|
Post by steve on Sept 7, 2010 13:47:15 GMT
So on the one hand we have a number of well documented papers by Hansen and many others giving details of what adjustments have been made, and details of how each adjustment has affected the warming trend - some significantly up and some significantly down.
On the other hand, we have a misleading quote about temperature trends from D'Aleo, a paper from D'Aleo where he confuses land temperatures with land+SST, a paper where he pretends the adjustments have been done in an underhand way when the methods and the effects of the methods were stated very clearly, and a paper from D'Aleo and Watts which seems to be the usual cherry-picking of odd looking individual station adjustments and photos of aircon outlets when we already know that the trends from "good" stations and supposedly "bad" stations is roughly the same despite Watts publishing another report that implied (but avoided explicitly stating) that they did not.
The size of the 1940s blip is not that relevant to the long term trend. At the moment it seems like there was an SST blip due to a change of method plus a genuine blip. This is an odd coincidence and needs investigating. Wigley appears to be conducting a thought experiment as he opens his email saying he is speculating - he is not requesting downward adjustments. Note that the email was written long after the well-publicised review of SSTs that identified the more rapid change from measuring temperatures of water collected by buckets to temperature sensors on engine-intakes.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2010 21:36:41 GMT
The size of the 1940s blip is not that relevant to the long term trend. At the moment it seems like there was an SST blip due to a change of method plus a genuine blip. This is an odd coincidence and needs investigating. Wigley appears to be conducting a thought experiment as he opens his email saying he is speculating - he is not requesting downward adjustments. Note that the email was written long after the well-publicised review of SSTs that identified the more rapid change from measuring temperatures of water collected by buckets to temperature sensors on engine-intakes. The Wigley email is just a snapshot into a single day of an entire career. Do you also believe Rome was built in a day? I don't see a word devoted to an identified physical reason for the adjustment Steve. So what would you lay the basis of a mind experiment? I think its notable this is a conversation between two principals of two supposedly independent datasets with a cc to the guy that does statistical analysis of them. Where is the beef Steve? What earthshaking discovery is Wigley working on?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2010 22:03:44 GMT
Without context you cannot tell. That email could be guilty or innocent. It's like playing winmine and the mine could be in either one of two squares but you don't have the information to tell which.
Wigley isn't the one who determines or makes the adjustments. The innocent interpretation is that he's speculating about the implications of the adjustment. He figures 0.15C is the largest it can be (because of the land blip and because that's similar in nature to other land/ocean blips) and that such an adjustment would make more sense in light of other things.
Next email though, Phil Jones replies:
"Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug"
So Wigley is barking up the wrong tree anyway.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2010 23:36:04 GMT
Without context you cannot tell. That email could be guilty or innocent. It's like playing winmine and the mine could be in either one of two squares but you don't have the information to tell which.
Wigley isn't the one who determines or makes the adjustments. The innocent interpretation is that he's speculating about the implications of the adjustment. He figures 0.15C is the largest it can be (because of the land blip and because that's similar in nature to other land/ocean blips) and that such an adjustment would make more sense in light of other things The Wigley email combined with the mission of the EPRI for whom he was preparing a report kind of puts things in context. Advanced information and communications technologies (ICT) are one of the pillars on which to develop the political cohesion of the European Information Society. It is therefore crucial that the elected representative of the European citizen, the MPs of the member states, actively shape the discussion on how to develop and to apply these technologies in the interest of good democratic governance in Europe. Next email though, Phil Jones replies:
"Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug"
So Wigley is barking up the wrong tree anyway.Jones' reply adds more context as to the objective. I don't think any of these guys are inherently bad and Jones himself has done a few things since to demonstrate that. But it is clear in this case they were doing politics not science and that there has not been good controls over the input of science into politics. Drawing a clear line between what is policy and what is science is crucial to the effective use of science in the democratic policy context. The system we have doesn't work and it needs some fixes. The best fix always arises from the grassroots in this case the science community. Worse results will come if the community doesn't rise to the occasion.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 8, 2010 9:06:46 GMT
Jones' reply does not *add* to the context. It directly rebuts the starting point of Wigley's thought experiment. Wigley implicitly identifies a physical basis for his thoughts: that he thinks that the SST and land data would normally be correlated. Wigley's email needs a bit more explaining I think as it is a bit odd. But it sounds more like he is trying to make sense of data he's not fully got a grasp of rather than directing Jones down a particular path.
No it is not clear they are doing politics at all in this email.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 8, 2010 12:46:16 GMT
On the one hand we have a hack who is on the public payroll for his entire career, yet has enriched himself off of work we paid him to do, selling fear and apocalypse. On the other hand we find out he lied in his Senate testimony be arranging to turn off the AC in the hearing room to make it much hotter than normal as a stage prop for his predictions. Additionally, we know he supports terrorism, criminal activities, political crimes trials and more against those who dare disagree with him. And we know his predictions are cheap and wrong. He predicted Manhattan would be awash in rising sea water by now, with tropical plants replacing traditional native species. He predicted more frequent and more powerful storms. None of this has even come close to happening. But he has gotten richer selling fear, while being paid by tax payer largesse. Now we find out that the world's ice sheets are melting at half the rate fear mongers like Hansen claimed: sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted." Hansen- a vicious cynical liar for the age.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 8, 2010 13:23:17 GMT
Nice bit of pathetic fulmination full of lies and half-truths there, hunter. Don't forget to take your blood pressure tablets.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 8, 2010 13:32:38 GMT
Nice bit of pathetic fulmination full of lies and half-truths there, hunter. Don't forget to take your blood pressure tablets. My blood pressure is fine. Keep doing your climate rosary and ignoring reality. www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpgStay cool. Like the Arctic. You will be able to die, hopefully of old age and peacefully, knowing that despite of your foolish youthful obsession with apocalyptic claptrap, your grandchildren will live in a world that is not ending due to CO2 or the false claims of charlatans like Hansen.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 8, 2010 14:09:26 GMT
It's hard to focus on reality when I have to keep dealing with your misrepresentations of me, Hansen and just about anyone else you disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 8, 2010 14:39:36 GMT
Jones' reply adds more context as to the objective. I don't think any of these guys are inherently bad and Jones himself has done a few things since to demonstrate that.
