Meta-science analyst wrote:
Meta-science analyst wrote:There's a reason why few people trust climate science, and similarly that the general populace finds it "unpersuasive" - the above is good guide as to why.
^clarified
Actually, my alter ego, you are wrong. I personally have more trust in climate science than the polls indicate for the general populace.
Clarification: I read the reports I like and discard the one's I do not like. /eot
Meta-science analyst wrote:
Clarification: I read the reports I like and discard the one's I do not like. /eot
Ahem, alter-ego, that is the ONLY way to filter through the good and bad science. I feel like I am taking to children on these boards.
Noticer of question dodging wrote:
More directly, can you/anyone make responsive answers to the questions that are raised by Bates, instead of talking about how things have evolved since then?
This is exactly the Dilbert principle: you (probably) can't judge the science, but you can judge the way that the people involved are acting, and compare to your expectations.
Ever since ClimateGate (2009), there's been a serious credibility gap/dispute regarding the way climate science is done (and thus secondarily the results, but only indirectly). Unfortunately, if climate scientists want to be convincing, they haven't yet overcome this problem yet. Much of what goes on (or at least reported) looks slip-shod even from a high school understanding of how scientific method and protocol should be carried out.
LRC climate thread reader wrote:
This is exactly the Dilbert principle: you (probably) can't judge the science, but you can judge the way that the people involved are acting, and compare to your expectations.
Ever since ClimateGate (2009), there's been a serious credibility gap/dispute regarding the way climate science is done (and thus secondarily the results, but only indirectly). Unfortunately, if climate scientists want to be convincing, they haven't yet overcome this problem yet. Much of what goes on (or at least reported) looks slip-shod even from a high school understanding of how scientific method and protocol should be carried out.
I should add, prior to maybe 2004(?), but more prominently much before, there was an alternative large-scale factor, that of oil companies (big baddies!) denying global warming, and funding studies therein. That by now has dissipated as a major aspect of "who's credible". Mostly only government institutions (including universities) are left, which has become its own contingency on the matter regarding its transparency.
Can someone explain why the Karl paper uses 90% confidence intervals, instead of the more standard 95%? That already is suspicious (bias) to me.
the error bars represent the 90% confidence intervals (CIs).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full.pdfThe new corrections show that the 90% confidence interval for 1998–2012 encompasses the best estimate of the trend for 1951–2012.
short sighted wrote:
Chappie the movie wrote:I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
so, you are okay that in less than 400 years the earth will be uninhabitable for people; less than a mere blip on the earth life-clock.
You say this as though there's actually something that can be DONE about it. The poster you're responding to pointed out that there was an Ice Age, and that some sort of similar phenomenon could occur with higher temperatures. Do you think anything we do could feasibly have stopped the Ice Age?
Certainly, if the phenomenon was man-made, something could be done about it. In reality, there really COULD be problems of this nature with man-made causes, but extremist idiots on the side proposing that make it very difficult to believe. Basically, you have real data, and then you have severe alarmist data that tends to be easy to debunk with a bit of searching. When someone debunks the alarmist data, it makes is harder for normal people to believe the real data. This has gone to the point that it's difficult to even tell what data is real or not anymore.
The sequence of this goes as follows: Scientists obtain data. That data says something, although usually it isn't particularly extreme. The scientists tailor it slightly during presentations to make it seem slightly more impactful, because that's just what scientists do. Non-scientific advocates subsequently take this to an idiotic level and use the data to project world-ending consequences. Someone points out that the information provided by the non-scientists is clearly false, and argument ensues.
If you're used to reading scientific papers, you'll be able to find that in comparing presented data with the original journal articles, there are many instances in which the presented data is intentionally stitched together to make it seem more significant. The real data is there, but it's not as impactful. The problem is that climate scientists seem motivated to demonstrate immediate and short-term impact, when it's nearly impossible to get that data. There are no good ways to reliably and accurately gather global weather phenomenon to the scale that they want, since there are too many interferences from natural weather patterns.
