On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:20:29 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-
predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/

December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the
climate system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will
determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak,
with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince
as many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts
to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we
can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the
feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?


Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.

I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who
are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it.
I'd make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?

Ignore them, and answer the concerns of people like Lindzen, Spencer,
McIntyre, and all the other highly qualified experts in the field. Those
are exactly the people Mann, et al were trying to stonewall, not the
uneducated. It's about politics, not science.

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:05:40 +0100, Rav1ng rabbit wrote:

isw wrote:
In article ,
Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will
determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak,
with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who
are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of
a person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it.
I'd make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining
the evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works
rather than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening
gullible people with scare tactics.

Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing
could convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse
others", then what?

Isaac

That's typical Bill Ward talk, lying and cheating about AGW with a
authoritative thin foiled hat.

And that's Q, who has nothing to contribute but his pitiful attempts to
annoy.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud
feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to
suit their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and
wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to increase
surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person who's had
high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd make the best,
most honest case I could, showing and explaining the evidence both
supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the public
disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc
that can be proof-read.


It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.


ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw
data.

/BAH

hda wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:15:05 -0600, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud
feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to
suit their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and
wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to increase
surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person who's had
high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd make the best,
most honest case I could, showing and explaining the evidence both
supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the public
disk.
Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.

The last 15 years or so I have experienced in production and
elsewhere too the reduction of inhouse Q-design, -control
and -inspection and shifting the burden onto the receiving
end/customer. It looks a conscious strategy under the
disguise of costsreduction. Next the inhouse maintenance job
will be neglected. As I understood BAH is pointing to
neglect in preparation and maintenance before export.

I wasn't talking about neglect. I was talking about how much
work (as in man-years) is required to prepare a writeup which
can be understood by a non-expert. Even maintaining the server
takes a lot of babysitting and somebody has to be hired to do
all that. It will not be the scientist whose job is to do the
science.

/BAH

Jerry Okamura wrote:
Way to convoluted to me. It is really simple. The theory says that
greenhouses gases are accumulating in the atmosphere. So, the proof of
the pudding is to determine if the theory is correct, i.e. are
greenhouses gases accumulating in the atmosphere? The way to do that is
to measure the area in the atmostphere that the gases are suppose to be
accumulating in.

pins

Nitpick. Not theory; hypothesis. AFAICT (and I'm not a scientist
so read the following with a big grain of NaCl), all of this mess
has not gotten to the theory step of the Scientific Method.

/BAH

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:40 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-
predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the
climate system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will
determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak,
with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince
as many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts
to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we
can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the
feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and
bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it
can be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who
are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to
increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person
who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who
feels qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer
the issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again
keeping the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any
interested high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or
the hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest,
open debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works
rather than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening
gullible people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from
the same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the
earlier discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an
open process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc that
can be proof-read.

If that's the case, why not just post it? Why try to hide it?

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.


ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.

Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
for typos and transcription errors. That should be one of the
deliverables in the data collection contract.

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:20:29 -0800, isw wrote:


Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?

Isaac

You have an active fantasy life, but a bit delusional.

You betcha that IF global warming was man made and IF the warming had
really bad results, we "denialist" would want to know about it. No one
wants to be cooked. On the other hand, we don't want to be starved to
death and frozen to death because of a stupid Marxist scam, either. WE
have to get this science right. To prove your case, you only have to show
three things; We caused the CO2, the CO2 caused the warming, and the
warming has worse effects than the cure.

To show that we caused the CO2 increase, you have to show how adding 5 Gt
carbon per year to a 40,000 Gt Carbon system can change the equilibrium
between atmosphere and ocean by 30% or more in just a hundred years (500
GtC tops, added to the WHOLE system!) Given that excess carbon dioxide
precipitates out of the ocean into carbonate rock, and chemistry has
conclusively proven that the only way to cause that 30% shift to favor
the atmosphere is to raise temperatures of the sea water, you have a LOT
of explaining to do. What's more, that story about sequestered carbon
being all fossil fuel is a stupid story and defies well known chemistry;
you betcha that carbonate rock and deep sea CO2 is sequestered as well,
and that explains the isotope ratios. And the oxygen isotope ratios are
explained by exchange with sea water.

The second thing you have to show is that the CO2 causes the warming. So
far, all you have is a "correlation proves causation" fallacy. The
problem is, there is a stronger correlation with solar cycle and climate
change than there is with CO2, and there is NO WAY I'm going to confuse
cause and effect between solar cycle and atmospheric CO2. All your
"models" to do this failed to predict the last 10 years, so you don't
even have a hypothesis anymore I can test. And the other problem is, CO2
lags thew climate change, so it must be an effect instead of a cause.
Now, Svensmark came along and explained how solar cycle affects climate.
You can't explain how CO2 affects climate, not more than a trivial
amount. Then Svensmark proved this effect at CERN. Then Svensmark came
out with a hypothesis that PREDICTED. You don't have anything that
predicts, and all your hypothesis have been rejected. You not only don't
have a theory, you don't have a scientific hypothesis to test. What the
**** are you still doing here posing as a scientist?!

