[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack
Jeff Hubbs
jhubbslist at att.net
Fri Nov 27 15:48:54 EST 2009
ASHRAE, as in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers? I guess that lends Dr. Spauschus' input
more weight than someone from, say, the American Cheese Society...not to
press the ad hominem pedal too hard, but come on...
Sure, it's "hard" to separate man-made input from natural input w.r.t.
global warming but a great many "hard" things are not impossible.
Building the Great Pyramids was hard, as were the Apollo landings
(actually, they weren't just "hard;" they were "haaahd"). Just off the
top of my head, it occurs to me that isotopic concentrations of methane
released through underground/undersea processes may differ enough from
that released from livestock that one could "fingerprint" methane in the
atmosphere to be able to tell what proportion of methane came from
where. But that's just a guess; I don't know if that's really
possible. But you get the idea: if you fund really smart and
knowledgeable people, they can figure out all kinds of things that are
haaahd. Defund them and/or subject them to the whims of ideologues and
fools, and people will just sit around going "duh."
But if we start getting sustained daytime temperatures more than about
104F across large sections of farmed land, we'll have a lot more to
worry about than whether the cause was man-made or not, because that's
the temperature at which photosynthesis stops working.
Companies are forced to retool and change processes all the time;
there's nothing inherently special or unduly burdensome about that on
its face.
The only things we know for sure are that certain atmospheric gases
drive the greenhouse effect and that human civilization produces
stupendous amounts of those very same gases. What we are now trying to
ascertain is the extent to which the latter has had a distinct effect on
the former. The US lags behind much of the rest of the world in that
science because of systematic defunding within the agencies that produce
it.
Dow_Hurst wrote:
> I had noticed the scandal on FOX business report. I've had my doubts about
> global warming ever since an ASHRAE fellow, Dr. Hans Spauschus, explained
> how hard it was to separate man made input from natural input into global
> warming effects. Anyway, the consensus I took away was that man's input is
> miniscule compared to volcanic activity or ocean chlorine. I may be wrong
> in my understanding...
>
> Opening up the code should be a priority since huge amounts of wealth are
> being transferred by government regulations from citizens to companies as
> the companies are forced to retool or change manufacturing processes. Just
> look at what the cap and trade bill will do to our economy if it is implemented
> as it stands. This is where the power of open source peer review could make
> a real difference for the plight of the common man.
> Dow
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Nov 27, 2009 12:45 PM
>> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! <ale at ale.org>
>> Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I've continued to try and read about the "climategate" emails and
>> source code release.
>>
>> This CBS article seems to be surprisingly well done for a mass media report.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
>>
>> Much of that article is discussing the release of CRU source code (it
>> was CRU that had the unauthorized release). As I understand it the
>> CRU global temperature series is 1 of 3 "respected" temperature
>> series reconstructions. And if you read "Harry's" comments as he
>> works on the code, he is very frustrated with the lack of quality in
>> the data and code that he is working with. This is the very code and
>> data that is providing a third of the support for global warming.
>>
>> Note that the CRU code has apparently never been released previously
>> for per review. So the "embargo" process may apply to US based
>> research but it was apparently not followed at CRU. Given that CRU
>> was one of the major drivers of the IPCC reports which in turn has
>> been the most relied upon report of global warming, it is all very
>> troubling. At least to me it is troubling.
>>
>> I sincerely hope one of the major results of this process is that
>> source code, raw data, and data adjustments be opened up for public
>> access. Agreed, it does not have to happen immediately, but much of
>> the code, data, and adjustments that were leaked are years old.
>>
>> FYI: The "hide the decline" comment is not a decline in measured
>> temps. It is a decline in temp that one would get if just using tree
>> rings as a guide. Apparently tree ring analysis would show the world
>> about half a degree colder than it really is for the last 50 years.