For instance, many climate change advocates want to say that a given year was the hottest year on record across the planet. However, even if this is experienced by several countries, others experience a relatively cold year, because that's just how climate works. They fail to acknowledge this, and open themselves up for someone else to promptly indicate that a good portion of the world doesn't seem to have experienced unnatural warmth at all. This reduces their credibility, rightly so. However, it also negatively impacts the real data that could actually have meaning, albeit to a lesser extent. That is, in reality, a significant portion of the world really COULD have experienced an unnaturally hot year, but they bury this point by claiming that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year.
gnope wrote:
Least shocking news of all time. Ivar Giaever warned about this just last year. Will be interesting to see if there is any reaction at all to this (my guess is no). People who believe in global warming/climate change probably won't care about this or will just say "oh it's just one paper there's still plenty of other evidence". No, this happens all the time. Maybe if you read past the alarmist headline or most popular facebook comment you would read the facts and see the truth. If you still believe in this hoax at this point you are honestly retarded.
Exactly. Hell, the hacked emails from 2013 showed all of the behind the scenes manipulations and lies going on. Climate change/global warming is merely another menshevik driven movement designed to hamper businesses and development in the West. The same people behind this charade are the same people behind all of the immigration chicanery ("refugees" etc.) designed to flood Western nations with third worlders, all the better to destabilize these nations and make them easier to control by the red diaper grandkids and their ilk. This will all collapse in the end, but a lot of people will be hurt. Hopefully most of them will be the latte swilling, skinny pants neckbearded out of touch with reality cucks who blindly follow the MSM that peddles global warming and the lies about the benefits of massive third world immigration to the West.
good days ahead wrote:
Stuff to talk about wrote:Global warming was probably the biggest scam in science ever.
No that award goes to the shape of our planet, although this is a close second.
Noticer of question dodging wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:Of course there's a reason a significant number of people distrust climate science and it's broadly down to disinformation peddled by political actors.
The fact that you deliberately dodge the gravamen of the Bates complaint
My interest is primarily in whether the science is correct, and Bates doesn't actually challenge the validity of Karl's result, only procedural details. Moreover Hausfather etal 2017 corroborates Karl's results.
The gist of Bates complaint is based on the data archivist's perspective that the fully configuration managed version of data and algorithms be used. The counter view from Tom Karl (and Tom Peterson) is that, in the interest of progress, it is preferable to work with updated versions that have addressed known issues with the release version and to let configuration management catch up.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/317d3fc06cba01301d46001dd8b71c47Another climate skeptic wrote:
Can someone explain why the Karl paper uses 90% confidence intervals, instead of the more standard 95%? That already is suspicious (bias) to me.
the error bars represent the 90% confidence intervals (CIs).
Karl used 90% confidence intervals for consistency because his paper was specifically addressing a previous report that used 90% confidence intervals.
Chappie the movie wrote:
I mean, there was a freaking ice age for godsakes so it's not like global warming should be surprising. The nonsense is the people acting like there will be any sort of significant change in the next 20 years. Maybe if you look at the year 2500 you might have something to worry about.. and there's probably nothing we can do about it anyway.
In other words you have absolutely zero understanding of any of this but you really think that it is important to pound that keyboard. Got it.
Seyta wrote:
short sighted wrote:so, you are okay that in less than 400 years the earth will be uninhabitable for people; less than a mere blip on the earth life-clock.
You say this as though there's actually something that can be DONE about it. The poster you're responding to pointed out that there was an Ice Age, and that some sort of similar phenomenon could occur with higher temperatures. Do you think anything we do could feasibly have stopped the Ice Age?
Certainly, if the phenomenon was man-made, something could be done about it. In reality, there really COULD be problems of this nature with man-made causes, but extremist idiots on the side proposing that make it very difficult to believe. Basically, you have real data, and then you have severe alarmist data that tends to be easy to debunk with a bit of searching. When someone debunks the alarmist data, it makes is harder for normal people to believe the real data. This has gone to the point that it's difficult to even tell what data is real or not anymore.
The sequence of this goes as follows: Scientists obtain data. That data says something, although usually it isn't particularly extreme. The scientists tailor it slightly during presentations to make it seem slightly more impactful, because that's just what scientists do. Non-scientific advocates subsequently take this to an idiotic level and use the data to project world-ending consequences. Someone points out that the information provided by the non-scientists is clearly false, and argument ensues.
If you're used to reading scientific papers, you'll be able to find that in comparing presented data with the original journal articles, there are many instances in which the presented data is intentionally stitched together to make it seem more significant. The real data is there, but it's not as impactful. The problem is that climate scientists seem motivated to demonstrate immediate and short-term impact, when it's nearly impossible to get that data. There are no good ways to reliably and accurately gather global weather phenomenon to the scale that they want, since there are too many interferences from natural weather patterns.
