[Mader]

Just received a question and answer format explanation for NASA's climate research and how it matches/doesn't match global warming.

Now, this is written for 3rd graders, just my speed. And no, I can't link anything, heck, I can't find my car in the Church parking lot after Confession.

You can find this too, it is on the web.

Yes, they match the ground findings for temps.
The problem is in the computations for coordinating the data don't match the ground findings.
Hhhmmm.

[Arkeph]

Is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
it?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

See 6:09 in the first video in that series. I've seen this graph before, and its omission of dates beyond ~1980 is telling. Start watching at 2:45 on To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to see why. Here's To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. showing the same thing.

Thanks for the links. I don't promise to check them out soon, however. I've seen enough arguments, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments in this debate. I think that the French video I linked does a very good job at highlighting this (it's a pity that it's not in English). The guy (a respected French geophysicist) in that video showed some new solar activity data published in 2009, which was recalculated after detecting a measurement problem (measurements from two different satellites providing the data were not correctly cross-calibrated). See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
around 4'52.

Also, the discrepancy between solar activity and global temperatures is highlighted at 8'07 of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

BUT, they have recalculated the global temperatures using their own data (the original data was not released!) and found that it was decreasing since 1998, along with solar activity, while the CO2 level has been rising!
See 1'53 of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Also see 8'31 of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for a nice correlation between solar rays and cloud coverage.

BTW, I agree that Svensmark is a bit crooky (alas he's an INTJ), but his theory will be verified at CERN, so it's not complete nonsense.

The point is that the current standing of science is not capable to determine with high probability what are the causes of climate change, what is expected to come, and what measures (if any) can be taken against. Some AGW people get money to come up with predictions of high certainty, so they deliver what they are paid for, regardless of whether science can provide the answers. It's like sportsmen taking drugs at the Olympics. It's cheating but some still do this to get the fame/money.

Personally, I was pro-AGW since about a month ago when I suddenly realized that climate gate people might just have made up data and manipulate us to serve some interests. I found this thread and made some additional searches on the Web with open mind. Now I'm convinced that people involved in the climate gate are fraudsters and were actively manipulating the scientific community and the lay people. For me the key was to accept the possibility that my original viewpoint could be false, and to become open minded.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Arkeph]

	For me the key was to accept the possibility that my original viewpoint could be false, and to become open minded.

	Thanks for the links. I don't promise to check them out soon, however. I've seen enough arguments, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments in this debate.

I'm really not sure what your position is, unfortunately. Did scientists falsify the warming trend, or did they simply mistake the cause of the warming trend? If they mistook the cause, I'd ask why you think solar activity is a better explanation by itself for the temperature rise than the many factors considered in AGCC, including the mechanism by which solar energy is trapped by CO2.

Also, since you are open-minded, I was wondering if you had any answer to the question, "What would convince you otherwise?" with respect to climategate or the solar-driven warming idea. Do you still accept the possibility that your viewpoint could be false?

[Marcus]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm really not sure what your position is, unfortunately. Did scientists falsify the warming trend, or did they simply mistake the cause of the warming trend?

Both. They falsified the warming trend to hide the weakness of their model.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they mistook the cause, I'd ask why you think solar activity is a better explanation by itself for the temperature rise than the many factors considered in AGCC, including the mechanism by which solar energy is trapped by CO2.

I don't know if it's a better explanation, but solar activity was not included in the model appropriately (it was included with a too weak factor, according to the French video). Also, clouds were not included in the model because they are hard to model. That is, the model is incomplete and is not capable to make correct predictions, contrary to the claims of the climate gate researchers.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, since you are open-minded, I was wondering if you had any answer to the question, "What would convince you otherwise?" with respect to climategate or the solar-driven warming idea. Do you still accept the possibility that your viewpoint could be false?

My viewpoint is that the model is far from being complete. I would accept it as a correct model if it could make good predictions with undoctored data. Otherwise, I'm eager to see the results of the Cloud experiment at CERN.