>> (Remember the entire global warming to date is just 7 10ths of a
>> degree since 1850, so a half degree is a huge discrepancy. You may
>> think tree ring analysis is unimportant now that we have thermometers,
>> but the infamous "hockey stick" temperature chart that covers the last
>> 1000 years is primarily derived from tree ring analysis. So if tree
>> ring analysis can routinely have .5 degree errors, then it is pretty
>> useless for trying to recreate historical temperatures. The hockey
>> stick analysis in particular show\s just 2 or 3 tenths of a degree in
>> variation from 1000 to 1850, and then a 7 tenth degree increase since
>> then.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> I hope you're right about the embargo process, but the one only chunk
>>> of source code I saw a reference to was supposedly 1999 code. So if
>>> the embargo is 10 years it is ridiculous. 6 or 12 months would be
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> The few emails I seen quoted were also 10 year old emails, but I am
>>> not saying I think those should be public. It is the source code to
>>> the models and the data they are using that I think should be handled
>>> under an open license of some sort.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a bit of insight into the research data issue (brother-in-law
>>>> works in the field that had the data loss):
>>>>
>>>> The data when first generated/collected is held in an embargo for a
>>>> period of time. This time period varies but is often for 6 months to
>>>> one year. This is done to allow time for the research team who did the
>>>> work to collect it to also do the work to to write it up and present
>>>> it. It's pretty much a "geek cred" thing. It also allows time to do a
>>>> proper analysis to make sure that the data is not flawed in some way
>>>> _before_ it's made public.
>>>>
>>>> During the embargo time, the researches with access to the data are
>>>> not allowed to discuss the initial findings or disperse data copies.
>>>>
>>>> Once the embargo period is over, the data is made fully available
>>>> along with the research findings and all the supporting papers.
>>>>
>>>> Science does not (and probably should not) work on a release early,
>>>> release often process.
>>>>
>>>> So the unauthorized data access was of embargo'ed data. Without having
>>>> the details of the collection methodology, it is not possible to draw
>>>> any valid conclusions from. That's why the researchers spend so long
>>>> to do the writeups. They have to explain why certain data is not valid
>>>> (hard) and other data is valid (very hard) and why their conclusion is
>>>> what it is (extremely hard).
>>>>
>>>> The schmuck who broke in had an agenda. He (most likely "he") has an
>>>> axe to grind and no understanding of the research process or why it is
>>>> done the way it is. So now that incomplete data set will be "outed"
>>>> and be used to "justify" his cause. It will have little impact on the
>>>> actual research but will likely have great influence on the
>>>> scientifically illiterate congress critters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure everyone knows but a major climate research center was hacked
>>>>> recently and in addition to 1000 emails or so, some of their source
>>>>> code was published!
>>>>>
>>>>> In this age of OPEN research and government funding, why wasn't that
>>>>> code OPEN in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't care which side of the Global Warming debate you sit on, we
>>>>> should all feel it is to important to have the modeling code be
>>>>> published under a GPL (or similar license) and available for peer
>>>>> review.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one of you knows of the "best' license for this kind of use I want
>>>>> to contact my senator and congressman and tell them we need
>>>>> legislation that all federally funded climate change research should
>>>>> have both the data and the software models released to the public!
>>>>>
>>>>> I encourage all OSS advocates to do the same. This seems like an
>>>>> issue the requires a OSS philosophy more that any other I can think
>>>>> of.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, if the government thinks climate change is worth
>>>>> implementing cap and trade over, then it is important enough to let
>>>>> the public know how the models work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Greg Freemyer
>>> Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
>>> Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
>>> Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White Paper -
>>> <http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>
>>>
>>> The Norcross Group
>>> The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
>>> http://www.norcrossgroup.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Greg Freemyer
>> Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team
>> Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
>> Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White Paper -
>> <http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/tng_whitepaper_fpe.html>
>>
>> The Norcross Group
>> The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
>> http://www.norcrossgroup.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> No sig.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the Ale
mailing list