Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I had professors sit in an air conditioned room and tell me that weather control and prediction was impossible with the same amount of conviction you are now telling me global warming is happening because weather models predict it.

I called bullshit then because they had misapplied the theory. Limited weather control is certainly possible, at least inside buildings.

---

[My italics.] I don't understand this story Jeff. Twenty years ago, were your lecturers really implying chaos theory made it impossible to air-condition a building? You must have had some pretty odd lecturers.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
?! What you've just posted confirms it's true. It's telling you the models don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas! If water vapour isn't, why is CO2?

This is what I've been trying to point out.

---

quote:

---

Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models

---

quote:

---

I'm having problems with my computer and lost my reply to you.

---

quote:

---

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

---

quote:

---

posted by Myrrh:
And you're still not able to show me how CO2 drives warming.

What are the properties of CO2?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I hope that persuades you Spawn that the climate modellers may have more of an idea of future developments in climate than you!

---

I hope you didn't waste too much valuable time writing your reflections on weather forecasting and climate modelling. They were a bit wasted because they didn't engage with what I've been saying. Climate modellers know much more about the climate than I do, but they're as bad as me at predicting the future.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
How do you explain the following?

quote:

---

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

---

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Data security. ie: don't leave stuff on ftp sites. This is valuable data. Someone has paid good money for it to be collected and their professional reputation and potentially some future income streams depend upon it. It makes no sense leaving it somewhere where it's relatively easy for someone to steal it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To conclude from a statement like "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" that a file would be deleted is stretching things beyond credibility. You might as well conclude that if I said "I'd rather die than live under a Conservative government" that come the next election I'd be buying a good bit of rope if there was a Tory majority in Parliament.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I see from the excellent article in yesterday's Sunday Times that East Anglia destroyed all their original climate data from which the massaged data had been produced.

Oh dear!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Regarding this 'cooling' since 1998. The HadCRU data has 1998 as the warmest year but it does not include data from the Arctic. The NASA GISS data does include data from the Arctic and found 2005 to be warmer than 1998 and found 2007 to be as warm as 1998. There is no warming as far as I understand it.

Thanks, Hiro's Leap, for the info on the satellite.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which exactly illustrates why a "I'd rather delete the data than give it away" is a meaningless threat. The most Phil Jones would be able to do is delete copies of the data held at CRU. There are several copies of the data, and they're not all in places where he has access to the file servers. If he was to delete any file all it would do would be delay the release of the data, at great personal cost to himself. He'd have better luck delaying the release of the data by challenging the FOI request on the basis that it violates other legal agreements.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Regarding this 'cooling' since 1998. The HadCRU data has 1998 as the warmest year but it does not include data from the Arctic. The NASA GISS data does include data from the Arctic and found 2005 to be warmer than 1998 and found 2007 to be as warm as 1998.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

---

• CRU loses some important data 20-30 years ago, during an office move. Unfortunate, but these things happen.
• Steve McIntyre requests this data many years later. CRU fob him off, because he's not a scientist (and because because of the tribal groupings that have evolved here).
• Roger Pielke Jr then requests the data. Grudgingly CRU acknowledge they don't have it any more.

quote:

---

Pielke's suggestions to CRU:

I suggest instead being open and simply saying that in the 1980s and even 1990s no one could have known that maintaining this data in its original form would have been necessary. Since it was not done, then efforts should be made to collect it and make it available (which I see CRU is doing). Ultimately, that will probably mean an open-source global temperature record will be created.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

---

That's my understanding too. Here's what seems to have happened:

• CRU loses some important data 20-30 years ago, during an office move. Unfortunate, but these things happen.
• Steve McIntyre requests this data many years later. CRU fob him off, because he's not a scientist (and because because of the tribal groupings that have evolved here).
• Roger Pielke Jr then requests the data. Grudgingly CRU acknowledge they don't have it any more.