For instance, many climate change advocates want to say that a given year was the hottest year on record across the planet. However, even if this is experienced by several countries, others experience a relatively cold year, because that's just how climate works. They fail to acknowledge this, and open themselves up for someone else to promptly indicate that a good portion of the world doesn't seem to have experienced unnatural warmth at all. This reduces their credibility, rightly so. However, it also negatively impacts the real data that could actually have meaning, albeit to a lesser extent. That is, in reality, a significant portion of the world really COULD have experienced an unnaturally hot year, but they bury this point by claiming that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year.
Wait, wait. So you doubt that humans could stop an advancing ice age and therefore it is impossible for humans to impact the earth's climate or mitigate that impact? Did I get that right?
Rato. wrote:
good days ahead wrote:Global warming was probably the biggest scam in science ever.
No that award goes to the shape of our planet, although this is a close second.
Moon landing
Seyta wrote:
short sighted wrote:so, you are okay that in less than 400 years the earth will be uninhabitable for people; less than a mere blip on the earth life-clock.
You say this as though there's actually something that can be DONE about it. The poster you're responding to pointed out that there was an Ice Age, and that some sort of similar phenomenon could occur with higher temperatures. Do you think anything we do could feasibly have stopped the Ice Age?
Certainly, if the phenomenon was man-made, something could be done about it. In reality, there really COULD be problems of this nature with man-made causes, but extremist idiots on the side proposing that make it very difficult to believe. Basically, you have real data, and then you have severe alarmist data that tends to be easy to debunk with a bit of searching. When someone debunks the alarmist data, it makes is harder for normal people to believe the real data. This has gone to the point that it's difficult to even tell what data is real or not anymore.
The sequence of this goes as follows: Scientists obtain data. That data says something, although usually it isn't particularly extreme. The scientists tailor it slightly during presentations to make it seem slightly more impactful, because that's just what scientists do. Non-scientific advocates subsequently take this to an idiotic level and use the data to project world-ending consequences. Someone points out that the information provided by the non-scientists is clearly false, and argument ensues.
If you're used to reading scientific papers, you'll be able to find that in comparing presented data with the original journal articles, there are many instances in which the presented data is intentionally stitched together to make it seem more significant. The real data is there, but it's not as impactful. The problem is that climate scientists seem motivated to demonstrate immediate and short-term impact, when it's nearly impossible to get that data. There are no good ways to reliably and accurately gather global weather phenomenon to the scale that they want, since there are too many interferences from natural weather patterns.
For instance, many climate change advocates want to say that a given year was the hottest year on record across the planet. However, even if this is experienced by several countries, others experience a relatively cold year, because that's just how climate works. They fail to acknowledge this, and open themselves up for someone else to promptly indicate that a good portion of the world doesn't seem to have experienced unnatural warmth at all. This reduces their credibility, rightly so. However, it also negatively impacts the real data that could actually have meaning, albeit to a lesser extent. That is, in reality, a significant portion of the world really COULD have experienced an unnaturally hot year, but they bury this point by claiming that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year.
You cannot be serious. Or at least you cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.
NOBODY EVER claims "that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year". If this is what your brain processes when the legitimate claim is made that the world as a whole experienced an unnaturally hot year then the problem lies in your brain, not in what is being claimed by climate scientists.
For nearly two decades, I’ve advocated that if climate datasets are to be used in important policy decisions, they must be fully documented, subject to software engineering management and improvement processes, and be discoverable and accessible to the public with rigorous information preservation standards. I was able to implement such policies, with the help of many colleagues, through the NOAA Climate Data Record policies (CDR)
In short, the Karl paper fails to meet this. Does anything else need to be said? Citizen Runner can collate the blogosphere defending this or that as much as wants, but the only important question is whether the paper met basic applicable standards. The answer, as agreed by both sides I think, seems to be "no". So why was this used for policy decisions?
In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.
My interest is primarily in whether the science is correct, and Bates doesn't actually challenge the validity of Karl's result, only procedural details.
This is rather duplicitious. How could he (as an auditor) possibly challenge the validity of the result? He can only point out whether or not there is sufficient substantiation for the claims made. The assertion that (you claim) there is later substantiation is irrelevant. If you would rather argue the science, fine, but as was pointed out upthread multiple times, outsiders find it much easier to judge the process than the results, and the optics here are bad. (Similarly, in law, it's said not to be enough only to do justice, but also that justice be seen to be done.)
