[Bodah]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What was more damning, as a single point, wasn't even in the actual emails, or the accompanying code, but it's something where people are just now starting to grasp the full significance. It was the fact that the original temperature data influencing the IPCC report was destroyed. That is of staggering importance. It was known before the emails, but because of the emails, now everybody knows. Even Rex Murphy of the CBC mentioned it.

I'd say that's a pretty big fail.

[Zipperfish]

According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues."

Does that mean this data was thrown out in the 80s? Or when? Was it original data, or was it copied from elsewhere?

[N_Fiddledog]

Yes. It was the original data. That was what was being sought by the scientists, and others making freedom of information requests. What you post was the eventual, official response to the controversy.

If it is just isolated bits as suggested there, fine, produce the rest. In response to climategate they have offered to produce something. It's going to be interesting to see what it is.

Now ask yourself this. Does that explanation you posted make sense? You're talking about the most important data they possess. It's the core from which all conclusions are drawn. It's their whole raison d'etre. If you want to attempt to replicate the adjustments as per proper science that data is what you need.

So are we to believe they just threw all that out, because they ran out of space on their tapes? What? they didn't have paper? They didn't have more tapes? They ran out of space to store it? For God's sakes film historians were storing old silent movies in their basements rather than throw them out, but these guys didn't think their original climate data mattered enough to take a couple of tapes home? Sure that sounds reasonable.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yes. It was the original data. That was what was being sought by the scientists, and others making freedom of information requests. What you post was the eventual, official response to the controversy.

If it is just isolated bits as suggested there, fine, produce the rest.

Now ask yourself this. Does that explanation you posted make sense? You're talking about the most important data they possess. It's the core from which all conclusions are drawn. It's their whole raison d'etre. If you want to attempt to replicate the adjustments as per proper science that data is what you need.

So are we to believe they just threw all that out, because they ran out of space on their tapes? What? they didn't have paper? They didn't have more tapes? They ran out of space to store it? For God's sakes film historians were storing old silent movies in their basements rather than throw them out, but these guys didn't think their original climate data mattered enough to take a couple of tapes home? Sure that sounds reasonable.

But this is in the 80s, right? That's what I can't find anywhere. Was it like two weeks ago, or was it twenty years ago?

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But this is in the 80s, right? That's what I can't find anywhere. Was it like two weeks ago, or was it twenty years ago?

Agreed. That is interesting. Jones was blaming his predecessor. As for as I know nobody's gotten in touch with him, and tried to make him take responsibility, or offer an explanation. Why not? He is still alive. I forget his name.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh, and check this one out.

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof ... l-them-to/

[N_Fiddledog]

Wait, I think I understand what you're asking. You're asking when did the official explanation come out, right?

McIntyre, and others were seeking that original data for years. The argument finally ended about early 2009 with that offiicial "Dog ate my homework" excuse.

[gigs]

The Dead Sea Srolls are 2100 years old and these clowns couldn't find a way to keep a little bit a data from the 80's.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But this is in the 80s, right? That's what I can't find anywhere. Was it like two weeks ago, or was it twenty years ago?

Agreed. That is interesting. Jones was blaming his predecessor. As for as I know nobody's gotten in touch with him, and tried to make him take responsibility, or offer an explanation. Why not? He is still alive. I forget his name.

If it was destroyed 20 years ago, that pretty much guarantees it wasn't related to the current scandal. Also 20 years ago, global warming was not a controversial subject.

As it is, there is a lot of different things coming out, so it's hard to know what is going on at this point. Some people say the data were destryed last weekend, others say in the 80s. Some say all the datat were destroyed, others say that 5% was. Some say it was original data, others say it's available elsewhere. Is it here?

I'm not in the field, but to me, it would make more sense to store raw data as opposed to processed data. You can always run the process on the raw data to get results; you can't always reverse engineer results back to raw data.

Still, at this point it's difficult to determine what's going on. Everyone is too busy screaming.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh, and check this one out.

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof ... l-them-to/

I'm not much on computer programming. I certainly don't believe his claim about being a global warming "agnostic." That skeptic snarkiness comes across by the second paragraph.

Really, what amazes me most about the so-called sceptics is their ability to believe anything that they feel represents their point of view. For instance, they denied any warming for years and years despite reams of evidence to the contrary. Then, based on a handful of readings from Mars, of all places, they instantly conclude that global warming is, indeed, real and happening on all the planets.


Or, as in this case, a piece of code is shown--there is no discussion of where it comes from or what it was for or when it was ever used. Buddy runs it and produces a shape which he says resembles Mann's hockey stick (when in fact it doesn't look like a hockey stick at all; it looks like a litle trough, then a hill, then a flat part).