[Arkeph]

I certainly do agree that the models are uncertain, but I disagree that climate scientists are falsifying temperature records to cover up that fact. The interview LaoTzu linked to is instructive in that regard--climate scientists are in an active discussion regarding uncertainties in their data and models, as well as how best to describe climate change (Roger Pielke, for example, thinks that global average temperature is almost meaningless since it averages out large, meaningful changes in the climate).

Focusing on the disagreement, though, I don't think there is credible evidence that any falsification of climate data occurred. The e-mail hacking is often brought up, but I haven't heard any argument that the e-mails prove falsification occurred, other than "they do."

[Marcus]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I certainly do agree that the models are uncertain, but I disagree that climate scientists are falsifying temperature records to cover up that fact. The interview LaoTzu linked to is instructive in that regard--climate scientists are in an active discussion regarding uncertainties in their data and models,

I only quikcly scanned that article. My problem is that she uses the label of 'climate change deniers' implying an unwashed horde of uneducated masses. There are people with sound scientific background and published papers who have different views, and they get marginalized to make lay people believe they are all just crooks. This is called manipulation.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	as well as how best to describe climate change (Roger Pielke, for example, thinks that global average temperature is almost meaningless since it averages out large, meaningful changes in the climate).

I agree. Taking a simple global temperature and building a predictive model on that is rather questionable. This was the first thing that raised the doubts of the French geophysicist (who actually taught AGW to his students for years).

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Focusing on the disagreement, though, I don't think there is credible evidence that any falsification of climate data occurred. The e-mail hacking is often brought up, but I haven't heard any argument that the e-mails prove falsification occurred, other than "they do."

Some code fragments were posted to this thread indicating that the data was manipulated by an explicitly stated 'fudging factor'. The original data was never released and was 'accidentally' lost. Emails indicated the manipulating of the peer review process, etc. I think it's not too difficult to connect the dots. I agree that proving the manipulation at the court is nearly impossible, because the data was 'lost'. Also, all the institutions involved have strong interest to diminish the issue. Do you think they would ever get another grant if the data were proven to be manipulated? Scientist are like other people. They are not saints and prone to get corrupted when money/careers are involved.

[Arkeph]

	I only quikcly scanned that article. My problem is that she uses the label of 'climate change deniers' implying an unwashed horde of uneducated masses. There are people with sound scientific background and published papers who have different views, and they get marginalized to make lay people believe they are all just crooks. This is called manipulation.

Who is being marginalized, and for what behavior? Some of the supposedly credible scientists who have expressed doubt about conclusions regarding AGCC get lambasted not because of their doubt, but because they misrepresent the conclusions of climate scientists (ala the "climategate u-turn" reported by the Daily Mail--read the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). It's true, however, that climate scientists, like all scientists, are human and are often resistant to earnest questioning of their conclusions, but this is only worsened by misrepresentations of their conclusions and a tendency of critics to make snap judgments without attempting to understand the issues they are commenting on.

	I agree. Taking a simple global temperature and building a predictive model on that is rather questionable. This was the first thing that raised the doubts of the French geophysicist (who actually taught AGW to his students for years).

Well, that's a bit of an over-simplification. Climate models are built on a complex series of mathematical models of a variety of factors which influence climate locally. Global average temperature is the output of averaging together these localized calculations.

	Some code fragments were posted to this thread indicating that the data was manipulated by an explicitly stated 'fudging factor'.

On the other hand, the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
isn't used in the calculations at all. Admittedly, I don't have a copy of the code myself, but if you know a place I can download it from directly, we could see for ourselves. In any case, there's little to be gained from an analysis of code which the researchers themselves were refining and removing bugs from.

	The original data was never released and was 'accidentally' lost.

