Comments on: NAS: Assuring the Integrity of Research Data

By: A story illustrating one of the most important aspects of the climate science debate « Fabius Maximus

Fri, 01 May 2009 12:01:44 +0000

[...] “Assuring the Integrity of Research Data“, Climate Audit, 23 April 2007 [...]

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:03:54 +0000

Interesting to note that this panel has still not reported. And yet they don't seem to have had a meeting for nearly a year. Do they think we're all going to get bored and go away?

By: esceptico

esceptico — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:57:45 +0000

The new “No hair” theorem in climate science:

Most climate reconstructions can be completely characterized by only three externally observable parameters: cherry picking, fudge factor, and “consensus”. All other information about the discovery context or analysis process is falling into the black-hole event horizon,it “disappears” and is therefore permanently inaccessible to external observers.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:45:08 +0000

#54,55

I do not exclude the possibility that there is some valid element of truth underneath the hype and over-promotion.

Exactly. Back to Y2K again: there was a grain of truth hiding behind the hype. But because few if any took the time to convert unknowns to knows… people were left twisting in the wind.

The reality was: Y2K required some significant work. But it was not at ALL the risk the alarmists claimed. And once we got to work on investigating the reality, we were able to prove it.

By: Julian Flood

Julian Flood — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:41:04 +0000

Re 57: Oh, bum! Divide by ten, of course. Does anyone use F any more?

I think the graph came from the thread on bucket corrections here. Well worth looking at, it cuts out lots of noise and looks really simple.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:43:42 +0000

56,

“approx 1.4 deg/decade for 100 years”

The oceans have heated 14 degrees (F or C?) over the last 100 years?

By: Julian Flood

Julian Flood — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:00:59 +0000

Re 48: “I’m more intrigued with the SST situation. I’d like to have control of the land situation, which seems simpler, prior to wading into the SSTs.”

The SST graph I’ve filed from this site which shows the anomaly with and without the bucket correction seems extremely simple to me. Warming begins in 1910 and rises at approx 1.4 deg/decade for 100 years. There is a beautiful Kreigesmarine signal during WWII and a couple of intriguing minor spikes.

This is as expected — clean data from the oceans will be slightly buffered by the medium and will be immune from heat island effects. The oceans, barring something like current changes, should give much more reliable answers.

I think. Please don’t tell me that this data has been fiddled with as well.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:09:41 +0000

#54. In this respect, readers may observe that I have not expressed any opinion on this. I do not exclude the possibility that there is some valid element of truth underneath the hype and over-promotion. Anyone familiar with mining promotions knows this – just because something’s being hyped doesn’t mean that the claims are false, just that you have to be careful. Also just because some overheated claims are made doesn’t mean that the stock is necessarily a bust; I can think of some opposite cases. But you need to be even more careful then.

Personally I think that the Team’s cause would be better served for their purposes by having a clear verifiable trail of explanation of exactly why there’s a problem and how the quantum is calculated so that an educated non-specialist reader (with say the skill set of many of us here) could follow the logic from top to bottom and verify the calculations for themselves. That’s what I’d do if I were managing this aspect of IPCC. However, the Team has chosen not to do things this way.

By: bender

bender — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:02:10 +0000

RE: “CA is house of saws”.
Some at CA are sawing limbs. Others are trying to coax the fervent few back to the trunk that is normal scientific practice: conjecture, study, document, publish, replicate. If GW is a problem and if A is to blame, then we need an auditible paper trail for the estimate of A. Some will say it is large. Some will say it is small. You want to know how the various estimates of A in AGW are derived before you start sawing too hard. You might catch your hand in there.

By: hswiseman

hswiseman — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:51:38 +0000

If you are using data with adjusted basis expressed in a new metric and you defined both the adjustment and the metric, and the end result is a grand slam in favor of your theory (did I just hear someone say Emmanuel, or was it just a stray prayer?)the burden of proof shifts against the theory proponent. If this is transparently presented, fine, lets have at it and debate the merits. There is alot of valuable work in this vein, (Kossin’s latest comes to mind) so I agree with the Ridin’ High Gator that reflexively impugning motives is unfair and stiffles a full discussion. Make no mistake though, these researchers are out on a limb and CA is a house of saws. If I were one of them, I am not sure I would rush in for my turn under the bare light bulb either.