Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[TellyKNeasuss]

What criticism to you have of this paper and how do you think the others improved on it.

If I look at panel A of the graph above, I see a mass of raw data readings that anyone can look at and draw their own conclusion. The links you provide only show data after being massaged by algorithms and data weighting, usually to produce a single global figure.

Do you accept panel A as a genuine unbiased cloud of points of ocean temperature or can you provide your own?

Do you know what data are plotted in panel A?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Funny thing is, though, you never notice when something is said in support of AGW, only against it.

Yep, that is part of what skepticism is - that doesn't mean I don't take notice.
What I do notice is you having no problem doing it the other way around, except when proven wrong are not man enough to admit it. You are also quite adept at throwing up lies about others without proof (science aside).

If all you are doing is asking questions, I would have thought they would have gone both ways.

If you show me when you do that, perhaps I mighht follow suit. OK?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There are far too many better papers showing ocean heat content is increasing, and that this increase enormous (10^23J increase since 1980). This is confirmed by both direct measurement and indirectly by the oceans are undergoing thermal expansion.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/full/nature07080.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Or even (though only cover part of the post-1980 period)
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Papers/Wills_2004.pdf
and
http://www.agu.org/journals/jc/jc0909/2008JC005237/

 

[a_unique_person]

Yep, that is part of what skepticism is - that doesn't mean I don't take notice.
What I do notice is you having no problem doing it the other way around, except when proven wrong are not man enough to admit it. You are also quite adept at throwing up lies about others without proof (science aside).



If you show me when you do that, perhaps I mighht follow suit. OK?

I'm not just asking questions, I have looked at the evidence and made up my mind already.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not just asking questions, I have looked at the evidence and made up my mind already.

Exactly, your mind is made up. Mine remains more flexible until the science is actually settled.

At any rate, what the hell is wrong with asking questions? If no one asked questions, there wouldn't be any science in the first place. (BTW, I amaware that "asking questions" is another poor attempt to insult).

 

[a_unique_person]

Exactly, your mind is made up. Mine remains more flexible until the science is actually settled.

Made up on a number of things, evolution, HIV/AIDS, immunisation.....

At any rate, what the hell is wrong with asking questions? If no one asked questions, there wouldn't be any science in the first place. (BTW, I amaware that "asking questions" is another poor attempt to insult).

'Asking questions', a common tactic of the 'concern troll'. Why don't you ask one question about radiative physics, greenhouse effect, acidification of oceans.......

 

[BenBurch]

Judging that the available evidence is compelling, that it matches known physical effects, and that a supermajority of all relevant scientists agree in a particular hypothesis is utterly different from simply "making up" one's mind.

Similarly, deciding that there is no compelling hypothesis merely because an impossible level of certainty is not reached is not skepticism.

 

[macdoc]

Mine remains more flexible until the science is actually settled.

Given your admission of knowing nothing about climate science then you would have no idea if it was settled ( it is in the fundamentals if not in the outcome and timeline ) or not.

Ignorance is not a badge of honour as some pseudo-skeptics would like to think.
Informed questions are valid - you've had lots of opportunity to inform yourself...you remain ignorant by choice....so you get your desserts....

 

[Halsu]

The inability to produce data or reproduce working or methods is one of the most obvious warning signs of fraud.

How did you come to the conclusion that the working methods or the data are not available?

As far as i know, the methods are described in the research papers, and the data has always been available (nowadays most of it is on the web even).

I think everyone believes that Phil Jones probably tweaked the output in some way (ie, some level of fraud) what people are not sure about is was it to the level to make a difference of any significance.

No, no and no. Tweaking the raw data is a necessity, not an indication of a fraud. Raw data is unusable as is.

The only defense against an accusation of fraud is to produce the lab records or data, provide the methodology and say "do it yourself then".

Phil Jones can't or won't do this.

Bull.

There are multiple independent teams that have already "done it yourself". Their results confirm the CRU findings.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Given your admission of knowing nothing about climate science then you would have no idea if it was settled ( it is in the fundamentals if not in the outcome and timeline ) or not.

Ignorance is not a badge of honour as some pseudo-skeptics would like to think.

I am ignorant about a lot of things, the majority of scientific subjects I have barely any knowledge, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry, neurobiology, these and many more I know little or nothing above the man in the street.

What makes climate science unique, is that specialists in any of the above fields would quickly be able to impress their expertise and knowledge. Whereas with climate science a small number of dissidents have loudly and repeatedly claimed that the science is askew. Moreover, when I ask about some very basic core tenants; such as proof or evidence of the necessity of a CO2 positive feedback cycle to explain past variations the response (once we get beyond emoticons and that takes awhile) a shamedfaced admission that the models only take into account total changes in insolation, not the vitally significant fact this insolation is being spread more evenly over the planet's surface.

