Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-23-2009, 02:06 PM   #141
puckhog
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
I am by no means a copyright expert, but I believe this is not true. In Canada, government works are covered by Crown Copyright. They are not public domain. In the US, works created by government officials as part of their normal duties are in the public domain. Works created by contractors are not automatically so. So even if the American government is funding any part of this, it is not necessarily public domain.

How FOIA and equivalents are affected is beyond my knowledge.

FWIW, the Daily Telegraph in the UK discusses the lack of mainstream media coverage of this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...odern-science/
Alright, I can admit when I've made an incorrect statement, and you appear to be right. It's complicated given the international nature of this situation.

It doesn't really change how I feel about it, though. Even though they may not have been legally bound to release the data, if they want to convince me that it was thoroughly peer reviewed, they would have done so. It seems to me that when the AGW side says something was peer reviewed, they mean that it was reviewed by people who already agree. I realize this is opinion, and not fact.
puckhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 02:51 PM   #142
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
Believing someone is a dick is not a reason to withhold information. As you and I have discussed earlier in the thread, the assumptions used to treat data are equally as important as the data itself.
Yes it is and as has been mentioned, Mcintyre has the data. The formulas behind the calculations and the assumptions made should be in the publication.
Why waste precious time on a dick when you can simply ignore them. Again there is zero stopping McIntyre going out and collecting his own data and developing his own model. Why doesn't he do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
I can't help but notice you ignored large sections of my post. Care to comment on the emails dealing with questionable treatment of data?
I already did that wayyyy back when I talked about running models under different scenarios.

So in your book anyone that plays about with stats and models is exhibiting questionable behaviour?

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
But try to contact a prof for the data and methods he/she used in a publicly funded study and let me know if they deny you that access.
I know for a fact they will, unless you're in direct collaboration with them or sharing a research grant they'll tell you in so many words to eff right off. Do you seriously think profs aren't protective of their data? Research science is nasty dog eat dog world where publications = funding not to mention a decreased teaching workload.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
Well, that's a pretty slippery slope you're putting yourself on. I'd say it's a pretty bad precedent to set to say that it's okay to dig up records of "bad behaviour" to have those who don't agree with you banned from certain societys, functions, clubs, etc.
How so? People are fired on a daily basis for having records of bad behaviour. What's your criteria then? Have a, and tolerate a disruptive influence? Nothing to stop them going off and forming their own clubs and societies but exhibit bad behaviour anywhere will get you ostricised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
The negative crowd has been producing results for years, all of which gets downplayed because it disagrees with the "official" source of information. This calls into question the validity of the data that has been generally accepted for years.
They have? Producing their own results? All I'm seeing from the majority of the negative crowd is a load of loud vocal critiquing of publications/data with minimal effort to go out and collect their own data or create their own models.

Let me give you an example.
"These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.
They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has considerable political implications.
Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what’s happening. They shake their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it, questioning the review process and the editor’s ideological leanings. In published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.
Embarrassed, the journal’s publisher backs away from the work. But it’s too late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.
The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done."


In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change “skeptics” Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn’t present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of “proxy records” for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” a thousand years ago.
Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy began.
Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe called it literally paradigm shifting. The Bush administration attempted to edit an Environmental Protection Agency report’s discussion of climate change in order to include reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. None of this should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a key piece of evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences of human-induced climate change.
Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.
Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.


http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...ll_over_again/
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 03:02 PM   #143
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
This may be innocuous, with a bad choice of words; or it could be, as a treatment of the data to arrive at a pre-conceived result.
Here. And other explanations.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
The comment refers to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Mann told Wired.com the "Nature trick" refers to a solution for displaying data that he and others used in a paper they published to get around a problem in the way that temperature data is traditionally displayed.
The solution allows for better viewing and understanding of the data, Mann said, and pointed to a post on the RealClimate blog that his colleagues have made to explain the reference.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 03:02 PM   #144
Billy Tallent
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog View Post
It seems to me that when the AGW side says something was peer reviewed, they mean that it was reviewed by people who already agree.
Peer-review means it goes to several world experts in the field. Agree/disagree has nothing to do with it. If the 'disagree' side want to review the high-end manuscripts, well then maybe they should do work that isn't junk.

