CRU E-mails and data

[VillagePlank]

I should add something very important here, before everyone gets too carried away.

Firstly, the curve fit looks to me to be an accurate polynomial (2nd degree which is a bit naughty) for the observed temperatures throughout the 20th century. I think we all can agree on that.

Secondly, we don't know what data is being fed into this algorithm - it might well be that it isn't even used, and besides, it may well be some form of proxy that only shows the difference between this years temperature and last years temperature but doesn't show the scale of temperatures which means the scale must be added later - which is achieved using this code.

Certainly questions about usage need, now, to be asked; but be prepared for innocent explanations. I can't emphasise this last point enough: every computer system has 'toy' code that never makes it into production systems but is used for some purpose that only the programmer, generally, is the one that knows why

This is no smoking gun, but it is bad code.

Edited November 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Looks like this could be much worse than first thought as New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking!!!!:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

Oh dear, it seems the ''New Zealand' Climate coalition' wont explain what 'adjustments' they made to the data to get it to show what they wanted because, um, they are not competent to handle the data, just competent to fiddle it. Don't believe me? Then when a Weather station changes (and is move higher) why simply join the two sets of data - perhaps the ''New Zealand' climate coalition' don't know temperature falls with height? .

Read the grubby details here or read the 'oh, not again' response from NIWA.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Oh dear, it seems the ''New Zealand' Climate coalition' wont explain what 'adjustments' they made to the data to get it to show what they wanted because, um, they are not competent to handle the data, just competent to fiddle it. Don't believe me? Then when a Weather station changes (and is move higher) why simply join the two sets of data - perhaps the ''New Zealand' climate coalition' don't know temperature falls with height? .

Read the grubby details here or read the 'oh, not again' response from NIWA.

Sometimes.

Often when driving down from the moor I notice the temperature getting lower, not always admittedly, but sometimes.

[VillagePlank]

.... temperature falls with height? .

Does that mean the frequency of hat wearing for tall people is greater than for shorter people

[Devonian]

Sometimes.

Often when driving down from the moor I notice the temperature getting lower, not always admittedly, but sometimes.

C'mon Matt, this is basic meteorology! Temperature falls with height - on average. Why do you think mountains have snow and snow lines, because average temperature doesn't fall with height

Edited November 26, 2009 by Devonian

[BUSHY]

Sorry Dev but this is only one station and the evidence of manipulation is tending to lean towards overwhelming. Similar stuff is now coming out from Australian records. The temperature data records worldwide appear to have been massaged and adjusted inappropriately. I think that an audit of all records regardless of cost is called for here.

[Devonian]

Does that mean the frequency of hat wearing for tall people is greater than for shorter people

Nah, that's to do with the orographic rainfall effect

Sorry Dev but this is only one station and the evidence of manipulation is tending to lean towards overwhelming. Similar stuff is now coming out from Australian records. The temperature data records worldwide appear to have been massaged and adjusted inappropriately. I think that an audit of all records regardless of cost is called for here.

So, you think the NIWA (New Zealands official meteorology organisation) are conspiring to deceive us (along with the CRU presumably) because you believe a group of right wing mostly Australians calling themselves the ''New Zealand' Climate coalition' say so - and (conveniently) say so right at the time of the Copenhagen conference?

You're joking aren't you?

[BUSHY]

Ok so all tall people are wet. heee hee

(You're joking aren't you?)

No i am not. There is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion now.

[Devonian]

Ok so all tall people are wet. heee hee

(You're joking aren't you?)

No i am not. There is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion now.

Well, if you think it's all a vast conspiracy then (as with most such conspiracy theories) I'm quite sure no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

C'mon Matt, this is basic meteorology! Temperature falls with height - on average. Why do you think mountains have snow and snow lines, because average temperature doesn't fall with height

Yeah I know, just felt the urge to play Devils Advocate Although, the statement was true, mostly in high pressure situations, that and it might be a frost pocket down there Sorry:)

Edited November 26, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Thundery wintry showers]

Much acceptance of AGW conspiracy theories revolves around reasoning like "AGW is a myth, so the conspiracy theory must be right- the truth is finally getting out. And the truth of the conspiracy theory confirms that AGW is a myth, which in turn confirms the truth of the conspiracy theory!".