Further, the degree and direction of whatever climate change we are experiencing now seems in no way exceptional - if we take the periodic habitation and abandonment of Peary Land as a proxy.

Even more extraordinary, there appears to be a steady increase in proxies for solar activity over the late 20th century as measured by Be-10 and sun spot activity suggesting at very least a multifactor explanation for the historically normal level of warming we may be experiencing.

But most damning of all, Prof. Phil Jones and the CRU have a suspicion of fraud hanging over their work, a cloud they are unable to remove due to their extraordinary admission they can neither replicate their work or describe it in detail.

In many ways the same criticism can be made of climate science that is made (by respectable scientists) of evolutionary biologists: that they often produced nothing more than a series of just-so stories.
What will damn climate science fundamentally will be its inability to make useful predictions. We seem to be heading for a period of leveling off or maybe cooling for the foreseeable future and one excellent proposal for reducing carbon emissions would be to hook up climate scientists to some kind of dynamo, allowing us to produce energy from all their hand-waving as they try to point out the flat-lining or fall in the temperature curve in no way whatsoever discredits their theories

 

[little grey rabbit]

How did you come to the conclusion that the working methods or the data are not available?

As far as i know, the methods are described in the research papers, and the data has always been available (nowadays most of it is on the web even).

But I suspect you don't know very much.

An investigative Spiegel article canvassed the opinion among German climate scientists and found following
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html
Did Jones proceed correctly while homogenizing the data? Most climatologists still believe Jones' contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

'One of the Biggest Sins'

For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is "one of the biggest sins" a scientist can commit. "It's as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes."
....
Regaining Lost Trust

German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.

"There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost," he says, "even if I'm certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one."

And if it does? "That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again."

No, no and no. Tweaking the raw data is a necessity, not an indication of a fraud. Raw data is unusable as is.

Unfortunately if you tweak with a desired outcome in mind then you undermine the significance of your right. The suspicion is that decisions were made in the "tweaking" process that would not stand up to outside scrutiny, and this is the reason the methodology has been suppressed.

Its very hard to understand why Phil Jones cannot describe how he obtained his curve and why he cannot repeat that feat with the same data set.

Not just hard to understand, unacceptable. German scientists by nature are very non-confrontational compared with their American and English counterparts, that fact they even obliquely raise such concerns in public is quite exceptional.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Made up on a number of things, evolution, HIV/AIDS, immunisation.....

Mine too, the difference between them and AGW should be obvious even to you.

'Asking questions', a common tactic of the 'concern troll'.

And swallowing everything is classic "warmible".
Are you saying I am a "concern troll"? Why not just come out and say it?

 

[Halsu]

But I suspect you don't know very much.

...An investigative Spiegel article...

...Unfortunately if you tweak with a desired outcome in mind...

...The suspicion is that decisions were made in the "tweaking" process that would not stand up to outside scrutiny...

These are exactly the kind of baseless claims the CRU was exonerated from by the report.

 

[Halsu]

Mine too, the difference between them and AGW should be obvious even to you.

What is the difference?

 

[little grey rabbit]

These are exactly the kind of baseless claims the CRU was exonerated from by the report.

Unfortunately if someone cant produce their data and workings and also can't reproduce their findings then they cant be exonerated of fraud in any meaningful way.

 

[Halsu]

Unfortunately if someone cant produce their data and workings and also can't reproduce their findings then they cant be exonerated of fraud in any meaningful way.

The data is available, the workings have been explained in scientific literature and the findings have been reproduced by multiple independent research groups.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The data is available, the workings have been explained in scientific literature and the findings have been reproduced by multiple independent research groups.

All assertions and all wrong.

Can you explain why Hans von Storch, the leading German climatologist disagrees with you?

Did Jones proceed correctly while homogenizing the data? Most climatologists still believe Jones' contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

'One of the Biggest Sins'

For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is "one of the biggest sins" a scientist can commit. "It's as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes."
....
Regaining Lost Trust

German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.

"There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost," he says, "even if I'm certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one."

And if it does? "That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again."

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It sounds to me that either Halsu or von Storch is - at best -completely misinformed or - at worst - lying.
I wonder who and what?

 

[Megalodon]

Or the Spiegel article - that took real strides to present the delayers as virtuous rebels against a corrupt system, while ignoring reality and spouting most of the delayers debunked talking points - is not particularly objective.

But I'm sure AAA is going to be a skeptic of it as of the inquiries that exonerated the CRU.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you cite a lack of objectivity in the Speigel article and in the same post speak of exoneration (a word I don't believe was used btw) from an inquiry done by friends.

lol.