Science is not journalism. You are confusing the two. There are not 'sides of the story'. There are data. If your science disagrees with my science, it will still get published SOMEWHERE, in SOME decent peer-reviewed journal IF the science is properly done. Maybe not Nature or Science, but a good journal. Journals are competitve, just like scientists. They need to draw readers to stay in business. To do that, they need good papers. If a paper is properly done, people will read it, even if they disagree, if only to figure out how to counter and disprove it. But the papers have to be good, and the science has to be done properly done.
Billy Tallent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 03:09 PM   #145
Jonrox
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
The polar ice caps move into areas that go well above 0. But when there are more days above zero and fewer days below zero, there is going to be less and less ice. You can read more about the annual expasion/retreats here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
Thanks. So this leads me to 1 more question... since the Antarctic cap is actually increasing in size, does this mean global warming is only affecting the northern hemisphere? Or is there another force at work?
Jonrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 04:03 PM   #146
TheyCallMeBruce
Likes Cartoons
 
TheyCallMeBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

More intesting read from techies point of view

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...etxt-file.html
TheyCallMeBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 05:52 PM   #147
Devils'Advocate
#1 Goaltender
 
Devils'Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonrox View Post
Thanks. So this leads me to 1 more question... since the Antarctic cap is actually increasing in size, does this mean global warming is only affecting the northern hemisphere? Or is there another force at work?
Good question. I had to look this one up as it puzzled me too....

According to the British Antarctic Survey team of scientists, NASA and published articles from New Scientist, the Antarctic is being protected by the giant hole in the ozone layer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421101629.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...one-layer.html

Quote:
Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region.
Maybe we should go back to using CFC-laden hairsprays?
Devils'Advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:45 PM   #148
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

That is rather ironic, lol.
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 08:30 PM   #149
Jonrox
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
Good question. I had to look this one up as it puzzled me too....

According to the British Antarctic Survey team of scientists, NASA and published articles from New Scientist, the Antarctic is being protected by the giant hole in the ozone layer.
This is one of the last reasons I would have expected!!

To me it's very telling that no matter how hard we try, the planet finds a way to counteract whatever we throw at it. Not that we need to test it capabilities, but it's somewhat comforting to see evidence that the planet is able to adapt.
Jonrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 08:34 PM   #150
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce View Post
More intesting read from techies point of view

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...etxt-file.html
TOTAL GONG SHOW, not worthy of even a high school project let alone science that gov'ts around the world are making policy on:

"Thrill as he "glosses over" anomalies; let your heart sing as he gets some results to within 0.5 degrees; rejoice as Harry points out that everything is undocumented and that, generally speaking, he hasn't got the first clue as to what's going on with the data!

Chuckle as one of CRU's own admits that much of the centre's data and applications are undocumented, bug-ridden, riddled with holes, missing, uncatalogued and, in short, utterly worthless.

And wonder as you realise that this was v2.10 and that, after this utter fiasco, CRU used the synthetic data and wonky algorithms to produce v3.0!

You'll laugh! You'll cry! You won't wonder why CRU never wanted to release the data! You will wonder why we are even contemplating restructuring the world economy and wasting trillions of dollars on the say-so of data this bad."
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 10:59 PM   #151
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
TOTAL GONG SHOW, not worthy of even a high school project let alone science that gov'ts around the world are making policy on:
Congratulations on being able to cut and paste from a blog.

Now elaborate with your own thoughts why it's a gong show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
I'm not saying its real or fake. I frankly don't know. Just think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
What's changed in the last 24 hours? Share your opinion on why it's not worthy of a high school project.
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:09 AM   #152
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor View Post
Congratulations on being able to cut and paste from a blog.

Now elaborate with your own thoughts why it's a gong show.

What's changed in the last 24 hours? Share your opinion on why it's not worthy of a high school project.
What's changed is I've started to look at some of the code and some of the related documentation around how they produce their datasets that everyone uses for inputs. I've also started to appreciate the influence of the CRU on gov't bodies, especially the UN and its various climate related arms.

