Quote from xaotik :

How does the UK climatology industry work and to what does it aim at? What is it that they are manufacturing (either tangible or intangible) that is worth all this?

Historical temperature reconstructions could be seen as products (and are sometimes refered to as such), and these are being produced by various climate departments around the world. These constructions differ from the raw data outputted from the various sources from which they are derived as the data goes through various processes (accounting for all kinds of things which are meant to reduce biases in the data). The final 'product' is a value added reconstruction produced by the department.

The main historical temperature records currently in use are HadCRUT, GISSTemp (NASA), UAH and RSS (both satellite derived), and these are all non-fixed, meaning that they are able to be adjusted at any place in the record at any time, for whatever reason.

To illustrate the sometimes marked difference between raw and adjusted data, here's a graph showing the dif ... final data for the USHCN (a US based) network.

Here's how the GISS temperatur ... changed from 1999 to 2008.

There was a story recently about the difference between the raw and final data collected by New Zealand's NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research).

So yeah.. The product can change over time, sometimes in fairly 'mysterious' ways. :hide:

(maybe the product is getting better and better??)

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:10.

Bowery Electric - Bowery Electric

Quote from mookie427 :

so, those biased towards climate change don't want anyone who may hold a different opinion being involved....

The article gives the impression that the enquiry will be made by someone associated with the university? That doesn't seem right to me.

BBC - Enquiry into stolen climate emails

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm


edit: It appears that Google has just censored the word 'climategate' from its autocomplete search feature. It used to be there (it was there today), now it's gone!

Hint: Al Gore is a senior advisor to Google.


If you go to microsoft's Bing.com the word 'climategate' shows second in the suggestions (after typing 'cli')

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:32.

Quote from mookie427 :

Sack 'no longer credible' Mich ... n says IPCC climatologist

For anyone new to Michael Mann and his work, here's a great intro (entitled Caspar and the Jesus paper, by Bishop Hill). It's a long story (and lots of fun in a geeky, gossipy kind of way), but well worth reading as it parallels and re-inforces many of the findings now being revealed in the current email controversy.

Mann is the original author of the famous 'hockeystick' graph which the IPCC has been using as their main visual symbol to show that the late 20th C is the warmest period over the past 1000 years. The basic shape of the hockeystick has over time undergone slight revisions since the original, in various papers authored again by Mann and other researchers (including Keith Briffa, of the now Yamal controversy, another juicy story).

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:24.

Quote from SamH :

Actually, no. If I'm doing anything, I'm celebrating the fact that the field is likely to be widened to encompass the wider community of scientists in the climatological field, including those who have previously been marginalised as "denialists", despite their presentation of solid analysis of recorded data.

I'm not thinking this is the end of climatology at all. I'm thinking this is the beginning of some proper and rational research in climatology, with much more emphasis on actual data and much less emphasis on casting runes.

The problem seems to be that the science of climatatology relies heavily on statistics, but climatologists don't seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Climatologists seem to be bumbling idiots at statistics. And that's where people like Steve McIntyre and others come in who are very good at statistical analysis, and that's why there's been such terror on the part of UEA CRU and others about letting these people in.

Quote from wien :

I'd call the act of releasing into the atmosphere huge amounts of CO2 that would otherwise not be released "polluting", but it depends on context. Either way I haven't even used the word in this thread.

It's true the SO2 and other aerosols will produce a certain amount of cooling, either naturally via volcanic activity, or even anthropogenically, as emmited by industry. There's a fair chance that the Montreal Clean Air Act and other clean air laws have actually played their part in warming up the planet, by decreasing the amount of atmospheric aerosols being emitted. What's really ironic is that after all the acid rain scares and demonisation of SO2, that massive geo-engineering schemes are now being dreamed up which would aim to counter the observed warming by spewing enormous amounts of sulphur aerosols directly into the atmosphere again. It seems we have come full circle. Or as you say, it depends on context.