There was no serious wrong-doing from CRU, but they just didn't want to be open about the loss of the data. It's worth reading Roger Pielke Jr's blog on this, since he's the person refered to in the Sunday Times article:

quote:

---

Pielke's suggestions to CRU:

I suggest instead being open and simply saying that in the 1980s and even 1990s no one could have known that maintaining this data in its original form would have been necessary. Since it was not done, then efforts should be made to collect it and make it available (which I see CRU is doing). Ultimately, that will probably mean an open-source global temperature record will be created.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
It all seems a bit iffy to me. Here we have people publishing material based on data that is lost which means that the conclusions can no longer be verified by a third party.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyone sufficiently competant to follow that description should be able to repeat the analysis

---

1. Publish only a broad method and results. Other teams can then attempt to replicate this, probably using a slightly different technique.
2. Make detailed results available. Include full methodology, computer code and extensive data.

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which exactly illustrates why a "I'd rather delete the data than give it away" is a meaningless threat. The most Phil Jones would be able to do is delete copies of the data held at CRU. There are several copies of the data, and they're not all in places where he has access to the file servers. If he was to delete any file all it would do would be delay the release of the data, at great personal cost to himself. He'd have better luck delaying the release of the data by challenging the FOI request on the basis that it violates other legal agreements.

---

My understanding is that while the raw data from all the weather stations throughout the world can be obtained onerously for anyone who is interested, the particular data that was requested from Phil Jones was the subset of the weather stations he actually used. To replicate his work, any other climate scientists would need this data.

I'm amazed you take such a relaxed attitude to examples of potential malpractice. In one of the other 'climategate' emails, Jones actually asks the recipients to delete a particular email, so there is evidence to suggest he wasn't just uttering an exasperated, throwaway threat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The AIRS link worked fine for me. Here's a pretty picture of some data

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
?! What you've just posted confirms it's true. It's telling you the models don't include water vapour as a greenhouse gas! If water vapour isn't, why is CO2?

This is what I've been trying to point out.

---

I'm a bit confused by your reply. From the article I quoted

quote:

---

Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models

---

I may be being stupid, but I genuinely don't see how you get from that quote to "the models don't include H2O as a greenhouse gas." It's worth noting that, if the models didn't include H2O, the IPCC figure for climate sensitivity to CO2 would be lower, because the greenhouse effect due to H2O accentuates the warming effect. The only reason it does this is because H2O is a greenhouse gas.

---

quote:

---

I can't really contribute much to your assertion that all these climate scientists are corrupt: it's gets to the "yes they are" "no they aren't" level quickly. However, I do note that you go on to quote a study by the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" (a pressure group affiliated to the International Climate Science Coalition, whose stated aim is to "Sway public opinion, as well as perceptions of public opinion, against costly climate control plans").

I can understand you not reading all the links in my previous post, but I advise you to read this one. It shows how the NZ Climate Science Coalition mangled the data to obtain their desired result:

quote:

---

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, ....

---

(my emphasis). If you want junk science, look no further than the NZ Climate Science Coalition. This is such an obvious error, it's difficult to believe it's not an intentional misrepresentation. Never mind how corrupt East Anglia may or may not be - the link you provided is to bogus science.

I ask again: why aren't you as critical of these sources as you are to academia?

---

quote:

---

posted by Myrrh:
And you're still not able to show me how CO2 drives warming.

What are the properties of CO2?

---

quote:

---

I've tried to do this before, and so has Alan, but it obviously didn't do much good. I'll tell you what: could you explain to me your understanding of the greenhouse effect? Then I can try to explain in terms that you accept and are familiar with.

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

The dense 300–400 page IPCC Scientific Assessment Reports are generally good compilations of global warming science. But only experts read them. The UN IPCC’s voice to the public, press and policy makers regarding climate science is through summaries; in particular, the brief, politically approved “Summaries for Policymakers” (SPM), which have become notorious for their bias, tendency to overstate problems and penchant for simplifying and dramatizing scientific speculation. A classic example is the claim in the 1996 IPCC SPM (Houghton et al., 1996, p. 4): “the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The so called “evidence” cited in Chapter 8 of the main report was based on one paper that at the time had not been published in the refereed scientific literature. Moreover, one of the authors of this paper was also the convening lead author of the Chapter 8 that supported the “human influence” claim. A hearing in August 1998 on the subject of global warming before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business, chaired by Republican James Talent, publicized the fact that the 1996 IPCC scientific report (Houghton et al., 1996) was altered to convey the misleading impression to the public that there is a “discernible human influence on global climate” which will lead to catastrophic warming. The background to this is as follows.

