Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

[leo9]

The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

Science is built on reproducible results. In politics or religion, when someone says that X is so, people decide whether to believe it according to how well it sits with their prejudices and whether the speaker has a charismatic delivery. Scientists, being human, are sometimes influenced by these things, but what they try to concentrate on is: can we try it ourselves (run the experiment, do the observations, crunch the numbers) and get the same answer? If the answer is yes, they believe it. If the answer is no – either because the original paper didn't give enough information, or because the results don't work out – then it doesn't matter how ideologically correct the source is or how persuasive the write-up, it will not stand.

For example, this is why nobody (much) believes in cold fusion any more. People wanted to believe the original paper – as my then wife wrote, “if this is true, the gods have forgiven us” - and a great many labs jumped to put together the device and see if it did what they said. And it didn't. No prejudice, no Big Oil conspiracy: it just didn't work.

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

The fancy number-crunching comes when people try to go beyond predicting the general trends and try to find out what exactly it means for, say, Europe or North America; and for that, they must use fancy models with lots of special parameters to try to draw out the particular effects they are looking for. And if they are foolish enough not to publish the details of their models so that others can try it, they will not get much credibility. But the overall facts remain available to everyone, and no-one can destroy or suppress those, any more than you can suppress this morning's weather report.

[DuncanONeil]

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

Sorry! You can not say that. Sure temperatures exist outside the scientific community. However, there is a huge but here.

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.
Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.

The revelations regarding Manchester have done nothing more than to call their conclusions into question. And to reveal that the models are largely contrived.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!

[Thorne]

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.

This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.

Now as to also creating a program that results in the same conclusion. Since the data points are being "selected" and the formula to "process" the data is being "created" drawing the conclusion you want is an essentially forgone conclusion.

Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history? Why is the issue of the quantity of solar radiation escaping from the planet at levels greater than the alarmists postulate, based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Seems like the planet is cooling itself!

Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[DuncanONeil]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?

This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.


Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.


Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.

[Thorne]

Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.

If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.

Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?

Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[DuncanONeil]

News souces indicate that all "other" sources are basing they data on the work done by Manchester.
As for the thermometer issue I must disagree somewhat. All of thos individual data sets produce an average on their own. Hence no need to tweek. Similar issue is Ozone days. Why are all the sensors placed in places known to have naturally higher levels of ozone. The result is higher reports of ozone over the entire area.
If it really were for "clarification" why then hide the "fudge factor"?

If Manchester has behaved in this manner then they won't maintain their preeminence for long. This is the very antithesis of good science. However, that does not negate the good science being done elsewhere.


Any properly designed experiment relies on properly calibrated instruments for the detection of data. These instruments should be calibrated on a specific schedule. If, for some reason, a stations instruments are not properly calibrated then their data is suspect and should be discarded. This does not say that the data is necessarily wrong, just that you cannot be sure it is right.
Tweaking of results is done to correlate data from differing environments. For example, if you are measuring the air temperature near your home and you use one thermometer which is in shade all of the time, another thermometer which is in sunlight most of the time, a third thermometer which is near the black top of the street and a fourth which is closer to a pond, you will get greatly differing results, solely due to local variations in the environment. You need to eliminate those variations to gain any meaningful results, which is done through tweaking. Contrary to what it may sound like, this is not done to force results, but to clarify them.

[leo9]

But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment.

The "source" of climate data is weather stations all around the world. If you believe in a conspiracy big and powerful enough to destroy or tamper with all those records, there isn't much point trying to have a rational debate.

[leo9]

While I was away dealing with Real Life (TM) Thorne has answered most of this better than I could, but since I had the answer in my head, I'll dump it anyway...

The preponderance of data itself precludes any one person from selecting the same set of data as any other person. All of the climate models are based on a "complicated formulae". If the auther of the report hides his data and the manner in which it was "processed" than his experiment can not be duplicated. In the case of the accepted "experts" on this subject they did both of those things, hide the data and the formula.

I don't know if I have failed to explain my point clearly, or if you're simply dodging it. I'll try to make it more clear.

The basic theory of AGW is not based on a "complicated formula": it's a simple statistical relationship, and anyone with Statistics 101 can do the math and see if the results fit the theory. The data you need are atmospheric CO2, which is the same everywhere, and average global temperature, which you get from the public records of weather stations in a suitable number of locations around the world. You don't want just one, because it may not be representative (for example, the UK has been warming up over the past decades like most places, but it lags behind the global average because of the well documented weakening of the Gulf Stream,) but you don't want an impossible number; fifty or a hundred chosen at random should give a good first approximation.

None of this is hidden or difficult. One reason the vast majority of climatologists have come around to AGW is that it's so easy for them or someone they know to replicate the experiment and find it gives the same answer. It doesn't take a global conspiracy to make people believe what they can see for themselves.

The complicated fomulae come in when you try to give policy makers useful advice on what to expect year on year and country by country. Averages are not much help here, because everyone acknowledges that the effects will be very different from place to place; so we get into the field of long range weather forecasting, with all the uncertainties that this implies. BUT - and this is the important point - none of this complication affects the overall global picture, and none of the questions about it affect the fact of global AGW. Even if it were to be proved - which it certainly isn't so far - that one centre had commited outright fraud in their modeling, that would have no more bearing on the truth of AGW than the fact that the movie "Day After Tomorrow" is rubbish science.

Let me explain another way. There is a river called the Severn with a dramatically powerful tidal surge, and for decades people have been arguing over plans for a tidal power project there. Trying to predict the effect of the project on the tidal and current patterns calls for complex models and masses of data, and it wouldn't surprise me if people on both sides of the controversy had tweaked their models to predict what they want. BUT, whatever the accuracy of these models, the tide will rise and fall: the tide is a fact regardless of how its local effects are expressed or predicted. Likewise, AGW is a demonstrated fact regardless of how accurately its detailed effects have been modelled.

Perhaps many people have come to the same conclusion but why then are these same people simply pooh-poohing the downward trend of temperatures in recent history?

Since the actual recorded temperatures have been rising for decades, I guess this is about cycles again.

Every climatologist knows about climate cycles: they've been studying them for most of a century, which is why they get so annoyed when people suggest that it's a new fact that changes everything. And as you say, the long term trend up till the last century was that the world is in a cooling phase, which is why people are so worried about the fact that the actual global temperature has been going up when the cycles should be pushing it down. It means that if we haven't got a grip on global warming by the time the cycles trough out and go into a warming phase, we'll be in real trouble.