On the other hand, there is no "the" original data. There are many other sources of data available which corroborate findings produced from the CRU data set. Secondly, the great majority of the 'lost' data was composed of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
records. We need not suppose that CRU was actively trying to hide anything when the given reason--accident--is more plausible. It's admittedly hurts the credibility of studies based on that lost data, but not because the methodology of the studies was flawed.

	Emails indicated the manipulating of the peer review process, etc.

They certainly did imply that the scientists in question wanted to manipulate the process, but there is no indication that I've seen, outside of their expressed desires, that anything of the sort actually took place.

	I think it's not too difficult to connect the dots.

That's the trouble, isn't it? In my view, the easier it is to connect the dots, the more likely it is that you haven't got all the dots.

	Also, all the institutions involved have strong interest to diminish the issue. Do you think they would ever get another grant if the data were proven to be manipulated? Scientist are like other people. They are not saints and prone to get corrupted when money/careers are involved.

I've seen this argument made elsewhere, and it always strikes me as particularly odd. No matter who you are, you have an interest in covering up unethical behavior. Likewise, we all have an interest in minimizing the damage caused by false accusations of wrongdoing. There is an inherent fallacy in assuming a person is honest/dishonest and taking their behavior to be evidence of the assumption, and it's even worse to take a person's interest in preserving their credibility as a sign that they have none.

Unless there's substantive evidence that something fishy has taken place, and not just speculation of bad motives, I don't think it's appropriate to conclude that the scientists falsified anything.

[Pandemonium]

Regardless if they did any wrong doing their credibility is damaged. Though, if they have "fudged" the data and facts, it would not be the first time that such a thing has happened in the science arena. In my opinion the hypothesis is flawed because there are a few credible studies, yet contradictory, on the crux of the issue. To actually research the topic in more depth would require a large amount of money on my part, which, I do not have at the moment. (In between jobs).

[wmsonta]

I have been away from this forum for a short time. I am quitting this post.

As I stated earlier, I have little urge to convince anyone of anything. I am now firmly entrenched in opposition to the pro AGW hard line.--

James Hanson is now on record stating the NASA/GISS data is so irrelevant, they based their claims/projections on the (now) non-existent CRU data. He said NCDC is worse than NASA's. The entire foundation of MMGW was based on these 3 data sets. There are a total of 4 data sets worldwide.

I found the pro-AGW consensus. It is indeed another petition. Curiously, it contains not just scientists but ECONOMISTS. Hmm. How many total you ask? 2000. No contact info, but real names. Given this recent discovery, my PC and I have approximately 55 times the pro AGW 'overwhelming consensus'.

So I am done. I now believe MMGW to be a fabrication from whole cloth, perpetrated by eco-nazi's, socialists, wannabe dictators, etc.

Given history, this will not not cost me or mine. the USA will not pass C&T in an election year. The EPA will not try to defend its ruling in open court and was only to pressure Congress into Cap and Trade. When the USA refuses to put a target on our backs, Kyoto is toast.

I predict, AGW will rewrite the books on the capabilities of propaganda.

May your favorite God bless FOIA2009.zip, whomever he/she may be.

adios.

[Guildwriter]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unless there's substantive evidence that something fishy has taken place, and not just speculation of bad motives, I don't think it's appropriate to conclude that the scientists falsified anything.

My problem has nothing to do with claims to falsification and/or malicious intent. It does however have quite a bit to do with the level of epic fail when it comes to the code quality of their simulations:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Apologists might say this kind of notebook file griping is common among programmers, but the issue here is that billions of lives are going to affected by the policy decisions based on the data accrued from these programs. In any other kind of high stakes industry, this level of incompetence would get the institution sued from here til the second coming.

As one commenter on the post said:

It is certainly common for academics to use sloppy undocumented code with data files lacking metadata as i and many others have done this. HOWEVER, there is really no excuse for such garbage when a project is long term and the data and codes are to be used by others in the future. Any person should be able to understand this.