From the CRU's own website (emphasis mine):
"The Climatic Research Unit is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. "

I've been doing custom software development for the past 12 years. But don't trust me that I know a GONG SHOW when I see one. Skip my paragraph below and read it for yourself straight from one of Hadley's finest.

Why is it a gong show/Not worthy.
- missing data
- constantly guessing and hoping for the best
- massaged data that is then massaged again and again until there is no truth
- blatant fudging of data
- undocumented processes
- un-repeatable results
- giving up and faking it
- no source control
- no version history on files
- no code reviews
- no test code
- code is not documented, data sets and files are not meaningfuly named
- directories not meaningfully named
- a house of cards to say the least.
- no standards
This is what millions in funding produces?

Here is another cut & paste for you Bangor, from the actual
docs that were leaked. You can find it in /documents/HARRY_README.txt:

"I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.
I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations? Well, how about fixdupes.for? That would
be perfect - except that I never finished it, I was diverted off to fight some other fire. Aarrgghhh.

I - need - a - database - cleaner.

What about the ones I used for the CRUTEM3 work with Phil Brohan? Can't find the bugger!! Looked everywhere,
Matlab scripts aplenty but not the one that produced the plots I used in my CRU presentation in 2005. Oh,
IT. Sorry. I will have to WRITE a program to find potential duplicates. It can show me pairs of headers,
and correlations between the data, and I can say 'yay' or 'nay'. There is the finddupes.for program, though
I think the comment for *this* program sums it up nicely:

' program postprocdupes2
c Further post-processing of the duplicates file - just to show how crap the
c program that produced it was! Well - not so much that but that once it was
c running, it took 2 days to finish so I couldn't really reset it to improve
c things. Anyway, *this* version does the following useful stuff:
c (1) Removes and squirrels away all segments where dates don't match;
c (2) Marks segments >5 where dates don't match;
c (3) Groups segments from the same pair of stations;
c (4) Sorts based on total segment length for each station pair'

You see how messy it gets when you actually examine the problem?

This time around, (dedupedb.for), I took as simple an approach as possible - and almost immediately hit a
problem that's generic but which doesn't seem to get much attention: what's the minimum n for a reliable
standard deviation?

I wrote a quick Matlab proglet, stdevtest2.m, which takes a 12-column matrix of values and, for each month,
calculates standard deviations using sliding windows of increasing size - finishing with the whole vector
and what's taken to be *the* standard deviation.

The results are depressing. For Paris, with 237 years, +/- 20% of the real value was possible with even 40
values. Windter months were more variable than Summer ones of course. What we really need, and I don't think
it'll happen of course, is a set of metrics (by latitude band perhaps) so that we have a broad measure of
the acceptable minimum value count for a given month and location. Even better, a confidence figure that
allowed the actual standard deviation comparison to be made with a looseness proportional to the sample size."

Last edited by twotoner; 11-24-2009 at 12:13 AM.
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:37 AM   #153
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

So a frustrated individual constitutes a gong show?
And it constitutes faked results?

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). 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.

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?

Have you any evidence that anything was published or used in policy from the file or was it some dude's thesis?
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:38 AM   #154
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta View Post
For alot of reasons I hope climate change is BS.

1 - To expose Al Gore for the complete BS artist he is.
2 - So I dont die.

Who cares about Al Gore? Some bigshot made a movie that probably made him more money. Did he really change anything? I haven't seen his movie and I don't care to, but it's not like he changed the world. It's been a few years since that movie came out and people are still pissed about it. Why? Nobody's done anything about it.

Anyone with a conscience (or brain) should hope that the theory that we are fundamentally altering the climate of the planet to our own detriment is wrong. I don't think it is wrong, but I'll be all smiles and sunshine and "you sure showed me" if it is.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:56 AM   #155
TheyCallMeBruce
Likes Cartoons
 
TheyCallMeBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Exp:
Default

Here's another interesting read on the code review of the HADCRU code from the CRU leak.

http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm

And another developer takes a look into the codes. With lots of links to other sources that have examined the same HARRY_READ_ME text file.

