The Daily 202: Lame Duck Power Grab In Wisconsin Showcases The GOP’s Embrace Of Zero Sum Politics

I gather a lot of people complaining about the lack of data haven’t actually bothered trying to get data. As pointed out earlier, a lot of the data is available online and has been for years. However, a fair amount of data they are not legally allowed to release. Data, for instance, from NOAA and other government and private meteorological services is given to scientists for free under the condition that they do not release it publicly. That is because these services sell this data to private individuals and industry. The reason scientists were resistant to the FOI requests is because those requests were demanding they release data they were not allowed to release. The data is not cheap, I know, I used it before (for a project in High School, I couldn’t get it for free because they only let people on university IP addresses access it for free).

As for manipulating the peer-review process, as far as I have heard there are only two instances of the emails dealing with the peer-review process. One is the well-know case where an editor with an agenda pushed through an absolutely horrible article with undergraduate-level errors in basic statistics. If I recall correctly 7 editors resigned in protest, and other researchers decided that the journal was no longer trustworthy. It had nothing to do with it being an anti-GW piece, it had to do with it not being up to the level of an undergraduate essay, not to mention a peer-reviewed journal article. The other instance

As for the bit about “hiding the decline”, this has been discussed over and over again. There is a well-known divergence between a small subset of tree-ring data from the measured temperature after 1960. It was published in Nature, one of the two most well-respected journals in the world. It is no secret. The idea that there was some sort of conspiracy to hide an issue when the issue was published in Nature is ludicrous. The other is debates about what data deserves to be in the IPCC, with people obviously being partial to their own data and some people having personal grudges. Neither is indicative of an attempt to manipulate anything.

As for people who are claiming the models have not been validated, they have. Current climate trends are tracking towards the worse-case scenarios predicated by the models in pretty much every case.

As for global warming being over or talking about 1998, please, please, please do at least a tiny bit of research on non-denialist pages. 1998 was an El Nino year, very warm. Using 1998 to prove that the world is cooling is like K9 is downhill because it is not as tall as Mount Everest. The claim is ludicrous. There are short-term fluctuations due to the 11-year solar cycle, but those have been going on throughout the warming period. That is why you need to look at trends over a couple of decades if you want to get any meaningful conclusions. We are in the deepest solar minimum on record, yet the warming trend is still continuing. The 2001-2008 have all been warmer than any year in the previous century besides 1998. I should add that another email that people are discussing regarding explaining why we aren’t seeing a warming is dealing with exactly this issue, trying to understand the short-term fluctuations in temperature. These are much harder to deal with than the long-term trends.

And this completely misses the fact that the models are not even that important.

As Gary Ansorge we can see that things are happening exactly as predicted, if not worse. The IPCC report now appears to be highly conservative in pretty much every prediction it made, things are going worse than it said they would, not better.

The only thing I have seen that is even potentially problematic is the one about deleting emails, I have not heard an adequate explanation for it. But the emails in question were not actually deleted, and there may be context I am not aware of. But that at worst would be a case of a single person suggesting doing something unethical or maybe even illegal, it hardly disproves global warming nor does it implicate the entire field.

@ Fred Z: I bet if you looked over my emails for the last 6 months alone you would find dozens of very similar statements. I’ve had annoying network problems, needed to put ugly hacks in the code to work around problems in the data I am working with (formatting problems), kept using code that I know should be rewritten, having to go talk to people in person to find out what undocumented code does (very little of the code I am working with is well-documented even though we have professional programmers working on it), being the first person to use parts of the program that ended up being horribly broken, etc. That is what happens when you write software for internal use and when your priority is getting good results instead of writing pretty code that outsiders can use easily. I am not doing anything related to climate, I am in biology. Heck, I’ve seen similar discussions in professional software development projects. I fail to see how this disproves global warming.

Source : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/

loading...
The global warming emails non-event