This seems to me one of the very negative effects of unabated climate change alarmism. When people are scared enough, they tend to do very stupid things. History confirms this time and time again.

BTW, if we could actually control the temperature of the earth, where would we set the thermometre? It's a big question. One of the things that annoys and frustrates me about the climate change thing is how a warming planet can only do 'bad things'. For the full list, see here!

I read something the other day where the researchers stated that a warming planet will make us all obese because we'll be eating more icecreams! This is how silly this is all getting. No-one's being funded to see what beneficial things may happen in a warming climate. It's all pure alarmism. But again history has shown that the warmer periods were the ones where civilization flourished, and the colder ones were the 'bad news' periods of starvation/wars etc. But we're being coaxed into believing that the 'proper' temperature we should be aiming for is around about ice age levels.

Not much going on in an ice age...

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:45.

Quote from SamH :

Then I'd suggest that the fact that it was lifted from the computers at UEA CRU is actually far more significant. What purpose does this kind of literature serve research scientists?

There's other material on there which looks like nothing more than political spam, probably being sent to CRU because the spammers reckon they'll get a sympathetic response. Since it's not written by the CRU people themselves, it's the least noteworthy material in the folder. You can infer anything from it, but I would probably just ignore it.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33.

Quote from Shotglass :

it doesnt youre getting 2 unrelated matters muddled up

I'm not saying that it's all about politics, or all money, or all stubberness in proving one's pet theory. To me they are all relevent factors although I woulnd't be able to say which is the most important for any given individual. You have to admit that climate change is the most politically charged scientific issue of our time. Even if the scientists involved in this latest scandal are not by their natures political (very dubious and goes against the evidence), they've been framing they're adversaries in political terms from day one. So to say this isn't political, I just can't agree. I wish politics wasn't involved- but there is a political reality and you can't just brush it aside.

A lot of scientists would be and are very appalled and surprised at the attitudes shown by these researchers at EAU CRU. That they are acting more as advocates than scientists. There is a lot of concern from them about how best to present their research in terms of how it's going to affect policy. There's ample evidence of this in the email conversations.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:59.

Kourash Ghazi of Tweakguides has just released his latest Windows 7 version of the popular Tweaking Companion series of guides.

http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html

Quote :

The TweakGuides Tweaking Companion (TGTC) is the complete system customization and optimization guide for all Windows users. Designed for novice and advanced users alike, it is written in plain English to help you genuinely understand all key aspects of Windows and your PC. The guide covers every major topic, from the correct installation of critical drivers and software, through to simple explanations and recommendations for every significant Windows setting and feature, all the major performance and convenience tweaks and customizations, as well as detailed troubleshooting advice. Also provided are links and instructions for a large number of reliable free applications which can enhance your system and give you viable alternatives to purchasing commercial software.

I've been impressed with Kourash's site and his approach to computer literacy for the masses for many years now. I've only just downloaded the new guide and haven't really begun to go through it yet, but if it's anything like his other guides then it will be well worth taking the time to read. Windows 7 has been a great OS so far, I'm sure there will be atleast a few nuggets in the guide which will help make it even better.

Quote :

1) politics has absolutely nothing to do with the matter
2) just because one or two research groups used creative data slection methods doesnt mean the whole field is suddenly bunk
3) again look at venus think about whether youd want to work towards living in a similar atmosphere and decide

1) I'm pretty sure it does.

2) You're right, it doesn't. But imo you're using 'creative' as a euphemism for 'biased' and 'misleading'. Please refer to point 1.

3) I'm not sure why you want to keep bringing up Venus, Shot. Earth and Venus are obviously two very different planets (similar in some respects, yes). But Venus has 300,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. I don't know how you can compare 96% atmospheric CO2 (Venus) to Earths (0.038%). Also the atmospheric pressure of Venus is 95 times that of Earth. Also, it's much closer to the sun and a typical afternoon there lasts 1000s of hours.