The “discernible influence” statement of the IPCC’s 1996 report (Houghton et al., 1996) was based on what are called “fingerprinting” studies. .....

Following publication of the 1996 IPCC scientific report, and in the wake of mounting criticism of the “discernible influence” claim, a paper by Santer et al.(1996) was published that endeavoured to defend the claim. Subsequently, the results of a re-analysis of the data used in this work were published in an article by Michaels and Knappenberger (1996). It showed that the research on which the IPCC “discernible influence” statement is based had used only a portion of the available atmospheric temperature data. When the full data set was used, the previously identified warming trend disappeared.

In light of the widespread use of the “discernible influence” statement to imply that there is proof of global warming, the matter was of great concern (Fig. 1). Not surprisingly, this damaged the credibility of the IPCC.

---

quote:

---

BRINGING INTEGRITY BACK TO THE IPCC PROCESS
November 15, 2005

The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in 1996. The most obvious was the altering of the document on the central question of whether man is causing global warming.

Here is what Chapter 8 – the key chapter in the report – stated on this central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists:


“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.”

But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15 sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming.

In the Summary for Policy Makers – which is the only part of the report that reporters and policy makers read – a single phrase was inserted. It reads:

“The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

........

In 2001, the third assessment report was published. Compared with the flaws in the third assessment, those in the second assessment appear modest. The most famous is the graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and others. Their study concluded that the 20th century was the warmest on record in the last 1,000 years, showing flat temperatures until 1900 and then spiking upward – in short, it looked like a hockey stick. It achieved instant fame as proof of man’s causation of global warming because it was featured prominently in the Summary Report read by the media.

Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices. Dr. Hans von Storch, a prominent German researcher with the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research – who, I’m told, believes in global warming – put it this way:

“Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish.”

In fact, a pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data is fed into Michael Mann’s mathematical construct, it produces a hockey stick more than 99 percent of the time. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the proof positive of catastrophic global warming.

How can such a thing occur? Sadly, it is due to the institutional structure of the IPCC itself – it breeds manipulation.

First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the efforts of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner.

The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who contribute to the report. It is approved by Intergovernmental delegates – in short, politicians. It doesn’t take a leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist the report support their political agenda.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
What does "The science is settled" mean? It seems like it's a phrase that both sides taunt each other with, but it's rarely explained what is settled.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyone sufficiently competant to follow that description should be able to repeat the analysis

---

There seems to be a range of attitudes towards original data, e.g.:

1. Publish only a broad method and results. Other teams can then attempt to replicate this, probably using a slightly different technique.
2. Make detailed results available. Include full methodology, computer code and extensive data.

---

quote:

---

IMO there's currently a cultural clash between these two groups. As far as I can see, physicists (and climate scientists) often tend to be type 1, and so see no particular reason to share detailed data. Steve McIntyre and many other engineers / scientists are type 2; they genuinely want to inspect the details. Type 1 scientists respond by saying "Here's the outline, you do the analysis".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The AIRS link worked fine for me. Here's a pretty picture of some data

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

---

Oh well done! The same one page of the same one picture of 2004 and you're happy.

All they have to do is change the heading..

Where's the rest? Where's the data that corresponds to the colours?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

---

Are you saying NOAA states that global temperatures in the 1930s were warmer than 1998? That's simply miles out.

---

quote:

---

Controversial NOAA Climate Change Page Returns-Missing Original Skeptical Text by Tony HakeWed Nov 18 2009,

Originally posted Two weeks ago the Climate Change Examiner reported about an online lesson from NOAA’s National Weather Service discussing climate change that questioned CO2’s effect on the climate. The page was removed within 48 hours but has recently been restored – without the controversial comments.

The original lesson, titled “It’s a Gas Man”, was part of a series of lessons on the atmosphere. In it, the lesson stated, that, “there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.” It further went on to say, “The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will [sic] the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.”

Two days later, on November 4th, the entire lesson was removed from the National Weather Service’s website and returned a ‘page not found’ error message. Email inquiries to the page’s webmaster questioning the page’s removal were not returned.

Now, the page has been restored however it is missing virtually the entire discussion section that had in depth analysis regarding the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. The time stamp at the bottom of the page maintains the same modified date - September 1, 2009 - however the content has been changed considerably.

