical record, this is pure satellite data - to connect the two, you'd have to try and cross reference with a baseline from the land record:
So lets compare that with the surface record:
[img] 
[/img] or
[img] 
[/img]
Now, just at a cursory glance, I'd say that indicates that the pure satellite data indicates a much lower curve than the surface record!
*I'd call this a significant issue - the two sets of entirely separate data don't appear to indicate the same level of drastic temperature change*
Of the available data sets, I'd say the *pure* satellite data is the one that I'd prefer to rely on, purely due to the fact that I'm aware of known issues with the correction logarithms applied to raw data from surface stations!
and to make it really meaningful, we'd need to compare the 30 years of accurate satellite data with the historical proxy data, validated against the surface record:
[img] 
[/img]
Basically - does the last 30 years of satellite data tell us anything
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend
Here we are - two data sets plotted against each other - surface and ocean data versus satellite only records.
I've just managed to reduce global warming over the past 30 years by about a third! That indicates that theres a significant warming bias in the surface record over the past three decades.
Not true, i have merely posted a graph which in many peoples opinion shows a cyclic trend over a historic period. The conclusions i draw are shared by many more in the scientific community
Please feel free to number/quote each of these and answer in turn
1.The authors conclusion does not support your view does it?
2. The scale for the graph is not large enough to include current levels of C02 is it?
3. Current levels of C02 are at a 650,00 year high aren't they?
4.The graph ended in 1950 and therfore it has no bearing on the current situations does it?
5.Is the cycle still a valid/credible explanation ?
6.If yes why?
Junkyard, glad you have found a friend to play with!!
It would appear a number of people have disagreed with you and agreed with me. If that is how you wish to judge it then the evidence does support the view that I have many friends and you walk a lonely path. 😉
Z-11 If you want to compare graphs you need to standardise the axis there areconly two graphs – the first two where any axis scale is the same – If you want to post up comparison graphs can they actual use the same scale?
Now, just at a cursory glance, I'd say that indicates that the pure satellite data indicates a much lower curve than the surface record!
Well you are CORRECT but you are comparing surface land temperature with atmospheric temperature. It is hardly revolutionary news to suggest there are different rates. What next are you going to show us that there is a difference between the land and the sea temperature rise?
the difference between satellitte measures and actual sea thermometer measures is is also well documeneted
The data used here is based on analysis of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite images in the thermal infrared channel available as grey scale photographs with 4 kilometre pixels. These are converted to temperatures using a calibration scale. A crucial feature of the analysis is that it is done by a human observer who selects regions which appear to be completely cloud-free (J. Clarke, NOAA, personal communication). This is critical, because the presence of clouds in the pixel contaminates the sea surface temperature signal with the lower values characteristic of cloud tops. Large clouds, such as those associated with weather fronts, are readily visible in the images and avoided, however the major problem is the possible presence of sub-pixel size clouds which cannot be seen in the images, but which are nevertheless capable of adding a spurious signal. This is especially a problem in the tropics, where clouds tend to be small. Human judgment is used to identify those pixels which are likely to be clear because their temperatures represent a consistent regional maximum background value. There is always a finite, but small, chance that all such pixels may be subject to hidden contamination from widely dispersed small clouds, which would tend to result in an underestimate of the true value
so we have human error and a technical reducing problem not present with an actual thermometer but it does allow us to better measure large areas such as the Pacific Ocean.
