I thought we were going to discuss their opinions, the context of their emails?
Motive? Reliability? Data manipulation? Context? Peer-review? Objectivity? FOI? Collusion? etc.
A Note: Global Warming Threads
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
I thought we were going to discuss their opinions, the context of their emails?
Motive? Reliability? Data manipulation? Context? Peer-review? Objectivity? FOI? Collusion? etc.
So far I've been unconvinced of an existing ill-motive by any of the cited e-mails or coding approaches. All of the criticisms seem to stem from not understanding the nature of recorded data, its history, how long scale events affect trends, and how regression analysis is required to generalize data. This is coming from me, a 'non-believer' in global warming.
Well, you're the one that blew a comment that I made as an aside out of proportion, in a post that was addressing the point you raised so...
and I find myself in general agreement with Cheski at this point.
Cheski:
As far as your queries about absorbance go, if you haven't found it already, try looking for the calibration curves they use in chemistry for IR spectroscopy.
I can't honestly say that I have examined a great deal of them, but the ones that I have examined appear to indicate that in the range of partial pressures where atmospheric CO2 currently resides, we should expect a roughly linear response in IR absorbance of atmospheric CO2 to changing CO2 levels (in some of the relevant ranges of bandwidths).
To the best of my knowledge getting that far is pretty much set in stone and grounded firmly in physics. It's what comes after that that generates the debate - how the atmosphere responds to the increased heat energy (and I include mechanisms that result in increased re-radiation, or reduced insolation and therefore have the effect of reducing the heat energy of the atmosphere in that category).
As far as your queries about absorbance go, if you haven't found it already, try looking for the calibration curves they use in chemistry for IR spectroscopy.
I can't honestly say that I have examined a great deal of them, but the ones that I have examined appear to indicate that in the range of partial pressures where atmospheric CO2 currently resides, we should expect a roughly linear response in IR absorbance of atmospheric CO2 to changing CO2 levels (in some of the relevant ranges of bandwidths).
To the best of my knowledge getting that far is pretty much set in stone and grounded firmly in physics. It's what comes after that that generates the debate - how the atmosphere responds to the increased heat energy (and I include mechanisms that result in increased re-radiation, or reduced insolation and therefore have the effect of reducing the heat energy of the atmosphere in that category).
Agreed; I'll look it up tonight after I finish my workload. My inclination is to believe that increased tropospheric warming should lead to high level temperature inversions. These directly correspond to alto-cirrus and similar cloud formations - their albedo is in the .3-.6 range. If that's the case...tropopause warming would be inflated significantly. The fact that the Troposphere has showed relatively no warming since Satellite records were present it provides an odd situation.
Stable troposphere - Warming tropopause - reduced total surface energy (from albedo) - increased trapping (surface warming)
It's an energy budget nightmare until I can get a firm grasp on C02 absorbency and related albedos. I don't remember reading about the specifics of it when I briefed the latest IPCC - though their publications tend to be policy oriented.
Stable troposphere - Warming tropopause - reduced total surface energy (from albedo) - increased trapping (surface warming)
It's an energy budget nightmare until I can get a firm grasp on C02 absorbency and related albedos. I don't remember reading about the specifics of it when I briefed the latest IPCC - though their publications tend to be policy oriented.
And then there's those pesky Mesopheric ice clouds to consider as well (Their history is interesting, as is how recent they appear to be).
Are you reviewing the raw 61 MB (167 MB, expanded) file containing the originals, or just the the few which have been plastered all over the Internet?
I believe global warming is happened, but that it's both been grossly overstated, as has mankind's (anthropogenic) role in it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611496
So it seems that even deFreitas is critiscizing the hacking...
So it seems that even deFreitas is critiscizing the hacking...
Strangely enough eACRU had thought in the past they had a mole releasing information. It was discovered that Phil Jones himself had left the docs on an FTP server to be freely downloaded by anyone.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html
Until the police state its a hack, I am going to assume it was simple carelessness that got this information into the public domain. As has been alluded to, its just too coincidental that all this info was bundled together.
excuse me, I have to snicker some....
"There’s an old adage, never assume malice when stupidity or incompetence will explain it."
One of the things I found most amusing about that article if you check it out, is that at least a chunk of the data was already publically available anyway.
I've reviewed the fortran coding that was attacked by some websites as being poor. I've also reviewed a large chunk of the e-mails in full context - the quotes being presented everywhere are out of context.
So you agree that there is no evidence this release of data is a hacker?
I'm sorry, but HOW do you get that from what I said?
Its obvious. You were responding to my evidence that eACRU has mistakenly put data out for download before and been mistaken, in that case, the paranoid assumption of a mole.
As you said, the data was available, hence your agreement that this isnt a hack.
Of course if you were talking about something completely different, you should have made that clear.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
cant get that out of my head...
Its obvious. You were responding to my evidence that eACRU has mistakenly put data out for download before and been mistaken, in that case, the paranoid assumption of a mole.
As you said, the data was available, hence your agreement that this isnt a hack.
Of course if you were talking about something completely different, you should have made that clear.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
cant get that out of my head...
Seriously?
Is that what you genuinely think?
You're wrong, plain and simple.
I don't believe this isn't a genuine hack. I said was that SOME of the data that was hacked was already publicly available, nothing more, nothing less.
Chunk.
Part.
Fraction.
Portion.
The only thing that's even remotely ambiguous is which article I was referring to.
Specifically, I was referring to the first two paragraphs on the second page of the herald article, not referring to the article you linked to. I wa simply noting that there were certain similarities, although the two are profoundly different.
While you're dishing out advice on what other posters should, and shouldn't do, perhaps rather than making assumptions about (potentially) ambiguous portions of posts, you should seek clarification (in this instance, I was posting from work, and I suspect interrupted by a manager, director, or phone call).
No point in blaming me because your trying to deflect the blame/ridicule.
I didnt release the info to cyberspace.
I dont work in climate.
I dont assume it was a hacker.
The data in the article was unrelated to this current release and only points out eACRU has screwed up before.
And if your going to refer to two paragraphs unrelated to the context of the response (while ignoring the whole point of the response), point it out so people know what YOUR talking about....
And I wander away from my computer all the time without hitting send, so again, Not my Problem.
Hide the decline
Right.
I'm trying to deflect the blame by aknowledging that part of my post was ambiguous then explaining why?
Deflection by acceptance and explanation. Wow. That's a new one on me.
Awesome.
Good for you.
Here's your official seal of awesomeness.
Would you like that in a paper bag, or a plastic one?
Right, so assuming that reports such as this which state:
Is some how fallicous?
according to US Legal definitions, hacking is broadly defined as "intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access".
So, by that definition, even if this was perpetrated by someone inside the CRU, then, it still boradly speaking meets the legal definition of hacking.
Right, and I was simply pointing out that at least some of this data, of which much is being made, was already publily available anyway, which has several corrolaries.
Further information regarding the hacking:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ing_research_exposed_after_hack?taxonomyId=82
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...u-hack-context/comment-page-4/#comment-143886
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0
I had two more, but one won't open, and the other is 504'ing on me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ing_research_exposed_after_hack?taxonomyId=82
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...u-hack-context/comment-page-4/#comment-143886
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0
I had two more, but one won't open, and the other is 504'ing on me.
Again, if eACRU left this out in an FTP area (like has happened before), the statement "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents" does not mean Hacked. They saw what they had and let it go viral.
If someone inadvertently put this in an FTP area, it would be called a security breach by IT. This does not mean Hacker. It is just as probable P. Jones did not understand when IT said security breach, it did not necessarily mean Hacker.
Last edited: