<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Greg Freemyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:greg.freemyer@gmail.com">greg.freemyer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> Anyway, it seems clear that global average temperatures are increasing,<br>
> and that there are likely to be serious consequences from this:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" target="_blank">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>It is the derivation of the equivalent charts at the Climate Research<br>
Unit that is at the heart of Climate Gate.<br>
<br>
So I would say a few (possibly many) respected scientists do not agree<br>
that those charts are accurate.<br>
<br>
Specifically some of the leaked emails are from climate researchers on<br>
the IPCC review team that question the accuracy of those charts.<br>
Those emails argue that the raw temperature record shows that the<br>
1930's and current temps are at roughly the same temperature with a<br>
valley between them. ie. The raw data apparently shows temps climbed<br>
from 1850 to 1930 or so globally, then cooled for a couple decades,<br>
then climbed back to the 1930's temps today.<br></blockquote><div><br>I haven't been digging into the emails as I consider it a bit rankling that they were effectively stolen. However if the emails were prior to publication, that is not a problem if there is often back and forth discussing the anomaly with the reviewers. If it's after the publication and there's back and forth discussing the discrepancy, that is also ok as sometimes the wrong data set or wrong graphs get published by mistake. It is also entirely possible that there was a legitimate error that was not caught until after publication (that is a frequent thing in all science fields) and that will spur much paper writing as scientists argue for or against the idea in error and/or propose solutions or alternate hypotheses. The publishing scientist gets a virtual bloody nose and a bunch of peers get another citation credit.<br>
<br>Science is not for the weak. :-)<br><br>The NASA graphs don't show that valley in temp between 1850 and 1930. It doesn't show anywhere on the plots they provided. Of course the NASA plots are dealing with a detail of the overall temperatures - the temperature change over a time frame. The also have the data the plots were made from. Nor was the England research group who was a victim of computer theft referenced for data in the listing of the one paper I glanced at. <br>
<br>Please provide a link to the published paper from the England group where they present the graph that doesn't match the data. <br><br>Also, if one digs into the NASA link through the author name/pub date link, there is the abstract and the full PDF paper to read. For the 2006 paper there is also a link to a supplementary section that is excellent reading about methodology and processes. <br>
<br>If you really want to see if there is a problem with the data or the analysis, it will take about 1-3 months for the papers to start coming in from the people in the field who know enough about the science and methodologies to provide proper analysis of the England group's data and conclusions. I very strongly doubt there is anyone on the ALE list who has the background to read a few emails and understand essentially the life work of a few dozen people. I could be wrong, but....<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
That is also in agreement with the tree ring analysis per the emails.<br></blockquote><div><br>I am of the understanding that the tree ring data is often considered a weak data set. I'm unclear on all the details but it has something to do with rings being affected by both temperature and water and many ring sets don't have a correlating water data set to establish a definable relationship between rings, water and temperature. Again, I've only looked at a few abstracts dealing with ring data and the general tone I saw was ring data is the last choice to fill a gap and it'll take some hard extrapolations to use it. If the theft victim group is trying to use ring data, the emails could very well be about how to do the data extrapolation.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
But the "adjusted" charts as shown on the above link show a strong<br>
temp increase in the last 50 years. Thus the desire by many to<br>
understand the adjustment process. And it is the adjustment process<br>
that is still shrouded in mystery. I for one hope the senate hearings<br>
into all this result in the nasa temperature chart creation process be<br>
opened to all.<br>
<br>
Now it may be that that the adjustments are all fine and can each<br>
individually be justified. That does not change the fact that the<br>
whole process should be opened up instead of forcing all but a<br>
privileged few to guess at the specifics of the adjustments.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Greg<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br><br>