|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 1, 2009 23:55:15 GMT
One question I would like CRU to answer is related the discussion between myself and Steve on the Akasofu paper. It seems a paper by Bryant, E. (1997), Climate Process and Change, Cambridge University Press uses a 1996 version of the Hadcrut data. This data did not have a depressed temperature bump around 1940, instead the smoothed bump of 1940 was right in line with the half bumps of 1880 and 1998. So apparently some adjustments to the data were made subsequent to 1996. Further Phil Jones says the raw data was destroyed back around 1980 long before he became in charge of CRU. So the question is if you don't have the raw data and the raw data had been processed into a grid using some judgements back in 1980 and you cannot any longer review these adjustments. . . .how can you reliably make more adjustments to the data set without risking replicating adjustments previously made either explicitly or inadvertently? Seems this science tale is somewhat like that parlor game where the host recites a written story privately to one party member, who then repeats the story from memory privately to another party member and so on. After about 4 tellings of the story and about 10 minutes elapsing in all the results are knee slapping hilarious in that the story has become entirely unrecognizable to the original. people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 2, 2009 0:23:42 GMT
The story of the raw data being "lost" is being exposed as yet another big lie out these jackals. There are other sources, Lucia highlights the inconsistencies from CRU on the matter. rankexploits.com/musings/2009/spin-from-natures-blog/It stinks to the high heavens. |
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 2, 2009 0:35:44 GMT
Uh oh. I just got more than a popup from the site. I have a "This Is Not A Joke" banner showing, and it just tried to download an MP3 file onto my computer, which got through everything but my download assistant (thank you, GetRight). Webmaster!!!
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 2, 2009 0:42:28 GMT
BTW, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you Rank 5 guys this, but I'm talking out loud. Isn't 1996 the year that the IPCC published the 1995 Madrid report, after cutting the articles of 15 so that people wouldn't get the MISTAKEN idea that all world scientists were not united? Was not the IPCC signaling that data manipulators had a blank check to play with?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 2, 2009 0:51:06 GMT
BTW, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you Rank 5 guys this, but I'm talking out loud. Isn't 1996 the year that the IPCC published the 1995 Madrid report, after cutting the articles of 15 so that people wouldn't get the MISTAKEN idea that all world scientists were not united? Was not the IPCC signaling that data manipulators had a blank check to play with? You have the information totally correct. |
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Dec 2, 2009 0:59:21 GMT
N9LLX, you are not alone! Heads up guys!!!!
About 30 min ago in the CRU/UEA thread I was just monitoring (only window open) and my browser was hijacked away to a "your computer is infected" page where a scan was begun.
My anti-trojan/spyware stopped it by closing down the browser. (WinXP Pro with a hardware firewall, router, and plenty of other protection. This one got through.
Could have been an anomoly, but I'm not banking on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 2, 2009 1:04:22 GMT
And to be quit frank, Akasofu's paper now deserves a much more careful examination.
I read it originally as a skeptic, but didn't feel that what he was ascertaining really had merit. Upon reading it quickly again, and in lite of the data manipulation at CRU, it actually seems to have much more validity.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 2, 2009 1:18:21 GMT
There's a certain 'Nick Stokes' that frequent WUWT, Rankexploits, Niche Modeling and a few others. He's an apologist for anything AGW. Over at Lucia's (rankexploits), he continued his quest. Steve Mosher came up with this analogy; it's as good as it gets. rankexploits.com/musings/2009/spin-from-natures-blog/steven mosher (Comment#25471) November 30th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Nick Stokes (Comment#25450) November 30th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
” CRU is not the originator of this data. They simply went around the weather services of the world, requesting copies of their data. This they then processed. It was a great achievement to get it all together; some of these angry critics might like to emulate the task.”
Nick I have done just that. I wrote to all of the weather services around the world and they sent me the raw data. I have just completed my analysis which shows the world has cooled since 1850. I’d love to send you the data BUT:
1. I think it was covered by confidentiality agreements. but
I lost them. I recall one said ” dont give it to nick stokes”
2. The data is already available to you at GHCN.
3. If you want to check my math you will have to go get the data yourself. If you prove me wrong, then its clear that you
got the wrong data from them. Sorry.
It’s very simple Nick. I want to audit what CRU did to the raw temps. Did they like NOAA apply a TOBS adjustment? or Not?
if not why not? if so, what basis did they use since the only TOBS study I am aware of is limited to CONUS. very simply nobody can verify that CRU did the job correctly. Finally, in 2002 jones
promised to send the raw data to McIntyre and he claimed to have it on floppy disks. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 2, 2009 3:20:44 GMT
Finally, in 2002 jones promised to send the raw data to McIntyre and he claimed to have it on floppy disks. There has to be some kind of explanation and it certainly resides somewhere between he is a bald-faced liar or a dufus. |
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Dec 2, 2009 3:37:34 GMT
Let us keep our discussions above the level of the "hockey team" and not descend to their level of personal attacks. For one, it makes our discussions look civil as compared to the churning froth of discontent that is present at other, unnamed, discussion boards. Secondly, it will help us all to keep our posts on topic.