I mean, it's not being very skeptical, is it?

[N_Fiddledog]

Boy what a denier. Look, let me show you why this kind of thing matters.

Here's an animated graph. It shows what the US temperatures from GISS looked like back in 1999, and what they look like now after they've been Hansified (or adjusted by Hansen, depending on the term you prefer).

[BeaverFever]

But again, who are these researches anyway? The high priests of global warming, at world-wide global warming theory HQ, or just two out of the hundreds of scientist around the world doing indpendent research? Why does the credibility of the whole theory hang on these two individuals at the University of East Anglia?

PA: I hear you on the cool summers, and we had a brutal winter last year too. But now its Dec 4 and we just had our first day of zero degree daytime temperature, still not a lick of snow to be seen yet.

From what I understand, "global warming" simply refers to the rise of AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures, and does not mean that all temperatures everywhere will necessarily be warmer than previous. The biggest obervable outcome to the casual observer would not really be warmer weather, but more eratic weather patterns. I am by no means a climate scientist, but I did take Meteorolgy I and II in university and one of the core concepts is that air and water temperature affects how air masses move and behave. Im pretty convinced that the ice caps are melting and that actually has a cooling effect on water temperatures around the polar lattitudes as the ice breaks aways and melts even as it seems that parts of the ocean near the equator are warmer than normal and that polarization of ocean temperatures contributes to weather phenomena.

Whether or not man-made emissions are solely to blame or even significant contributors is another question, one I dont have the answers to, but they definitely aren't a good thing anyway and there are plenty of reasons outside of GW to lower emissions and seek more efficient energy sources.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Here's an animated graph. It shows what the US temperatures from GISS looked like back in 1999, and what they look like now after they've been Hansified (or adjusted by Hansen, depending on the term you prefer).

Look pretty similar, except they start to diverge more after 1960, that divergence issue mentioned earlier. Same overall trends in both though, the biggest difference is the data after 1990 and the first graph from doesnt go past 99 so it makes the second one look more inflated because it uses data to 2008.

Also the chart is labelled "Temperature Anomaly" not "Average Temperature" so Im not sure what they're actually charting here...is this an error rate? Is this a graph showing the dif between measured temps and estimated temps from sources like tree rings?

Id be carful posting all these little data snippets and factoids cirulating the net that only an expert can make sense of, unless you're linking to an article or site meant for public consumption, none of us really know whats being discussed.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Boy what a denier. Look, let me show you why this kind of thing matters.

Here's an animated graph. It shows what the US temperatures from GISS looked like back in 1999, and what they look like now after they've been Hansified (or adjusted by Hansen, depending on the term you prefer).

Denier? Please, I prefer the term "skeptic."

[CanadianJeff]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Here's an animated graph. It shows what the US temperatures from GISS looked like back in 1999, and what they look like now after they've been Hansified (or adjusted by Hansen, depending on the term you prefer).

Look pretty similar, except they start to diverge more after 1960, that divergence issue mentioned earlier. Same overall trends in both though, the biggest difference is the data after 1990 and the first graph from doesnt go past 99 so it makes the second one look more inflated because it uses data to 2008.

Also the chart is labelled "Temperature Anomaly" not "Average Temperature" so Im not sure what they're actually charting here...is this an error rate? Is this a graph showing the dif between measured temps and estimated temps from sources like tree rings?

Id be carful posting all these little data snippets and factoids cirulating the net that only an expert can make sense of, unless you're linking to an article or site meant for public consumption, none of us really know whats being discussed.

nothing 5 minutes of research didn't fix.

What that graph is is a comparison of the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans to a baseline temperature which is graphed as 0 degrees on the y axis. Now the graph doesn't tell us the base year which it's using to compared the rise or fall in temperature but the most common for these graphs is from about the late 1800s to today.

so looking for example at where the graph ends during 1999 you can see the graph ends about halfway between 0 and 0.5 but when you add in the data at the end of the line up to 2008 watch how the line goes up....as in an increase in temperature....

Basically this graph is saying that over the last 9 years the average global temperature has risen about 1/4 of a degree. Not as harsh as AGW would have you believe but to post such a thing when discussing about how scientists e-mails show they were trying to "hide the decline" then post this which shows and INCREASE in temperature just goes to show that.....well...fiddledog how can you believe in hiding any decline when the data you post as proof of no AGW shows the opposite of a decline?

Just a thought....you know...for consistency. Are you a believer in global cooling or that AGW is not nearly as bad as thought.