See a before and after comparison of the page below

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

Is this the satellite you thought had crashed, Myrrh?

---

quote:

---

It's right here. All you had to do was scroll down and follow the link that says "GES DISC Data Holdings: Data description summary, access to CO2 data". Pretty clear, I would have thought. Perhaps your browser is somehow unable to follow links to actual data?

---

quote:

---

DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."

According to NASA's newly published data:

The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred. NASA backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year Claim

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
It was only by consistent and detailed probing by many that NOAA finally admitted to different figures which showed the warmest year where it belonged, in the 1930's, in small print. Yet, are AGW's aware of that? Or are they still using the faked data to promote this 1998 El Nino year as the hottest and proof of CO2 driving global warming?

---

Are you saying NOAA states that global temperatures in the 1930s were warmer than 1998? That's simply miles out.

---

Sorry, missed this post. And sorry, acronymn overload, I meant NASA. They finally conceded defeat and oh dear their mistake, combining two data sources that shouldn't have been combined or something, anyway, those furious who remembered the dust bowl years vindicated, four (?)of the hottest US years now back where they belong in the 1930's.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

]According to GISS NASA the 10 warmest years globally have all been since 1997. It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think? [/QB]

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think?

See a table from GISS here

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not irrelevant. Tell that to those who die when it pools from eruptions, happens fairly frequently in some areas.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
It is only in the US 48 states that 1934 and 1998 are equal top. And we are talking about global warming, I think?

See a table from GISS here

---

NASA now admits the hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998

How do you get equal top?

Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've never come across a field of science where the second form of publication was common, let alone the norm.
[...]
It'll be interesting to see how McIntyre responds to a request to see every little detail of a large research project he completed 5-10 years ago

---

quote:

---

Besides, there are very few sciences where access to the original data and procedures are necessary.[...] Climate science isn't one of them; there are large numbers of instruments recording the weather, and large numbers of means of measuring the paleoclimate.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're always being sold that was the global high. It wasn't in the US. What's global in AGW?

---

quote:

---

Come on, let's discover what we can about CO2. Heavier than air is fact, it sinks.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
I keep asking you how does CO2 drive global warming. No one here seems capable of answering me. Don't know why, there must be loads of AGW material on this.

All I've got so far is Alan distancing himself from 'blanket' models.

So, I'm trying to work it out. What are the properties of CO2?

Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've never come across a field of science where the second form of publication was common, let alone the norm.
[...]
It'll be interesting to see how McIntyre responds to a request to see every little detail of a large research project he completed 5-10 years ago

---

According to McIntyre it's the norm for his field, mineral prospecting, when looking for investment funds. He acknowledges this isn't science, but argues this level of accountability is useful.

---

quote:

---

When CRU loses important information like this, it sounds like he's got a point.

---

quote:

---

Also, this isn't only about how much information is published initially, it's about the researchers' reaction to people wanting more details. You're obviously in a far better position to tell, but there seem to be a lot of scientists on a wide range of web forums who are genuinely angry at the lack of transparency from CRU. (There are also a lot who say "meh, I'd do the same", hence I'm suggesting a culture clash.)

---

quote:

---

The meme "It's public data, we have a right to it" is very powerful, and currently they're coming across as secretive.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Besides, there are very few sciences where access to the original data and procedures are necessary.[...] Climate science isn't one of them; there are large numbers of instruments recording the weather, and large numbers of means of measuring the paleoclimate.

---

You still need access to the original data. Ice cores are hugely expensive to drill, some of the trees used for proxy tree data have restricted access, and the instrumental temperature record can never be repeated.

---

quote:

---

it seems likely the basic conclusions of climate science are robust, but IMO an unusually high degree of transparency would be useful in assuaging some doubts. "Trust me, I'm an expert" doesn't work well these days.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not irrelevant. Tell that to those who die when it pools from eruptions, happens fairly frequently in some areas.

---

Irrelevant to discussion of climate, unless you contend that it remains pooled and does not eventually mix with the atmosphere. In which case you'd be wrong.

Come on, Myrrh, this is a ridiculous distraction. If you have a point, come out with it, or stop spamming the discussion.

- Chris.

---