The gist of Bates complaint is based on the data archivist's perspective that the fully configuration managed version of data and algorithms be used. The counter view from Tom Karl (and Tom Peterson) is that, in the interest of progress, it is preferable to work with updated versions that have addressed known issues with the release version and to let configuration management catch up.
This is a complete misreading. Bates simply says that there needs to be a managed version. (Karl, as head of the group, largely championed this in principle and on other projects; contrarily, Peterson vigorously opposed it rather blanket-like from the start.) The "updated versions" have no reason not to meet the same standard. Your use of "interest of progress" (??!) here is IMO laughable. Assuming your facts are correct, there is absolutely no excuse for the new versions not to be archivable, just as the old were.
Moreover, Science required this at the publication time. Bates brings up the issue of whether Karl et al. properly disclosed to Science that the paper's data would not their stated scientific standards. (Science itself has said it is looking at it, and will withdraw the paper if necessary, irregardless of whether there has been later corroboration - part of the issue seems to be that Karl et al. argue for a different notion of "archived" than Bates, saying that "meeting NOAA archive standards" is not necessary to apply this word.)
.
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml#data-depositionClimate data. Data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.
Admittedly, Bates said this is more widespread issue that just Karl.
Some on the Science Council, particularly the younger scientists, indicated they had not known of the Science requirement to archive data and were not aware of the open data movement.
Finally, there needs to be a renewed effort by scientists and scientific societies to provide training and conduct more meetings on ethics. Ethics needs to be a regular topic at major scientific meetings, in graduate classrooms, and in continuing professional education. Respectful discussion of different points of view should be encouraged. Fortunately, there is initial progress to report here, as scientific societies are now coming to grip
Ummm . . . Man wrote:
Seyta wrote:You say this as though there's actually something that can be DONE about it. The poster you're responding to pointed out that there was an Ice Age, and that some sort of similar phenomenon could occur with higher temperatures. Do you think anything we do could feasibly have stopped the Ice Age?
Certainly, if the phenomenon was man-made, something could be done about it. In reality, there really COULD be problems of this nature with man-made causes, but extremist idiots on the side proposing that make it very difficult to believe. Basically, you have real data, and then you have severe alarmist data that tends to be easy to debunk with a bit of searching. When someone debunks the alarmist data, it makes is harder for normal people to believe the real data. This has gone to the point that it's difficult to even tell what data is real or not anymore.
The sequence of this goes as follows: Scientists obtain data. That data says something, although usually it isn't particularly extreme. The scientists tailor it slightly during presentations to make it seem slightly more impactful, because that's just what scientists do. Non-scientific advocates subsequently take this to an idiotic level and use the data to project world-ending consequences. Someone points out that the information provided by the non-scientists is clearly false, and argument ensues.
If you're used to reading scientific papers, you'll be able to find that in comparing presented data with the original journal articles, there are many instances in which the presented data is intentionally stitched together to make it seem more significant. The real data is there, but it's not as impactful. The problem is that climate scientists seem motivated to demonstrate immediate and short-term impact, when it's nearly impossible to get that data. There are no good ways to reliably and accurately gather global weather phenomenon to the scale that they want, since there are too many interferences from natural weather patterns.
For instance, many climate change advocates want to say that a given year was the hottest year on record across the planet. However, even if this is experienced by several countries, others experience a relatively cold year, because that's just how climate works. They fail to acknowledge this, and open themselves up for someone else to promptly indicate that a good portion of the world doesn't seem to have experienced unnatural warmth at all. This reduces their credibility, rightly so. However, it also negatively impacts the real data that could actually have meaning, albeit to a lesser extent. That is, in reality, a significant portion of the world really COULD have experienced an unnaturally hot year, but they bury this point by claiming that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year.
You cannot be serious. Or at least you cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.
NOBODY EVER claims "that ALL of the world experienced an unnaturally hot year". If this is what your brain processes when the legitimate claim is made that the world as a whole experienced an unnaturally hot year then the problem lies in your brain, not in what is being claimed by climate scientists.
ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING?? No SCIENTIST ever claims it. But almost nobody in the public ever reads peer-reviewed publications to begin with. Scientists RARELY get to deliver their data to an audience. That job is done by the media, which often results in mild to severe exaggerations of the actual data. Information gets left out. Theoretical proposals suddenly get turned into fact. etc.
The ENTIRE point of my post was that climate scientists are doing their damn jobs, and idiots with no scientific backgrounds are going around exaggerating their data and screwing things up.