Mars also has a high atmospheric CO2 content (similar to Venus at 95%), but I wouldn't be thinking about holidaying there without packing some nice thick socks and a wooly jumper.

Not sure what you're point is. I guess you've been listening to James Hansen a bit too much. He's been known to be wrong about things from time to time, you know.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:52.

Quote from Vain :

I also can't see the historic scandal and the public-media conspiracy. There just isn't anything unusual here.

Vain

It doesn't have to be about a real conspiracy of the media. What's in fact happening (imo) is that the MSM has a long way to go in playing catchups. There's a lot of history behind this story- the leaked emails are simply confirming what many people have been warning about for a long time now. Environmental reporters have basically decided to go along with official IPCC doctrine (appeal to authority) while all sceptics have been conveniently dumped into the right-wing/exxon/tobacco scientist/misinformation etc bin of non-relevance, and the Grand Narrative of global warming doom has been spinning happily ever since.

But of course things are more complicated than that.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:53.

Quote from SamH :

More fun..

On a related note, we've got David Jones, head of the climate division of the Australian Bureau of Meterology (BOM) in communications with Phil Jones over Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit.

Phil says...

Quote :

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. [EMAIL NOT FOUND IN CRU EMAILS – Willis] He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil

It may be nothing, but then again, it may be something.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:28.

Quote from Shotglass :

1)all well and true but you guys make this sound like some international conspiracy thats after the trillions (yeah right... anyone overly concerned about science grant money clearly has never worked in science) of money when in fact its about one perfectly normal sized (ie small) research group

Of course, money may certainly be a factor, but I don't really believe or know that significant amounts of money are actually flowing directly into these particular researchers pockets. I know the UK Met office just got a shiny new super computer to play with. I'm not really very interested in the personal/money side of things. But there is an ethical dimension attached to the climate debate which is about money and which simply demands that the science be shown to be correct. Spending billions on carbon sequestration for instance may be a feel good response right now, but if later proven to be a worthless adaption then that's not going to feel very good at all. That was billions of dollars that could have been spent on something else, wasted. The world has other immediate problems which requires money to solve. Surely, if we're going to be spending all that money- then that's good enough reason to lay out the science once and for all for proper scrutiny of all methods, data and results? That's how real science works btw- not the way Phil Jones thinks it should work. It's a fair enough request. Billions are going to be spent on AGW (and already has been, for good or for ill), yet the 'Team' - the ones highest up in the climate science chain of command, seem hardly concerned that their science may indeed be lacking somewhere.

So, if not an outright con-job, then surely a dangerous enough display of arrogance and institutionalised group-think that would allow the kinds of maneuvering designed to squash sensible sceptical dissent that is being revealed in the emails. I know I wouldn't trust my money to these guys.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:13.

Quote from Shotglass :

also this gets blown way out of proportion

I'm not sure why you'd say that unless you haven't been looking into what's been going on. FOI obstruction is a very serious matter... what's more serious is when you start seeing that the very people who's job it is to uphold requests for data covered under FOI are actually siding with or being led by scientists to deny access! I don't know. You tell me what this is. I think these guys are playing us all for a bunch of chumps, the FOI people included.

I suggest if you're actually interested, and not just automatically willing to act as an apologist because you think these guys are beyond reproach or something, to start going through the emails, (compendium here of the most relevant material). Don't allow these guys to 'contextualise' things for you by them simply saying that this is all being taken out of context. The context is there. Read the emails. Or have a look at the code.

In the end this is about science. I don't know who said it but someone said 'when you mix politics and science you end up with all politics and no science'. That is what is happening here. It's not the going to make AGW theory go away all by itself, but these people have got some explaining to do. They are in a very tight spot right now (even if they're not admitting it) and I don't envy their position one bit.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:22.