As to the original poster, yes this does seem like the game we played as children. At least here we called it "Telephone". It was quite amusing to see what the final outcome was. In addition, an eerie similarity to the temperature "fudging" would be when there were known people who were in the loop who would change the message on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 2, 2009 4:05:57 GMT
I too as well just got a pop up, which I never get. I wonder ... I have never gotten anything on here. I've been here awhile before commenting. I stopped looking for awhile because it looked liked cycle 24 was supposed to be off the charts, until I got an email . No sense in arguing when the sun was active. I'll have to check the logs for attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 2, 2009 18:21:13 GMT
One question I would like CRU to answer is related the discussion between myself and Steve on the Akasofu paper. It seems a paper by Bryant, E. (1997), Climate Process and Change, Cambridge University Press uses a 1996 version of the Hadcrut data. This data did not have a depressed temperature bump around 1940, instead the smoothed bump of 1940 was right in line with the half bumps of 1880 and 1998. So apparently some adjustments to the data were made subsequent to 1996. Further Phil Jones says the raw data was destroyed back around 1980 long before he became in charge of CRU. So the question is if you don't have the raw data and the raw data had been processed into a grid using some judgements back in 1980 and you cannot any longer review these adjustments. . . .how can you reliably make more adjustments to the data set without risking replicating adjustments previously made either explicitly or inadvertently? Seems this science tale is somewhat like that parlor game where the host recites a written story privately to one party member, who then repeats the story from memory privately to another party member and so on. After about 4 tellings of the story and about 10 minutes elapsing in all the results are knee slapping hilarious in that the story has become entirely unrecognizable to the original. Unsurprisingly, the answer seems reasonably straightforward. 1. Only some of the original data is lost. 2. The loss refers to ground stations - there are other sources of data, and in particular, the 1940's bump is from the sea surface temperatures. It is not a ground station issue as the image below shows. 3. There are other sources of data coming on-line all the time (eg. digitisation of old log books etc.).  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 2, 2009 18:37:48 GMT
One question I would like CRU to answer is related the discussion between myself and Steve on the Akasofu paper. It seems a paper by Bryant, E. (1997), Climate Process and Change, Cambridge University Press uses a 1996 version of the Hadcrut data. This data did not have a depressed temperature bump around 1940, instead the smoothed bump of 1940 was right in line with the half bumps of 1880 and 1998. So apparently some adjustments to the data were made subsequent to 1996. Further Phil Jones says the raw data was destroyed back around 1980 long before he became in charge of CRU. So the question is if you don't have the raw data and the raw data had been processed into a grid using some judgements back in 1980 and you cannot any longer review these adjustments. . . .how can you reliably make more adjustments to the data set without risking replicating adjustments previously made either explicitly or inadvertently? Seems this science tale is somewhat like that parlor game where the host recites a written story privately to one party member, who then repeats the story from memory privately to another party member and so on. After about 4 tellings of the story and about 10 minutes elapsing in all the results are knee slapping hilarious in that the story has become entirely unrecognizable to the original. Unsurprisingly, the answer seems reasonably straightforward. 1. Only some of the original data is lost. 2. The loss refers to ground stations - there are other sources of data, and in particular, the 1940's bump is from the sea surface temperatures. It is not a ground station issue as the image below shows. 3. There are other sources of data coming on-line all the time (eg. digitisation of old log books etc.). Steve: In looking at the temp graphs that you displayed, I will comment: They have been modified extremely. It will take me time, if I can find the hard cover books, to show you how much the anomoly has been adjusted down for the 30's and mid 40's. It has been adjusted wayyyyyyyy down. And just so you know, I am talking global here. When you look at the present anomolies, look at them with a huge grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Dec 2, 2009 19:01:43 GMT
One question I would like CRU to answer is related the discussion between myself and Steve on the Akasofu paper. It seems a paper by Bryant, E. (1997), Climate Process and Change, Cambridge University Press uses a 1996 version of the Hadcrut data. This data did not have a depressed temperature bump around 1940, instead the smoothed bump of 1940 was right in line with the half bumps of 1880 and 1998. So apparently some adjustments to the data were made subsequent to 1996. Further Phil Jones says the raw data was destroyed back around 1980 long before he became in charge of CRU. So the question is if you don't have the raw data and the raw data had been processed into a grid using some judgements back in 1980 and you cannot any longer review these adjustments. . . .how can you reliably make more adjustments to the data set without risking replicating adjustments previously made either explicitly or inadvertently? Seems this science tale is somewhat like that parlor game where the host recites a written story privately to one party member, who then repeats the story from memory privately to another party member and so on. After about 4 tellings of the story and about 10 minutes elapsing in all the results are knee slapping hilarious in that the story has become entirely unrecognizable to the original. Unsurprisingly, the answer seems reasonably straightforward. 1. Only some of the original data is lost. 2. The loss refers to ground stations - there are other sources of data, and in particular, the 1940's bump is from the sea surface temperatures. It is not a ground station issue as the image below shows. 3. There are other sources of data coming on-line all the time (eg. digitisation of old log books etc.). Which, of course, does not address the credibility issue (Note: source of info). |
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Dec 3, 2009 0:17:50 GMT
N9LLX, you are not alone! Heads up guys!!!! About 30 min ago in the CRU/UEA thread I was just monitoring (only window open) and my browser was hijacked away to a "your computer is infected" page where a scan was begun. My anti-trojan/spyware stopped it by closing down the browser. (WinXP Pro with a hardware firewall, router, and plenty of other protection. This one got through. Could have been an anomoly, but I'm not banking on it. Same thing happened to me. As soon as it happened, i ripped the socket of the wall. Don't think anything got through. Sneaky bastards. Thats one way to shut everyone off. |
|