Look at these imbeciles:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/It would have been fine if they had simply stuck with "The average temperature across the Earth's land and ocean surfaces in 2016 was 58.69 degrees". They did not provide the actual source of the data, but gave enough information such that the source could easily be found (i.e. You can type in what data they did provide and arrive at the original source, so misinterpretation is nearly impossible).
However, they then go on to make an unverifiable claim that "no land areas were cooler than average for the year". My God, you cannot make an open-ended statement like this for such a sensitive topic! People always complain about peer-reviewed articles being so densely worded with details, and it's so they AREN'T MISINTERPRETED.
The problem is that this statement is completely open to interpretation. The writer does not provide an actual source to verify this information. Claiming that "NASA said this" does not qualify. The first quote I provided has easily verifiable information, with exact numbers used, and an associated organization. The second quote is a completely ambiguous statement that can be interpreted by readers. This absolutely should not be the case for this kind of topic. No average is provided, no actual reference is provided, and no definition for "land area" is provided.
Even WORSE is when you have utter morons on social media posting false graphs and data that can be disproven in a heartbeat.
All this does is provide climate change opponents with the opportunity to find a SINGLE piece of data indicating that ANY region of land experienced lower temperatures than ANY average, and call it a day. And that's what they do. Over and over and over again. A huge number of counter-arguments by climate change opponents are actually accurate, because they address an ambiguous statements made by some non-scientist who needs a better headline. Everytime this happens, it's a blow to the credibility of the people actually doing the research.
If you want those climate-change deniers to shut up, quit giving them loopholes to poke through and talk about. Just give them the damn data without any embellishments, and they'll have nothing to say. And if the data is contrary to your goals, you STILL give it to them, because in that case, they really SHOULD have something to say about it. That's called unbiased integrity.
Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it's impossible, or burdensome, to archive one's data? I learned this when I got my first lab book. In today's Internet world, it should be even easier. Also, the Europeans (save UK Climategate) don't seem to have a problem with this, only USA?
Chemboy wrote:
Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it's impossible, or burdensome, to archive one's data? I learned this when I got my first lab book. In today's Internet world, it should be even easier. Also, the Europeans (save UK Climategate) don't seem to have a problem with this, only USA?
The source data is archived, see the links in the supplementary section of the paper.
The contention is the source data was not archived in accordance with a specific NOAA process and that the software used to generate land temperature anomalies was not the configuration managed version.
Citizen Runner wrote:
The source data is archived, see the links in the supplementary section of the paper.
The contention is the source data was not archived in accordance with a specific NOAA process and that the software used to generate land temperature anomalies was not the configuration managed version.
Again a massive understatement, compared to what Bates claims (and NOAA partially admits). (1) I think Karl et al. agree that the ERSSTv4 data were not "archived" (in any sense) in a timely manner (i.e., the FTP link was only added later); even so, Bates claims that only some of the data is archived, with the GHCN-M V3.X and global merged data not being so maintained. (2) The "software used to generate" in fact had multiple bugs, and the computer involved now doesn't exist. 100% fail on replicability.
I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
Simply put, this isn't "science" in the slightest measure (even if it guesses the result correct), but had huge affects on public policy.
Citizen Duper wrote:
(1) I think Karl et al. agree that the ERSSTv4 data were not "archived" (in any sense) in a timely manner (i.e., the FTP link was only added later);
ERSSTv4 was released simultaneously with the Karl paper. Bates thinks it should have been released earlier as it had made it through the process.
. . . even so, Bates claims that only some of the data is archived, with the GHCN-M V3.X and global merged data not being so maintained.
Bates gives the link to the land data. His complaint is that it had not been vetted and released by the standard procedure.
(2) The "software used to generate" in fact had multiple bugs, and the computer involved now doesn't exist. 100% fail on replicability.
There does seem to be a real and serious problem in that the precise code used to generate the land data can not be identified. That's not quite a 100% fail in replicability because the raw data and some near variant of the code does exist. Moreover the archive problems are with the land data set software and the differences between Karl and the operational NOAA land data set are very small so one should be able to get about the same result using the latter.
Simply put, this isn't "science" in the slightest measure (even if it guesses the result correct), but had huge affects on public policy.
Single papers that have huge effects on a reasonably mature science are almost non-existent. The change in the long term warming trend per this work is very small and, as that's mostly down to changes addressing known shortcoming in ERSST it's probably a closer approximation to "truth".
There is a great deal of effort spent among the politically motivated debating "pause" vs "no pause", but statistically it's a tenuous concept over a short interval whichever side one wants to argue.