Quote :

Electrik Kar, what concerns me is that the main media outlets don't seem to want to get anywhere near it. Not even those historically keen to invest in investigative journalism. And worse still, Glenn Beck has latched on to it and is using it as a vehicle to bash Obama (who may well have been just as hood-winked as the rest of us by UEA CRU and the IPCC). Glenn Beck is a delusional moron, and could well be the kiss of death for the whole truth/exposé.

It's very worrying - and what's most worrying is that the media seemingly most keen to have this all smoothed over as quickly as possible are those percieved to be our most respected. There's a deafening silence there, for sure. I agree that in the short term people like Beck and Limbaugh shouting out these revelations may be somewhat damaging, but this is bigger than that I feel. The nature of this game has suddenly changed for ever, the whole lot's going to get rejumbled- it's hardly begun.

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:34.

I've also been following this heavily for the last few days.

Probably the best thread I've found so far which details the behind the scenes stalling on FOI requests is this one, over at WUWT. If you read through it and follow the comments, you can get a good sense of just what's been going on at the CRU. It's very revealing, and it's not pretty. How these people can call themselves scientists I have no idea...

It's a huge mess Sam, an enormous pandoras box has just been opened. Of course the mainstream news outlets most wedded to the climate alarmist orthodoxy aren't touching it. Realclimate has gone into damage control overdrive.

I'm afraid this one's not going to come out in the wash...

Last edited by Electrik Kar, Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:25.

The most well known are supposedly going to be the people who have the highest post counts- Tristan, Jakq, and a few others with long staying time. Lerts was a memorable poster but he is pretty new so will only be known to people in the forum who are currently fairly active. There are probably a lot of newer members who have never heard of Kidcodea for instance. My join date is somewhere in the middle so I've seen quite a bit of coming and going, but it's useless to wonder about who is the most 'famous'. Probably whoever has the biggest mouth.

Quote :

Still a true Statement, isn't it ?

It doesn't matter whether it's true. It was just a personality thing/approach that I happened to find grating after about the 100th time. It was just negative advertising, ad infinitum.

Quote :

I can use 7 right after I see the desktop and not wait another 15 secs for everything being loaded.

Yep, you can click firefox and jump straight on the web. Not possible in Vista on my system.

I'd agree with Jakq in that W7 is probably more like an expensive and glorified service pack update for Vista. It's Vista's Uber patch. I can't join the chorus in hating Vista because I didn't have any real problems with it. It could be frustrating at times, but I've expected that of computers all my life. But W7 is almost like a breath of fresh air- it makes being at the computer a nice place to be, kind of a bizarre notion... but there you have it.

[etals:]

I only ever heard Kid raging on about how all other sims apart from LFS were tripe. I also remember he wasn't too pleased with the texture stuff Devil007 and I were doing a few years ago when we were just getting started (his comments were the least 'constructively' critical). It seemed like the appeal of Kid was in waiting to see what kind of colourful language he'd invoke next to describe his overwhelming and intense dissapointment with whatever it was he was fixated on at the time.

Yeah but that guy stole it from Kevin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... -lHvY&feature=related

That's some OLD fish.


The deep sea is fascinating. I read a quote somewhere which said that there are approximately 3 to 30 million undiscovered species down there. Sounds like total hyperbole really but who knows!??

PS, I made a movie in Maya for school this year about these creatures of the deep. It is based on the photographic work of a guy called Josh Lambus. A good name to google..

It's called Falling Stars :star:

Quote :

So there you go.. three advantages of Windows 7 over Vista for starters. At least to me they're advantages.

I'm very happy with W7 so far. It does a lot of little things right, which is important when you're doing those little things day in day out. For example I love being able to drag windows to the left or right and have them take up half the screen. I use that constantly now to compare contents between windows.

Oh my God I'm starting to sound like those horrible Windows 7 launch party people!!!

Quote from Shadowww :

Why not? YouTube's player is smaller than 1080p anyways.

If you're going to watch Youtube movies in the player then what's the point in 1080p? The maximum resolution needed would simply be the resolution of the player itself. Or have I missed something??