On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your
questions without the implied insults.
When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind
as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and
some of the referenced articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent
authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what
happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article:
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that
was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.
Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early
AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises.
Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the
story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the
researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban
areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data
was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like
random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data
has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to
watch the cover up after this was pointed out.
Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.
**Indeed.
I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust,
the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a
few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical
numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So,
they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked)
some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.
However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no
question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I
don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the
original data is suspect). The pressing questions a
1. What is the predicted trend line?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
3. Should we do anything about it?
4. Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems?
My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future
trends, not historical data.
Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using
the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means
"caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all
effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question
comes to mind.
Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by
human activity?
**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.
Ok. I won't argue.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558