PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data



FlaGator
11-30-2009, 08:18 AM
Now the excuses begin



Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.


I have worked for several large companies and I know of none that has deliberately deleted data used in the caluclation of other values when no backup of the original values was available. Its been taken off the host computer and stored on tape, but that info is available to be reloaded upon request.

Whole story here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html)

expat-pattaya
11-30-2009, 08:43 AM
Data storage is cheap now. I don't buy any explanation they give.

Speedy
11-30-2009, 03:43 PM
Oh well, I guess that all legislation, all monies, all action on "Climate Change" should be on hold until all research is duplicated or stopped all together.

SarasotaRepub
11-30-2009, 07:05 PM
I'm sure the DUmmies will call it a Rovian Plot. :p:D

Constitutionally Speaking
11-30-2009, 08:30 PM
Oh well, I guess that all legislation, all monies, all action on "Climate Change" should be on hold until all research is duplicated or stopped all together.

Exactly.

wilbur
11-30-2009, 10:06 PM
Data storage is cheap now. I don't buy any explanation they give.

This happened in the 80's, not present day.. back in the day when most computers had less than a meg of ram, and only slightly more hard drive space.

wilbur
11-30-2009, 10:12 PM
Oh well, I guess that all legislation, all monies, all action on "Climate Change" should be on hold until all research is duplicated or stopped all together.

Well, guess what? The type of temperature data that CRU lost HAS been compiled several times over, by independent sources, over the years. This is partly why AGW is considered such a well supported scientific theory. Multiple lines of independent evidence converge towards similar conclusions.

Seriously folks, this is standard practice stuff in science.

Start here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=22140

Rockntractor
11-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Well, guess what? The type of temperature data that CRU lost HAS been compiled several times over, by independent sources, over the years. This is partly why AGW is considered such a well supported scientific theory. Multiple lines of independent evidence converge towards similar conclusions.

Seriously folks, this is standard practice stuff in science.

Start here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=22140

You had better get some long johns Wilbur. It's getting colder!

Big Guy
11-30-2009, 10:21 PM
This happened in the 80's, not present day.. back in the day when most computers had less than a meg of ram, and only slightly more hard drive space.

Still don't provide for an excuse. They might need to use more up to date data, data that is gathered and stored using current technologies.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Well, guess what? The type of temperature data that CRU lost HAS been compiled several times over, by independent sources, over the years. This is partly why AGW is considered such a well supported scientific theory. Multiple lines of independent evidence converge towards similar conclusions.

Seriously folks, this is standard practice stuff in science.

Start here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=22140

If the data could be gather from independent sources then why did people have to use the British version of the freedom of information act to get out it? Also why did many of the emails discuss how to avoid releasing information via a FOI request?

Serious wilbur, you're grasping at straws and not thinking this through.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 10:49 PM
This happened in the 80's, not present day.. back in the day when most computers had less than a meg of ram, and only slightly more hard drive space.

The data dump was recent, like the mid 2000s because much of the derived data (results) were created much more recently than the '80s. and now the data is not available to recreate the results . This means that they had the data a recently as the last result set.

Also your 80's fantasy does not hold water because data was stored off site on magnetic tape and refreshed regularly. If the transportation, medical and financial industries did it (I've worked in all three as a database modeler and database administrator) then I am sure the scientific community has a policy of retaining data for as long as possible. This is my field of expertise, data storage and retention.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 10:50 PM
You had better get some long johns Wilbur. It's getting colder!

His whole argument is completely flawed and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of data retention hardware, software and policies.

Rockntractor
11-30-2009, 10:52 PM
Poor Wilbur he can't get the cat back in the bag!

wilbur
11-30-2009, 10:53 PM
If the data could be gather from independent sources then why did people have to use the British version of the freedom of information act to get out it? Also why did many of the emails discuss how to avoid releasing information via a FOI request?

Serious wilbur, you're grasping at straws and not thinking this through.

I don't know.. you'd have to ask the people who made the requests. But there are other stores of raw data... some of which is linked directly from the Real Climate index page that I posted.

Do you seriously think that one university had the one and only copy of all the worlds climate records, on old magnetic tape from the 80's?

Rockntractor
11-30-2009, 10:55 PM
His whole argument is completely flawed and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of data retention hardware, software and policies.
I had an electronic bible made by franklin in the early nineties. It had chips the size of a matchbook that held an entire version of the bible. Text does not take up much room!

wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:04 PM
The data dump was recent, like the mid 2000s because much of the derived data (results) were created much more recently than the '80s. and now the data is not available to recreate the results . This means that they had the data a recently as the last result set.