Unfortunately, Fai Mao, this is far more common than you would think. I recently quit a position at a University well known for hydrology and water resources engineering because of repeatedly encountering issues similar to what poor Harry dealt with, but with respect to field data collection rather than computer code. I witnessed a complete lack of quality control combined with often times lazy,incompetent, and overworked grad students performing all the "work" and given the benefit of the doubt with a blind eye turned their way.

I don't believe it is entirely anyone's fault, just a product of slash and burn science that uses graduate students as grunts. Unfortunately many of these grad grunts could literally care less about the scientific method; many are simply performing grunt work for a piece of paper called a degree.

[Pandemonium]

I took some time to read through the harry_read_me.txt and I must say "WTF!" Governments around the world are forming policy and decisions on this? Ohh god...

[Arkeph]

I get the impression that substance is being replaced by speculation...

One of the reasons I don't find the code or the readme able to support the contention that the methodology used by climate scientists is seriously in question is peer review. If one scientists' code is confusing or seriously flawed, it makes little sense for other scientists working independently to recreate the same mistakes in their own work. Adding to this is the fact that both data and code which is used often by climate scientists is freely available.

Need we remind ourselves that the code in the climategate e-mails wasn't public, but was only released when someone illegally hacked into private e-mails? There's no reason to expect such private code to be high quality and no reason to assume that its results underlie the findings of the many independent papers supporting the AGCC hypothesis.

I can't see a good reason to assume that the files reveal anything beyond the competence of their author as a programmer or the problem he was attempting to solve. If there is, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Pandemonium]

CRU main purpose was global temperature data sets. That information they produced showed a warming because there was a warming. However there are distortions in their data sets in respects to harmonisation based on local weather station conditions. The science / political organisation sppi found numerous errors made by cru in respects to the urban heat island effect and the removal of weather station data in rural areas and cold climate. This does not falsify the agw hypothesis but it represents an over statement of temperature trends. Thus I make this obvious statement temperature trends do not prove the agw hypothesis.

[taciturn]

I doubt the reality of global warming.
Its seems just like the ozone layer scare, which fizzled off once businesses had made their profits and everyone realized it was phony.
The political popularity of it, I'd say, is the reason for it's strength, along with the populous liking to feel like they're doing something good, that they're heroes by buying a prius. Its a crying shame, and I think its a bit arrogant for us to believe we can change the global climate.

[Arkeph]

Originally Posted by Pandemonium To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

CRU main purpose was global temperature data sets. That information they produced showed a warming because there was a warming. However there are distortions in their data sets in respects to harmonisation based on local weather station conditions. The science / political organisation sppi found numerous errors made by cru in respects to the urban heat island effect and the removal of weather station data in rural areas and cold climate. This does falsify the agw hypothesis but it represents an over statement of temperature trends. Thus I make this obvious statement temperature trends do not prove the agw hypothesis.

It might be instructive to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the SPPI and ask if they are raising legitimate questions about the research or if their objections are based on misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the science. The
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of one of their contributors, one Lord Monckton, is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

The errors you refer to are familiar, though. In fact, EagleSeven posted a link to a 100+ page report on the subject, but it was quickly forgotten after my responses. To summarize those, I noted that the conclusions of the paper were not well supported by the evidence provided, and I asked how satellite data could corroborate the conclusions reached with poor-quality land-station data.

I doubt the reality of global warming. Its seems just like the ozone layer scare, which fizzled off once businesses had made their profits and everyone realized it was phony. The political popularity of it, I'd say, is the reason for it's strength, along with the populous liking to feel like they're doing something good, that they're heroes by buying a prius. Its a crying shame, and I think its a bit arrogant for us to believe we can change the global climate.

I wasn't aware that ozone depletion by CFC's had ever been disproven. In fact, the ban on CFC's is still in effect while
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
--just as scientists predicted it would.