Jones' reply does not *add* to the context. It directly rebuts the starting point of Wigley's thought experiment. Wigley implicitly identifies a physical basis for his thoughts: that he thinks that the SST and land data would normally be correlated. Wigley's email needs a bit more explaining I think as it is a bit odd. But it sounds more like he is trying to make sense of data he's not fully got a grasp of rather than directing Jones down a particular path.The email chain dies when Jones points out that Wigley is going to enhance the 1940's blip rather than make it go away. Does anybody really need to say anymore? Is that how science works Steve? But it is clear in this case they were doing politics not science and that there has not been good controls over the input of science into politics.
Drawing a clear line between what is policy and what is science is crucial to the effective use of science in the democratic policy context. The system we have doesn't work and it needs some fixes. The best fix always arises from the grassroots in this case the science community. Worse results will come if the community doesn't rise to the occasion.
No it is not clear they are doing politics at all in this email.Its not difficult to achieve clarity for most Steve. Where do you see science occurring in that email exchange? And what fine science point do you think went in his report to the UK Parliament research funding body? Don't worry about the 1940's blip as its probably going away. . . .like other stuff has been going away throughout Wigley's career?
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 8, 2010 18:24:22 GMT
Jones' reply adds more context as to the objective. I don't think any of these guys are inherently bad and Jones himself has done a few things since to demonstrate that.
Jones' reply does not *add* to the context. It directly rebuts the starting point of Wigley's thought experiment. Wigley implicitly identifies a physical basis for his thoughts: that he thinks that the SST and land data would normally be correlated. Wigley's email needs a bit more explaining I think as it is a bit odd. But it sounds more like he is trying to make sense of data he's not fully got a grasp of rather than directing Jones down a particular path.The email chain dies when Jones points out that Wigley is going to enhance the 1940's blip rather than make it go away. Does anybody really need to say anymore? Is that how science works Steve? But it is clear in this case they were doing politics not science and that there has not been good controls over the input of science into politics.
Drawing a clear line between what is policy and what is science is crucial to the effective use of science in the democratic policy context. The system we have doesn't work and it needs some fixes. The best fix always arises from the grassroots in this case the science community. Worse results will come if the community doesn't rise to the occasion.
No it is not clear they are doing politics at all in this email.Its not difficult to achieve clarity for most Steve. Where do you see science occurring in that email exchange? And what fine science point do you think went in his report to the UK Parliament research funding body? Don't worry about the 1940's blip as its probably going away. . . .like other stuff has been going away throughout Wigley's career? The FOIA files, remeber, are not complete. We are only seeing small snippets of how corrupt big climate science is, not the entire picture. In a normal process, we would have seen enforceable demands to produce all of the e-mails, to study themin context. Instead the whitewashes simply asked those expsed if they were bad people, and everyone agreed with their answers. Along with some pro-forma tut-tutting about 'transparency'(which means hide the friggin' e-mails better next time). we know they were hiding inconvenient facts, erasing data paid for by tax dollars, dodging FOIA requests etc. We simply don't know the full context because there has been no actual investigation to date. It is not if they were corrupt. That is established by their own words. the only interesting question is how pervasive and cynical the promoters are in their corruption. If the AGW true believers have their way, none will ever be done.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 8, 2010 18:50:46 GMT
"The email chain dies when Jones points out that Wigley is going to enhance the 1940's blip rather than make it go away."
Jones does not point out Wigley is going to adjust anything. I am worried that you are drawing wrong conclusions from the emails.
Can you answer the following questions:
1) Which SST record are they discussing in these emails?
2) Who maintains that SST record? (Jones, Wigley, both or neither)
3) What is the reason for the adjustment under discussion?
I would expect accusers to be able to answer such questions about the basic context of the conversation, or else their accusations are not sufficiently researched.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 8, 2010 21:48:17 GMT
Jones does not point out Wigley is going to adjust anything. I am worried that you are drawing wrong conclusions from the emails. The drift of the conversation was unmistakeable. If two top oil executives were discussing pricing in an identical manner they would be in jail. There seems to be no question of the intent here Socold. If you have an alternative rationalization then present it. If not there is no need to split hairs. A jury just doesn't buy hairsplitting you need a more credible story instead.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2010 0:36:12 GMT
What did you mean by "Jones points out that Wigley is going to enhance the 1940's blip rather than make it go away"? There is nothing like that in the email. Where did Jone's give any impression that Wigley was going to do anything?
That's what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2010 0:59:59 GMT
Next email though, Phil Jones replies:
"Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug"
So Wigley is barking up the wrong tree anyway.Do you read your own stuff?
|
|