Not according to the times. The times specifically says the data was trashed in the 80's, during a building move.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Your Fox article doesn't mention any time frame - so just where are you getting your dates here?

Edit: Its the same article, but on Fox its truncated, before linking to the times.

Big Guy
11-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Not according to the times. The times specifically says the data was trashed in the 80's, during a building move.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Your Fox article doesnt mention any time frame - so just where are you getting your dates here?

I got this from a link you provided, notice the missing data?

SELECTED STATION:-


ARCTOWSKI 62 09S 301 02E (89052)

J F M A M J J A S O N D MEAN

1977 00.0 -02.3 -04.7 -08.1 -08.0 -06.5 -02.7 00.5 01.2
1978 02.1 02.4 00.9 -00.4 00.0 -05.1 -11.6 -07.0 -02.3 -01.2 -01.1 01.0 -1.9
1979 03.3 02.4 02.1 00.6 -02.8 -04.9 -03.8 -04.9 -02.4 -02.0 -00.4 01.7 -0.9
1980 02.3 01.8 00.2 -04.7 -03.0 -06.5 -12.2 -11.2 -07.5 -02.2 -02.2 01.5 -3.6
1981 01.7 02.5 00.4 00.0 -03.5 -03.6 -04.2 -09.3 -04.7 -03.7 -00.5 01.3 -2.0
1982 03.6 02.6 01.5 00.7 -00.4 -02.2 -07.3 -05.4 -03.4 -02.7 -01.3 01.5 -1.1
1983 01.9 01.4 01.1 00.3 -03.1 -04.8 -04.5 -02.1 -03.7 -01.6 00.7 01.8 -1.0
1984 01.2 02.4 01.8 -01.4 -06.3 -04.5 -03.7 -02.7 -00.4 -02.6 00.4 02.0 -1.1
1985 02.9 02.3 -00.4 -00.3 -03.8 -04.0 -02.1 -02.9 -00.7 -00.4 01.0 01.8 -0.6
1986 01.7 01.5 01.8 -01.4 -07.8 -07.7 -08.1 -06.7 -05.0 -01.4 -01.7 00.8 -2.8
1987 01.6 01.8 01.3 -02.6 -05.3 -07.5 -13.2 -04.1 -05.6 -01.5 01.0 02.1 -2.7
1988 01.5 03.4 00.8 -00.7 -01.4 -07.1 -05.4 -08.3 -03.1 -02.8 -01.3 00.5 -2.0
1989 02.2 03.2 03.2 -04.6 00.1 -01.5 00.5 -01.5 -02.3 00.0 00.7 01.5 0.1
1990 02.7 -05.3 -06.0 -05.3 -06.5 -06.1 -02.9 -02.0 -01.2 00.3
1991
1992 03.0 01.5 -01.0 -00.6 -08.5 -08.5 -06.7 -03.6 -01.9 -02.6 00.8 03.4 -2.1
1993
1994 02.3
1995 03.8 03.2 00.5 -01.1 -02.0 -06.4 -13.0 -11.0 -05.8 -00.4 00.1 02.1 -2.5
1996 02.4 03.4 02.0 -01.1 -02.3 -04.9 -03.1 -03.4 -01.0 -00.9 00.3 01.7 -0.6

MEAN 2.4 2.4 1.1 -1.3 -3.4 -5.2 -6.6 -5.8 -3.5 -1.8 -0.2 1.6 -1.6




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by: A.B.Giles Last Modified: 17 May, 2003

Rockntractor
11-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Wilbur did you kidnap Ronald McDonald and what are you doing to him?

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:26 PM
Not according to the times. The times specifically says the data was trashed in the 80's, during a building move.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Your Fox article doesn't mention any time frame - so just where are you getting your dates here?

Edit: Its the same article, but on Fox its truncated, before linking to the times.

You mean those dates from the 80s that were supplied by the same people who discussed how to hide data from the public to avoid freedom of information act request for the above mentioned data that some believe was used as the basis for the GW predictions created in the 90s about the overall effect of GW in the 2000s?

wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:28 PM
You mean those dates from the 80s that were supplied by the same people who discussed how to hide data from the public to avoid freedom of information act request for the above mentioned data that some believe was used as the basis for the GW predictions created in the 90s about the overall effect of GW in the 2000s?