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421

Last edited by TheyCallMeBruce; 11-24-2009 at 01:21 AM.
TheyCallMeBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 01:31 AM   #156
twotoner
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post

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 View Post

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.

Last edited by twotoner; 11-24-2009 at 02:25 AM. Reason: better formatting, additional quotes
twotoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 07:32 AM   #157
GreenLantern
One of the Nine
 
GreenLantern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Space Sector 2814
Exp:
Default

While discussing pollution you guys have created pollution

__________________
"In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
GreenLantern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 09:27 AM   #158
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
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.
And HADCRUT3 is described as "The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM3HadSST2 sea-surface temperature dataset. As well as a best-estimate value for the surface temperature, a comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates are available."

It's not claiming to be accurate, indeed the working paper's title is "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850".

The whole problem IMO with this mess from a trust POV appears to not be the individual you mentioned but the arrogance of Phil Jones (if the e-mails are legit which I believe they are) in refusing to release the raw data for scrutiny and challenge.

Whether or not there is a cover up, his e-mails and silence are damning and (I realize and am man enough to admit that I'm back tracking here) I'm starting to question his credibility. There would be no issue here at all if he had complied with requests for the raw data to review his work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
"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."
See this I have no problem with. He has no cloud grids for post 95. He does however have sunshine data. Isn't it fair to say there is a correlation between cloud cover and sunshine and whilst an equation between the two might not be 100% accurate it wouldn't be totally off the mark either? Moreso I fail to see how this is lying but a simple troubleshoot. I accept that it represents a discontinuity in the data but to me it's nothing more than using a different measurement point (and assuming) and correlating it to give a best possible value for continuitys sake. There's no obvious intent to deceive there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
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...
I don't disbelieve he is who you say he is. Couple of observations about him: (1) that he's a Mr suggests he has no doctorate and (2) that he's stuck in the middle of the author list suggests he had little overall weight as far as leadership in the papers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner View Post
It really doesn't take long to get a fair idea on the quality of the work coming out of this place.
As I've mentioned I think you and many others have fair cause to question the credibility of Phil Jones. I'm even open to him being investigated. He needs to start explaining himself ... soon.

But .... and time will tell, I don't think it's fair to say that you can infer from his actions that the institution as a whole is producing garbage. Time will tell but surely if there was more evidence of wrongdoing from other researchers it would have started to surface by now.

All in all a huge propaganda coup for the anti CC crowd and a serious blow to science's credibility. I smell a resignation coming up.
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 11:14 AM   #159
Jonrox
Backup Goalie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
Good question. I had to look this one up as it puzzled me too....

According to the British Antarctic Survey team of scientists, NASA and published articles from New Scientist, the Antarctic is being protected by the giant hole in the ozone layer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421101629.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...one-layer.html
Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official

Mon Nov 23, 2:09 am ET
SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

So based on the question I asked and Devil's informative answer, why is this scientist blaming global warming for this situation when we know Antarctica is being protected from global warming and the ice pack there is actually growing? He is flat out lying. This doesn't at all seem like responsible science or reporting.

He just knows there isn't a story here unless he blames global warming.
Jonrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 02:09 PM   #160
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonrox View Post
So based on the question I asked and Devil's informative answer, why is this scientist blaming global warming for this situation when we know Antarctica is being protected from global warming and the ice pack there is actually growing? He is flat out lying. This doesn't at all seem like responsible science or reporting.

He just knows there isn't a story here unless he blames global warming.
Just because the Antarctic seems to be growing doesn't mean it's not warming either! Sometimes it's just too cold too snow! as temperatures rise above the extreme cold more water vapor can form and fall as snow.

Quote:
Massive ice chunks are crumbling away from a shelf in the western Antarctic Peninsula, researchers said Wednesday, warning that 1,300 square miles of ice - an area larger than Rhode Island.
Quote:
The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year, according to scientists who are looking at whether global warming is the cause of its breakup.
Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years - higher than the average global rise, according to studies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4978510.shtml

Last edited by T@T; 11-24-2009 at 02:15 PM.
T@T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021