Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
So a frustrated individual constitutes a gong show?
And it constitutes faked results?
|
Yes. This individual was responsible for producing HADCRUT3 - Their latest version of the global land temperature record. This data is the basis for a lot of research on climate and ultimately inputs into gov't policy, especially the UN's climate bodies.
In the root of the download there is an executive summary in this file here:
hadcrut3_gmr+defra_report_200503.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
You simply have no idea how much the data was massaged or fudged. You simply have no idea of the models applied. You simply have no idea that the results were faked (which in the real world is slander).
|
This is the real world. My IP address is logged, CP will hand it over under a warrant and my ISP will provide address, name and phone number of where I live. I'm not under any false illusions so don't worry about me. Funny thing is, I don't have to slander, Harry tells it like it is right here:
"So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
and more here:
"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape
archives at UEA) and never recreated it. This hasn't mattered too much, because
the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995
sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
You simply have no idea of their documentation process and what on earth do you mean by files are "not meaningfully named". To you maybe.
|
I have a very good idea. It is described by Hadley's own in blow by blow excrutiating detail if you care to read it.
Here's one instance for you:
"Oh, sod it. It'll do. I don't think I can justify spending any longer on a dataset, the previous version of which was completely wrong (misnamed) and nobody noticed for five years."
And one more for good measure:
"knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment
endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally
undocumented so we'll never know what we lost.
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
You're speculating.
But go for it ... prove me wrong and write a paper on it. You'll be famous.
You quote an unknown individual (could be a MSc or PhD student, could be a prof) expressing frustration and that constitutes your conclusion? Seriously?
|
He isn't unknown. Here's a pic of him:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/photo/harry.jpg
His name is Ian Harris, his one line bio is right here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/#Research%20Staff
Here are his publications:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/harris_ic.htm
I honestly feel sorry for the guy. He had a thankless job of trying to work with a lot of other people's mess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
Have you any evidence that anything was published or used in policy from the file or was it some dude's thesis?
|
Yes, it is published right here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow
And summarized here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif
My last link for you is to the blow by blow on how it was produced. It documents the three years of Harry's life that went into producing the HADCRUT3 dataset.
It really doesn't take long to get a fair idea on the quality of the work coming out of this place. I've given at least one example for each of the points you raised above. There are many more examples for each of your questions in the actual files linked below. Read it for yourself.
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html
I am off to bed and probably won't get back to this thread till late tomorrow.