I make no claim to its accuracy... but thats the information that we have. Are we to believe that the dates that you... just pulled out your ass are somehow credible, based on your crack sleuthing skills and because you've administered a database? Sure:)

Rockntractor
11-30-2009, 11:32 PM
just pulled out your ass

Wilbur keep your mind off from Flagators butt. Go play with Ronald McDonald.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:38 PM
I make no claim to its accuracy... but thats the information that we have. Are we to believe that the dates that you... just pulled out your ass are somehow credible, based on your crack sleuthing skills and because you've administered a database? Sure:)

I'm embarrassed for you.

wilbur
11-30-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm embarrassed for you.

Once again, I have no stake in the date - it could be accurate it might not be. I'm not the one judging the situation by "facts" made up on the spot.

FlaGator
11-30-2009, 11:56 PM
Once again, I have no stake in the date - it could be accurate it might not be. I'm not the one judging the situation by "facts" made up on the spot.

I didn't make them up, but I'm sure with your google skills you should be able to recreate my results. After all they are readily available on the internet just like you said.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2009, 04:37 AM
I don't know.. you'd have to ask the people who made the requests. But there are other stores of raw data... some of which is linked directly from the Real Climate index page that I posted.

Do you seriously think that one university had the one and only copy of all the worlds climate records, on old magnetic tape from the 80's?

You mean they saved the doctored data. The actual raw data was purged and it WAS intentional.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2009, 06:56 AM
Wilbur,


I have tried on multiple occasions to inform you that the statistical methods and the sampling simply DID NOT ADD UP.

There was NO WAY you could plug even the data they did release into a valid formula and get the results they claimed.

You would not listen, and now we know that even the data provided was purposely biased.

You should be embarrassed.

Sonnabend
12-01-2009, 08:10 AM
Well, guess what? The type of temperature data that CRU lost HAS been compiled several times over, by independent sources, over the years. This is partly why AGW is considered such a well supported scientific theory.
In other words, it's a w.a.g. (wild assed guess) based on data already proven to be lies.

wilbur
12-01-2009, 09:08 AM
Wilbur,


I have tried on multiple occasions to inform you that the statistical methods and the sampling simply DID NOT ADD UP.

There was NO WAY you could plug even the data they did release into a valid formula and get the results they claimed.

You would not listen, and now we know that even the data provided was purposely biased.

You should be embarrassed.

What you claim there was "NO WAY" of doing, has been done, several times over, even using independent data sets, and even using some of the recommendations from critics of the statistical methods used.

wilbur
12-01-2009, 09:10 AM
You mean they saved the doctored data. The actual raw data was purged and it WAS intentional.

Doctored is purposefully malicious sounding - any time climate readings are done, the data is "doctored" to account for certain variables.

Speedy
12-01-2009, 09:11 AM
Doctored is purposefully malicious sounding - any time climate readings are done, the data is "doctored" to account for certain variables.

Yeah, variables like the temperature dropping or not going up fast enough.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2009, 09:20 AM
What you claim there was "NO WAY" of doing, has been done, several times over, even using independent data sets, and even using some of the recommendations from critics of the statistical methods used.


Not with legitimate statistical methods. Don't take my word for it. Here is an independent commission specifically set up by the United States Congress's Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to address this question.


Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium
cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our
background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low
frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that
was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses,
thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the
methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The
paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims
essentially unverifiable.


And


As we mentioned earlier, it is common for data analysis and pattern recognition
experts to use a training sample for calibration. Normally one would seek to have
the training data to be representative of what one might expect from the entire
dataset. Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because
of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully
appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal
components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds
entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by
someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has
close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in
passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have
Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has
a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is
no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies
have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.



And


It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely
heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical
community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf


These links explain the math and the issue.


Mann's warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that the blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific inquiry and the blade does not represent the observed climate record, it is unreliable.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba478/


http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3010.htm (http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3010.htm)

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=166

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2009, 09:57 AM
Doctored is purposefully malicious sounding - any time climate readings are done, the data is "doctored" to account for certain variables.


That is NOT what they were doing here, and you know it. They were purposely skewing the information in order to fit the data to their theories instead of the other way around.

BadCat
12-01-2009, 10:18 AM
Hey guys, just because Wilblow trashes your religion doesn't mean you need to trash his.



Oh hell, I can't stand the faggot, trash away.

Speedy
12-01-2009, 03:45 PM
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac356/Bitter_Clinger2009/2009-11-24_123836.jpg