heywood on 5/1/2010 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Look I don't know what kind of crazyville y'all are living in but around here in reality this shit has been debated to hellfuck and back for years and our very own last president was certain that there was uncertainty regarding the issue and there was a supreme court case about it and everything.
I was aware of the political debate, but I didn't realize there was much skepticism alive within the scientific community. I used to be really interested in climate science, but then became disillusioned with meteorology in general following a bad job experience, and stopped following it. Between then and now, I only heard what gets reported in the media, which seemed to suggest that the skepticism is all coming from non-scientific interests such as ideology (e.g. Cato institute) or business (e.g. coal industry, big oil). So when searching around the web this weekend, I was surprised to find some familiar names over in the skeptics camp and research like (
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml) this getting published.
Anyway, there will always be uncertainty and the research will never be "done". That's just the nature of science. We just have to make policy decisions based on the best available information while continuing to improve our understanding of the climate.
Quote Posted by Muzman
I wasn't talking about you with that comment, just so you know. That was a post timing collison.
My fault for taking it personally.
Yeah, I read that before, but I still don't understand how they could make the decision to toss it. If my life's work was building climate data sets, I'd sure as hell want to save my source data. Not just for historical/documentary purposes, but also to have it available for building future data sets. It's foolhardy to think that you'd never want to revisit QC and homogenization if better methods become available.
Besides, I don't think the data sets are *that* big. For example, the 3 publicly available NASA GISS temperature data sets amount to 100MB total. That fits on a single 9 track tape. Assuming they got similar size data sets from the other major met offices, they would have had maybe a couple file cabinets worth that they could have transferred over to just a couple of late-80s vintage 8mm tapes.
But anyway, that's water under the bridge at this point. What bothers me more actually is that the process used by CRU to homogenize the raw data is still a bit of a mystery. In the case of the NOAA GHCN database, there is a document that describes how the data was homogenized:
(
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
Similarly, in the case of NASA GISS, the code they use to generate their GISTEMP products is publicly available so everybody can see what they're doing.
But I haven't found a comparable description of the process used by CRU.
zombe on 6/1/2010 at 11:09
Quote Posted by heywood
Yeah, I read that before, but I still don't understand how they could make the decision to toss it. If my life's work was building climate data sets, I'd sure as hell want to save my source data. Not just for historical/documentary purposes, but also to have it available for building future data sets. It's foolhardy to think that you'd never want to revisit QC and homogenization if better methods become available.
I have no problems imaging respectable reasons why they decided so, but that all is in the universe of speculations - not willing to go there.
Quote Posted by heywood
What bothers me more actually is that the process used by CRU to homogenize the raw data is still a bit of a mystery.
Now that is a reasonable complaint (is this the first in this god-damned thread? have been kind of busy lately).
However, i personally find it a bit nit-picky as the methods themselves are well described and quite common knowledge/practice - questionable is only exactly where and when they got used. Therefore you can't follow their steps - which is the core of the complaint. And now the nit-picky part: do you need to?
ie Do you need to follow their every step and waste a decade or two reinventing the wheel? There are more reasonable methods to check their resulting data and thous are used and the data checks out (at least regarding the fitness for currently known purposes). The data is good.
That said, i still would like to have 100% traceability - not that i would care about it when the ability would be preset ;). Some things are just comforting to know to exist without the existing object itself having any role in it.
Fragony on 8/1/2010 at 10:59
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I can't enjoy my cancer internet because you won't stop fucking cancer posting cancer. STFU, GTFO, in that order. Cancer.
And anyway attacking you for your English is nothing compared to YOU telling native English speakers your English is better than theirs despite massive evidence to the contrary. Not to mention PAGES UPON PAGES of you constantly arguing from indefensible positions that you will never ever back down from even when you know you're wrong, everyone else knows your wrong, and we come dangerously close to BRnumbers calling me up and saying "That Fragony is such a persistent bumpkin, ahawhaw!" and then I hear him slurping on his brandy. You never learn from your mistakes and I'm starting to think nothing short of banning you will get you to go away.
Well what to say, I hope you never find out what you are talking about. And I didn't say my English is better than the English of natives, I said it is better than yours. Pretty confident I will get a higher score, on English and on manners. The latter is pretty much a no-brainer.
And as it turns out I am not that wrong now am I. No consensus, it just isn't there.
SubJeff on 8/1/2010 at 11:14
You said it was better than mine and you argued with me about a specific issue - an issue that you were wrong about. As a native English speaker it is my impression that dethtoll would get a far higher score than you at both. Its not that your English isn't good, its that it is that good that it only needs tweaking a little to be just right and as you know losing that last pound of fat is the hardest, especially when you're in denial.
I'll tell you what you'd get a lower score on if competing with dethtoll though; not being a gormless bounder.
Fragony on 8/1/2010 at 11:29
I'll take that challenge, especially the manners bit as I haven't wished Dethtoll to get cancer. But the English part as well.
But now that consensus part of the discussion, getting wet feet already.
SubJeff on 8/1/2010 at 11:35
Ok, I've assessed you according to my own subjective criteria and you fail on both parts. Happy now? Good.
Fragony on 8/1/2010 at 11:49
I am devastated I didn't meet your criteria, I guess I will have to find me a new role-model to look up to. Like I said, I'll take the challenge.
But something is still rotten in consensus-land, it's still seems to be that people are still mentally blocking that in-your-face reality. To their utter amazement some here had to conclude that the science behind climate-change isn't as solid as those who want you to be absolutely terrified of CO2 make it out to be. It is still about carbon-emission rights and the fear-factory behind it.
june gloom on 8/1/2010 at 14:08
For someone who said they were never posting in commchat again you're still pretty talkative. Cancer.
Thirith on 8/1/2010 at 14:16
Please, dethtoll, give it a rest. I'll even throw in some Swiss chocolate if it helps.
Fragony on 8/1/2010 at 17:17
Quote Posted by dethtoll
For someone who said they were never posting in commchat again you're still pretty talkative. Cancer.
This isn't the chat, and keep going mia muca. This is as close as you are ever going to get, if it makes you feel better it really upsets me, congrats, but in real life I can rip of your jaw and make soup from it. Pesky little prick how low can you go, and all that without caring at the same time or do you wish cancer upon people all day. Pathetic creature shielded by his screen you disgust me.
