navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Climate Change Data 'manipulated' ....  (Read 10640 times)
Rooster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


Dum Spiro Spero


« on: November 21, 2009, 01:05:41 PM »

Apparently the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit have been fiddling the figures to hide a decline in Temperatures.

One email read "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html

Logged

Roy
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2009, 01:18:57 PM »

yawn!- obviously indisputable facts then, hacked and placed on a server in Russia, well known for never hosting anything of even the slightest dodgy nature.......... whistlie
Let us for a fleeting "who dropped industrial strength acid in the water supply?" moment assume that it is indeed all a dreadful plot by assorted leftie bedwetters, and well over 95% of the scientific establishment, and it's all invention - my answer is a resounding "so what?" - the main problems  - overpopulation, too many people doing too many unsustainable things, the poisoning of our entire environment, the loss of too many species at a frightening rate..........(etc, etc, etc) carry on unabated, hurtling us towards the ecological abyss - whether or not it's true, we must take pretty much the same actions to halt the demise of life on earth - it is NOT an excuse (as suggested by the thickerati posting in the "comments" section of this story on the Daily Fail website seem to think) to carry on with our "foot to the floor, buffers here we come" lifestyle Wink
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 01:21:40 PM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
EccentricAnomaly
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2009, 06:16:34 PM »

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Quote
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Logged
dinitro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530



« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2009, 07:50:36 PM »


Martin, you forgot money

if anything, if the playing field was made level renewals make even more sense.
if we had to pay the real cost of cleaning the mess we make instead of dumping it in a big black hole for the next generation its plain to see we are heading for oblivion.

dinitro
Logged

1x 20 x 58mm panel NEE, 4x 20 x 58mm panels south, Navi-Newark 320 litre thermal store direct boiler/ rad tap by boiler, retro coil, solar coil, termovar 61, S. circuit 30m+30m flow/ return. NEE 5m flow, 5m return.  S. panel 52 degrees. NEE 45.
http://sunscribe.homeip.net
http://agni.homeip.net
wyleu
Guest
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2009, 08:06:01 PM »

And yet we can still speak of a once in a thousand year event three years after a similar session of flooding within forty miles.
Logged
dinitro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 530



« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2009, 08:32:16 PM »


I wonder what other once in a thousand year event we can expect...

anyone want to chance the lottery?
Logged

1x 20 x 58mm panel NEE, 4x 20 x 58mm panels south, Navi-Newark 320 litre thermal store direct boiler/ rad tap by boiler, retro coil, solar coil, termovar 61, S. circuit 30m+30m flow/ return. NEE 5m flow, 5m return.  S. panel 52 degrees. NEE 45.
http://sunscribe.homeip.net
http://agni.homeip.net
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2009, 08:52:05 PM »

Serious situation when  bridges that have been around for hundreds of years get swept away.    There may not be very good records of  daily rainfall going back  previous centuries but   there should be a fairly good record of bridges collapsing.    Unfortunately this concentrated rainfall seems to be a new  feature of the weather and is likely to be repeated quite often.   One thing that is new is  excessive concentration of housing in river valleys with  faster run off of surface water so there may be contributory factors.      The natural  growth of trees along river banks was also a defense against rapid flooding in the past, many of these are now removed so there needs to be quite a lot of preventative measures.       
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
Eleanor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2574



« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2009, 11:09:46 PM »


EA, thanks for the link. I agree that emails between research colleagues could be easily misconstrued. I can imagine using the word "trick"to describe a way of trying to interpret data rather than manipulate it. One of the biggest problems of climate change is working out what would have happened anyway as opposed to what is happening due to our intervention and then how the two will interact. I can't help thinking that the problem is far too complex to solve although it could probably be done in retrospect if there's anyone left to do it. There does seem to be one obvious course of action, reduce CO2 emissions but that doesn't suit everyone ... the reality is that it doesn't really appeal to many people at all. Of course we could just keep going and sequester it all under the carpet and let others worry about it later.