Politicization of science is a great reason to be skeptical, though. Of course, any reasoning based on the politicization of climate science must also acknowledge that the influence isn't one-sided. Just as there are reasons to believe the AGW hypothesis despite its supposed falsity, there are reasons to disbelieve it despite its supposed truth. For instance, carbon-intensive industries would suffer if carbon taxes were implemented to reduce CO2 emissions. Not to mention the fact that people find comfort in believing that the world will remain pretty much the same as it always has been.

We have to scrutinize our own opinions and dig into the science a little before we can form an educated opinion. This thread itself is already a pretty substantial resource for links to interesting stuff,

[meanlittlechimp]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The idea is to keep them "on message". Without constant doomsday predictions the funding will dry up, that is bad for everyone in the field. The very existence of this branch of science depends on their being a disaster just around the corner, if there is not one, then one must be invented. Nobody is going to invest a billion in environmental science if they find there is nothing out of the ordinary happening.

You believe it's a conspiracy by geeks trying to get rich?!? Those lucrative research grants? Really?

You think someone goes into pure science - for money? Chemistry, Geology and Physics professors make less on average than garbage men, hookers, mortgage bond salesmen, CPAs, management consultants, I-bankers, lawyers, resteraunters, real estate flippers, slum lords, computer programmers, dentists, and countless other career choices that are FAR easier to accomplish.

If the leading scientists that fill the faculty of our universities are so dumb that they thought their career path was the path to easy money, then global warming probably isn't real.

[cannotseethe]

There's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
now that Climategate was trumped up. From that article:

	A second inquiry has cleared climate researchers at the University of East Anglia of allegations that they distorted the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. “There was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda,” an independent panel of scientists said in a report submitted to the university on Monday.

That article links to a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[themuzicman]

Ah, the University "selected" an "independent" panel to look into its own department's troubles. Yeah, no conflict of interest there... *here's a towel to wipe the dripping sarcasm.*

[Arkeph]

If the investigators weren't credible to begin with, the investigation should not have been used as an indicator of Mann's guilt (as it was on several occasions). No one mentioned, to my knowledge, that we shouldn't trust the results of that investigation until now.

Anyway, I liked this paragraph in the report:

	A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

Followed by, of course, a list of panel members--each from universities other than Penn State.

[rufsketch1]

Hey all, long time no see. This is a recent and relevant article discussing how "climategate" came about. I'm not sure why so many people here are so smug about something they know next to nothing about. Anyway, it's a good short read:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Chemist]

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure why so many people here are so smug about something they know next to nothing about.

I couldn't agree more....
Here is another source for actual scientific evidence for climate change: click here to read all you ever wanted to know about this topic -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you have an opinion on manmade climate change, but if you cant easily define in the most advanced form possible each and every single one of the scientific terms appearing in that website then you are not qualified to form an opinion on this topic based on fact and you are simply regurgitating what someone else told you. Just my thoughts...

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey all, long time no see. This is a recent and relevant article discussing how "climategate" came about. I'm not sure why so many people here are so smug about something they know next to nothing about. Anyway, it's a good short read: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Um... Global Warming was exposed as a hoax initially by the emails between the con artists themselves being released into the public square. The data is bad. No good data=no good studies. Global warming theory is dead because EAU and NOAA are faking the primary data sets.

I really don't care who that guys is.

And it's time for the altered data deniers to accept reality.

(Even Phil Jones himself said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.)

[Arkeph]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Um... Global Warming was exposed as a hoax initially by the emails between the con artists themselves being released into the public square. The data is bad. No good data=no good studies. Global warming theory is dead because EAU and NOAA are faking the primary data sets. I really don't care who that guys is. And it's time for the altered data deniers to accept reality. (Even Phil Jones himself said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.)

Is there a specific part of the e-mails that convinced you? Does it require a selective interpretation?

What do you think "statistically significant" means in the context of trends in data? Did you read the entire Jones interview?

What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that the data is fabricated?

How do you think the climate is changing, if at all? Does this match observations of sea level, glacial retreat, and changes in ecological systems?