The last thing you have to do is show how this warming is going to be
really bad; bad enough to gut the US economy and kill off a lot of people
to stop it. Since history shows the Medieval warm period to be one of
health and prosperity, you have a lot of 'splaing to do.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:40 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-
predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the
climate system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will
determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak,
with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince
as many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts
to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we
can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the
feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and
bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it
can be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who
are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to
increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person
who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who
feels qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer
the issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again
keeping the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any
interested high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or
the hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest,
open debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works
rather than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening
gullible people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.
Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from
the same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the
earlier discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an
open process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.
What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc that
can be proof-read.

If that's the case, why not just post it? Why try to hide it?

What are you talking about now? I've been trying to discuss the
problems with the suggestion that any science data be put on
a public server with documentation describing it so a non-scientist
would understand the data. Frankly, I think this (documenting it)
is impossible but there are amazing writers in the science biz.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.


ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.

Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
for typos and transcription errors.

WTF are you talking about? There can't be typos in raw data, let alone
transcription errors. Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English
ASCII.

That should be one of the
deliverables in the data collection contract.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I'm definitely not talking about a contract.

/BAH

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:13:35 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:40 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants
and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-
predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the
climate system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what
will determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or
weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince
as many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts
to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we
can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the
feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and
bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it
can be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I
do have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people
who are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to
increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person
who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who
feels qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer
the issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again
keeping the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any
interested high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or
the hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest,
open debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually
works rather than trying to advance a political agenda by
frightening gullible people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before
it's written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part
of the scientist's job. Why should the public see anything
different from the same disks the research is based on? The more
eyes looking, the earlier discrepancies can be resolved. Science is
supposed to be an open process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc that
can be proof-read.

If that's the case, why not just post it? Why try to hide it?

What are you talking about now? I've been trying to discuss the
problems with the suggestion that any science data be put on a public
server with documentation describing it so a non-scientist would
understand the data. Frankly, I think this (documenting it) is
impossible but there are amazing writers in the science biz.

I'm talking about making the data available online to whoever wants to
review it, not keeping it from those who might disagree with the
conclusions the IPCC is promoting. There are no "wrong people" who
shouldn't have access to the data, and there's no need to be sure they
"understand" it in the "correct" way. That's not up to you, me, or
anyone else to decide. It's public property.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.


ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.

Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
for typos and transcription errors.

WTF are you talking about? There can't be typos in raw data, let alone
transcription errors.

I'm talking about unadjusted digital versions of the "raw data", not the
original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals to
avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other automated
methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human intervention. I
am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on opinion or
assumptions such as UHI, etc.

Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.

And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
would be useless.

That should be one of the
deliverables in the data collection contract.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And you're assuming facts not in evidence.

I'm definitely not talking about a contract.

Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:13:35 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:40 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants
and conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-
predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the
climate system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what
will determine whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or
weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince
as many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts
to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we
can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the
feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and
bully more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it
can be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I
do have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people
who are certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no
scientific training in any field, let alone a specialization in
anything relating to climatology), who furthermore have a real
anti-warming agenda, and who will, either willfully or ignorantly,
misinterpret the data to suit their purposes, and spread the
resulting disinformation far and wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?
Excellent question.
Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to
increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person
who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who
feels qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer
the issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again
keeping the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any
interested high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or
the hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest,
open debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually
works rather than trying to advance a political agenda by
frightening gullible people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before
it's written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part
of the scientist's job. Why should the public see anything
different from the same disks the research is based on? The more
eyes looking, the earlier discrepancies can be resolved. Science is
supposed to be an open process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc that
can be proof-read.
If that's the case, why not just post it? Why try to hide it?
What are you talking about now? I've been trying to discuss the
problems with the suggestion that any science data be put on a public
server with documentation describing it so a non-scientist would
understand the data. Frankly, I think this (documenting it) is
impossible but there are amazing writers in the science biz.

I'm talking about making the data available online to whoever wants to
review it, not keeping it from those who might disagree with the
conclusions the IPCC is promoting. There are no "wrong people" who
shouldn't have access to the data, and there's no need to be sure they
"understand" it in the "correct" way. That's not up to you, me, or
anyone else to decide. It's public property.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.


ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.
Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
for typos and transcription errors.
WTF are you talking about? There can't be typos in raw data, let alone
transcription errors.

I'm talking about unadjusted digital versions of the "raw data",

No, you are not. See below.

not the
original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals to
avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other automated
methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human intervention. I
am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on opinion or
assumptions such as UHI, etc.

All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
talking about raw data here either.


Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.

And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
would be useless.

Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money,
time, and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a
public server will not be data but a report of the data.


That should be one of the
deliverables in the data collection contract.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about
moving bits and presenting them to non-expert readers.
I know a lot about this kind of thing because I did that
kind of work for 25 years.


I'm definitely not talking about a contract.

Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.


Contract law is different in each and every country. Which taxpayers
do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who pays for
the data the maritime business provides?

/BAH