There are certain circles in which it is advantageous to ignore climate change or even actively promote its non existence. Organisations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute http://cei.org/news-release/2009/11/20/scandal-rocks-global-warming-establishment. Most of these multinational sponsored organisations seem to to originate in the US and seem to be a big obstacle to Obama making any progress against the right wing gas guzzling, oil sodden dinosaurs. Haven't they read the Bible, what did they think Noah was doing?

I sometimes wonder if Margaret Atwood had the right idea in "Oryx and Crake". Just get rid of the problem ie the humans via a plague (nasty ebola/flu type thing which was really quick) and replace them with perfect genetically engineered humans. I don't suppose it would be long before they lost their perfection, I think they had been corrupted before the end of the book by 3 remaining humans who really should have been got rid of before they spread their polluting ways.

Thinking a bit more, the planet doesn't need us, we need the planet. The Earth will carry on long after we, and all the other endangered species, have gone. Perhaps we should just be grateful that we were born in the right place at the right time and are of a generation that has seen the best, within our own sphere of reference, the world has to offer . A whole post without a smiley  Sad
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 11:13:26 PM by Eleanor » Logged

I'm doing this for free, please be nice to me surrender
"Very few batteries die a natural death ... most are murdered" stir
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2009, 11:22:40 PM »

be afraid, be very afraid - this is the level of stupidity of the Great British Public - these are some of the comments (try the "the highest rated") - from a "leading" UK newspaper on this story, and are to be frank, petrifying!............ http://tinyurl.com/y8qbdxh  facepalm
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 11:26:06 PM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Eleanor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2574



« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2009, 11:50:08 PM »

Perhaps we just attach too much to the importance of human beings. We have evolved into something which really should be intelligent enough to survive but it seems to be our cleverness which will be our downfall. Whereas some lowly microbe no one has ever heard of will probably evolve into the next alpha life form until ... Oh Gawd, I've just realised it's a plot by the Daily Mail  faint


Logged

I'm doing this for free, please be nice to me surrender
"Very few batteries die a natural death ... most are murdered" stir
David
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2009, 10:13:55 AM »

And yet we can still speak of a once in a thousand year event three years after a similar session of flooding within forty miles.

A few years ago a councillor from the nearby city told me that he was fed up of once in a hundred year floods. They had had three "once in a hundred year" floods in two years and it was affecting the budgets a lot.

More extreme weather events are what is forecast by the models and that certainly seems to be what is happening. The amount of rain my not change, but it falls in a much shorter time.

While there is doom and gloom about public attitudes it is worthwhile remembering that some of this is simply being talked up by the deniers. The ICE survey is interesting http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/climate-change-survey-says-83-willing-to-make-sacrifices-1824663.html



Logged
peter999
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 456


« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2009, 01:39:47 PM »


 Have you noticed how it has gone from global warming to climate change  It's almost as if someone has noticed somthing that does not stack up.

Don't get me wrong I totally agree that the climate is changing but warming or cooling?

Peter
Logged
wyleu
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2009, 02:13:16 PM »

Becoming Chaotic.

Logged
sleepybubble
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


expect the unexpected, then its expected


« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 07:12:06 PM »


 Have you noticed how it has gone from global warming to climate change  It's almost as if someone has noticed somthing that does not stack up.

Don't get me wrong I totally agree that the climate is changing but warming or cooling?

Peter

I read something, either posted on here by somebody, sorry for lack of reference or somewhere else on just this issue. I had been thinking the same, as have proberbly squillions of people. However it seems to have been referred to as climate change for quite some time now. IIRC in the article I read as far back as the early eighties or so. Global warming is a phrase coined around the turn of the century.
Logged

;-)
desperate
Guest
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 08:19:14 PM »

I think literally it is global warming, IE loads more energy in the system, but if it called global warming then the Daily Tale brigade think "yeah would be nice if it warmed up here" so climate change is a more accurate description. As Wyleu says "more chaotic" is very apt when you think of 375mm in 30 hours or so up in Cumberland. Statistically speaking when compared with the last 200 years of rainfall records (of which the UK is very well documented), a once in 1000 years event. Anybody who thinks this is just a natural occurence should perhaps go and help bale out some of the flooded houses.

TTFN

Desperate
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!