Even where there are flaws in scientific reasoning, it doesn't make it a conspiracy or collusion. We have things like natural human error, gaps in understanding and confirmation bias for example.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

We aren't excusing mediocrity here are we?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, it depends on what one defines as "mediocrity", as implicit in this is an assumption that the research being carried out is mediocre, which is open to question (e.g. take VillagePlank's words of caution a few posts back).

But I don't see how my post above is "excusing" anything. I am merely saying that if someone makes a mistake, it shouldn't automatically be used as evidence for some kind of conspiracy theory just because it happens to be on the pro-AGW side of the fence. The principle of "innocence until proven guilty" is worth mentioning here.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But you flagged up human error, mis-understanding and bias, which strikes me as 3 things you might not want in people who are in effect playing a defining role in how we might be forced to live in years to come. I for one would hope we could find some people to do this properly.

But with reference to the second paragraph, I agree. In theory.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, those three issues aren't ideal. The question is whether a scientific group exists that manages to completely avoid all of those three traits. I suggest that, unfortunately, avoiding all three is a practical impossibility due to the gaps in our understanding of the subject in question and the fact that scientists are only human. The key is rather to try and minimise the extent to which they happen.

For instance I know I'm not immune from any of those three things either. I'm sure that if we looked up some of the unsuccessful monthly forecasts I've done for N-W we'd find evidence of at least one or two of those behind why the forecast ended up wide of the mark. The same would also apply from an analysis of the unsuccessful forecasts from the likes of the Met Office.

I'm not justifying them but rather pointing out that it isn't a black and white case of "either we're guilty of them or we aren't".

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think you're probably right, but it would be nice if we could eradicate the bias. The other two are found everywhere in everyone, no one is perfect.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think that again raises the important issue of "preaching to the general public that the issue is more settled than it really is". I think most of the scientists generally do their best to avoid bias (there are certainly research projects where bias creeps in, but the overwhelming desire is to further the level of scientific understanding). But as soon as politics comes into play, a desire to avoid revealing uncertainty to the public (to avoid "creating unnecessary doubts" or similar) creeps in and an eminently avoidable element of bias results. A scientific report saying "may", "could", and "will probably happen on the basis of current trends" soon morphs into "will", "will" and "will", especially in cases where the politicians take control of the public engagement side and have the scientists just do the research.

[BUSHY]

It is all very well calling conspiracy, manipulation etc. BUT it appears that there has been manipulation of data and at this point there is definite proof in some cases. Perhaps and probably much more to come as the revelations of Pielke http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/. for instance brings to light hidden issues. Are and have we all been taken for fools?

Yes, because the majority fail to question authority.

[Devonian]

It is all very well calling conspiracy, manipulation etc. BUT it appears that there has been manipulation of data and at this point there is definite proof in some cases. Perhaps and probably much more to come as the revelations of Pielke http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/. for instance brings to light hidden issues. Are and have we all been taken for fools?

Yes, because the majority fail to question authority.

LOL, I've spent the last decade questioning sceptic authority...

[BUSHY]

Dev dont be juvenile, you know what I mean.

[The PIT]

Lost emails. He should got the postmaster to query the server to see if they've every been sent and he's not been clumsy with the delete key. I suspect the emails weren't sent judging by the distasteful comments made in another email.

Funny that Paul Hudson got some flak considering I sat listening to him on a talk and I know he does believe in warming although of course he maybe more opened minded than some. Of course once you dare say anything that may question warming you're automatically a low life sceptic.

I see Devonian is still flapping away in a panic.

Edited November 26, 2009 by The PIT

[Methuselah]

I just can't see any evidence of a conspiracy...Is that because I'm not looking hard enough, or is said conspiracy just so brilliantly concealed that there isn't any evidence?

[Devonian]

Lost emails. He should got the postmaster to query the server to see if they've every been sent and he's not been clumsy with the delete key. I suspect the emails weren't sent judging by the distasteful comments made in another email.

Funny that Paul Hudson got some flak considering I sat listening to him on a talk and I know he does believe in warming although of course he maybe more opened minded than some. Of course once you dare say anything that may question warming you're automatically a low life sceptic.

I see Devonian is still flapping away in a panic.

Actually, no, I'm rather enjoying it. It IS a turning point, but not as you see it - certain blog authoring sceptics have crossed a line, we know better what they are now.

Btw, who is calling anyone a low life? No need to exaggerate is there if you case is soooo good

Edited November 26, 2009 by Devonian

[Slinky]

Kettle pot black

[BUSHY]

Pete, maybe not so much conspiracy as self delusion, group think, superior complex thing.