[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

Wed Dec 9 09:17:29 EST 2009

Greg,

Thanks for the dig work on this. I can't find the chart referenced from
whatupwiththat as ever having been published except on that site (which is
known to be a strong politically motivated one not backed by scientists of
any political stripage). As such, the argument that the entire AGW is flawed
is pretty shaky.

If someone were to look at my work folders and try and draw conclusion from
my test code and the random scraps of paper notes I have, the conclusion
would be the code is bogus vapor-ware. Yet in the end, I deliver a valid
project with supporting documentation (usually) and valid verification test
data and results.

>From my understanding of the included email and the linked graph, they are
not from the same region nor are they discussing an overall global trend.
The chart is claimed to be from data from a single reporting station while
the email is discussing multiple collection stations in the scandinavian
region. The chart data source is unnamed. I can understand why someone would
be able to claim fraud on a cursory glance yet the data sets under
discussion are not linked and thus noncorrelative.

Please let this topic die on the list here and now. The people who are
working the problem are not on ALE. Other than a few shills in the science
field paid by the businesses who stand to lose if forced to change their
ways, there is pretty much consensus amongst the scientists that bad things
will happen if humans do nothing and continue to act irresponsibly toward
future generations. They also agree is will cost big money and some business
methods will be forced to go away to make the needed changes. But sometimes
people have to put their personal financial interests aside and do what is
considered to be the best known choice to benefit future generations.

The planet will survive no matter what the climate is. What is at stake is
the ability to continue to provide for the human population. Maybe "bad
climate change" is a wrong prediction from the science crowd. But given the
gravity of the consequences, I am convinced that the prudent course of
action is to act to conserve as many resources as possible for the next
generations to have. Because if I'm wrong in that action I will not be
condemning my children to a bleaker future. But to not act in this way and
be wrong is to punish tomorrow for the greed of today. And that would be
tragic.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Please provide a link to the published paper from the England group where
> > they present the graph that doesn't match the data.
>
> The argument is that the charts match the adjusted data, but the
> adjustments are not well documented.    It is the adjusted station by
> station data that is in turn used to calculate the regional and global
> means.
>
> For one specific comparison between raw and adjusted see
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg
>
> It is a simple chart showing both actual measujred temps (raw temps)
> and adjusted temps for one specific measurement station.  The raw and
> adjusted temps are from the GHCN temp series which is produced by
> NOAA.  NASA and CRU produce the other 2 significant temp. series.  CRU
> is the group in England that is the focus of climategate and which has
> been fighting Freedom of Information requests for 2+ years.
>
> Anyway the GHCN adjustments may be appropriate, but NOAA has
> apparently not provided detailed explanation for why this station was
> adjusted.  How can the adjustment be audited if the adjustments are
> not justified case by case.  Apparently the vast majority of sites
> have had their values adjusted as part of the overall process.  And
> the vast majority of the adjustments are in the upward direction, thus
> understanding the adjustments is a very significant aspect of the
> whole.
>
> ===
> One specific email I've seen is:
>
> http://www.tuxwerx.com/Climategate/mail/1221683947.txt
>
> The sceptic in the email is Wibjörn Karlén.  I'm not sure he on the
> IPCC team, but he at least got some answers to his emails.  I feat
> apparently rare for sceptics to accomplish.  The trouble is that at
> least in this email, the answers are vague.  In fact one of the areas
> he questions is Northern Australia which is where the above Darwin
> Station is located and it is one of only 3 stations with a 100+ year
> lifespan in Northern Austrailia.
>
> Anyway, you have to look a little way into the email, but you will find:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the
> >> temperature
> >> curves in IPCC and also published in e.g.  Forster, P. et al. 2007:
> > Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the
> > early
> >> 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another
> > increase
> >> to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940
> >> is
> >> reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent
> > increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible
> > human
> >> influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase
> >> above
> >> the late 1930s.
> >>
> >
> > This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large
> > gaps spatially.  How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome.
> > In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and
> > character.  In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of
> > inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent
> > years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment
> > but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008.  Anomalies of over
> 5C
> > are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if
> > there was ice there previously.  These and other indicators show that
> > there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> In my letter to “Klass V” I included diagram showing the mean annual
> > temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net
> > by
> >> the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological
> > institutes
> >> in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an
> >> increase
> >> after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None
> > demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6
> > areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Results will also depend on the exact region.
> >
> >>
> >> I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas
> > using
> >> data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13
> > stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.
> > The
> >> pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows
> > 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojansk
> > and
> >> Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5
> > deg
> >> C
> >> above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the
> > temperature
> >> has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the
> > last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent
> > temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In preparation of some talks I have been invited to give, I have
> > expanded
> >> the Nordic area both west and east. The area of similar change in
> > climate
> >> is
> >> vast. Only a few stations near Bering Strait deviates (e.g. St Paul,
> > Kodiak,
> >> Nome, located south of 65 deg. N).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My studies include Africa, a study which took me most of a summer
> > because
> >> there are a large number of stations in the NASA records.  I found 11
> > stations including data from 1898-1975 and 16 stations including
> > 1950-2003.
> >> The data sets could in a convincing way be spliced. However, I noticed
> >> that
> >> some persons were not familiar with “splicing” technique so I have
> >> accepted
> >> to reduce the study to the 7 stations including data from the whole
> > period
> >> between 1898-2003. The results are similar as to the spiced data set and
> > also, surprisingly similar to the variability of the Nordic data.
> > Regression
> >> indicates a minor (if any) decrease in temperature (I have used all
> > stations
> >> independent of location, city location or not).
> >>
> > Africa is notorious for missing and inaccurate data and needs careful
> > assessment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the
> > period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based
> > on?
> >> If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period
> > (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps
> > of changes and trends.
>
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>

-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091209/1de169e3/attachment-0001.html 