Surely the flabbergasting thing is not whether this proves or disproves GW but that scientists are allowed to flat-out refuse to release the raw data they used to generate results.
A collection of raw data is full of systematic errors, accidental mistakes, misleading black swans, and false trails (some of which get followed for years before they finally turn out to be false). I've seen several talented, well-trained, and highly experienced scientists fool themselves for decades with their own raw data. That's why it is called raw. That's why you have to analyze data, over and over, until you can't stand it anymore, and only publish the last tiny fraction that comes out: Your best work, the stuff that you're confident in and prepared to stand behind. And that's why there's a lot more to science than just reading a lot of numbers off the front panel of your instrument and sticking them up on the web.
If I were a scientist in a controversial field, where every dropped decimal point, statistical anomaly, and speculative sentence (later to be disproved, and to make even its own author blush with the memory) was liable to be mined out of my notebooks and splashed all over the tabloids, I'd sure as hell refuse to release my raw data. Indeed, I might just decide not to release any data at all, but just switch to another field. That's obviously one of the goals of this campaign of intimidation.
One of the core parts of modern science is reproducable results - to allow anyone to take data, follow through the methods used, and locate errors (or see if something is an anomaly, in the case of experiments). Without it, science is basically meaningless - one must rely on the word of a group of people for their conclusion, and it is essentially pointless to publish the method (as it's impossible for anyone to recreate the research).
You have to release data and methods that allow other people to recreate the research. (And, obviously, your colleagues are free to object that you haven't published enough, and to ask you for more.)
But that's not the same as releasing everything you ever write down to anyone who asks, which is what the original comment seemed to be suggesting.
The problem with your raw data is that, in the hands of an opponent, especially one who argues in bad faith, the word raw is quickly and easily filed off and it gets described as "your data", despite the fact that you threw it away and didn't publish it, presumably for a reason.
It's easy to make a scientist look ridiculous -- to a nonscientist -- by poking fun at their unpublished data, just as it's easy to make a great novelist look ridiculous by poking fun at their grocery lists, their kindergarten handwriting assignments, or their unpublished first drafts.
If one is unwilling to share their data and methods, then they should not participate in scientific research. The American Physical Society, for one, expects scientists to "Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials."* In this case, reproduction is not an option—even by the original authors.
A collection of raw data is full of systematic errors, accidental mistakes, misleading black swans, and false trails (some of which get followed for years before they finally turn out to be false). I've seen several talented, well-trained, and highly experienced scientists fool themselves for decades with their own raw data.
I've done a lot of data cleaning over the years, some of it geological. Yeah, there are usually some problems. But I've never had one that I couldn't resolve. Your post implicitly assumes that only one or the other can be published. Not true. As a condition of receiving grant money, document and publish ALL raw data and any cleaned data, in addition. The interwebs still has a few bits left to hold the extra.
I believe in the free availability of all publicly-funded research papers.
And I'd be prepared to argue for the free availability of raw data as well, if we lived in a world where it wouldn't be cherry-picked by axe-grinders and used for character assassination. I don't think we live in that world. Maybe someday.
"[...] if we lived in a world where it wouldn't be cherry-picked by axe-grinders and used for character assassination."
Unfortunately, that is exactly the current problem as well, without the data being available.
The article this discussion is keyed off of Flawed climate data (http://www.financialpost.com) which argues pretty convincingly that the AGW researchers cherry-picked their data to show the "hockey stick."
The purloined emails (disclaimer, I only read the commonly reported quotes) were replete with character assassination.
Between my assertions and mechanical_fish's assertions, releasing and hiding both lead to nastiness. IMHO, hiding the data caused as much or more nastiness as releasing it. Given that Good Science is verifiable, that argues strongly that the data must be released.
There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." -- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_table
There is a lot of table pounding going on, and it sounds like it started with the AGW researchers not having quality data that could be pounded on, so they hid the data and pounded the table.
I would rather see raw data released, too. However, mechanical_fish certainly has a valid point.
For example, there's currently a bit of a tiff among some climate scientists over whether the statistical methods used to produce the "hockey stick" graphs are mathematically valid. These other scientists use different statistical methods which produce a different graph, and they argue that there's no intrinsic reason why the "hockey stick" method is better.
However, the "hockey stick" graphs correlate much more closely with CO2 measurements. If this other method is valid, then there needs to be an explanation of the divergence between temperature and CO2, which otherwise has been assumed to be closely related.
Given this disagreement among actual scientists, I can imagine the raucous noise produced when a whole bunch of armchair scientists get ahold of "raw" data and say, "Aha! Your data doesn't match your graphs! We're yanking your funding!"
I'm with you. I really really wanted to read (for example) "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950". However, all of the references to it that I can find are stuck behind paywalls, despite the paper having been authored primarily by NOAA scientists.
I fully support spending tax dollars on scientific research. That said, I think that the results of this particular bit of research have already been paid for.
I'm considering paying the nine bucks and putting it up for download. Any takers?
There is one part that sticks in my craw, that is, the part about the correction applied for post-1960 tree ring data.
It smacks of corporate / bureaucratic mindset that there was (apparently) so little effort to find out why the tree ring data diverged after 1960.
Wouldn't a scientist be fascinated by the question of why this divergence was occurring-instead of just accepting it happened?
Example: Feynman wondered if he could describe in mathematical terms the way that a spinning plate would wobble. He took it as a challenge to himself as a physicist to determine this, despite it not appearing to have any practical application. These calculations later led to his work on electron spin.
THAT is the level of curiosity I would expect from people at a top flight research institution. Or am I wrong, and there was a lot of research to determine the tree ring divergence?
I beleive that, even as the idealistic "curious scientist", one would have priorities. Perhaps it wasn't interesting enough compared to the myriad of other things one could be working on.
This McKitrick guy is like a cockroach that keeps poping back up. Not only are there TONS of datasources besides the tree ring proxies that he is so obsessed with (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/), his specific claims have been rejected many times including by peer reviewed sources such as Nature.
The released e-mail reveal that the peer-review process was hacked.
And, since that e-mail also shows that realclimate is one of the participants in the supression of contrary views from the beginning, citing it as evidence now is ....
Ok this is preposterous. If the entire peer-review process was "hacked" we can't trust any climate science? I guess all that science must be thrown away with the coal companies' refuse water.
> If the entire peer-review process was "hacked" we can't trust any climate science?
Pretty much. We don't know how the data was adjusted and the original data seems to be unavailable. Given that, what's to trust? Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but without data....
There is other data, from folks that disagree with the CRU folks....
These links are informative as the article itself without knowing Ross McKitrick's past form is quite persuasive. However on reflection it does seem extremely unlikely that the 20th century climate record was based on the cores of just 10 trees.
Climate scientists rely on (at least, but not limited to) oceanic temperature measurements, satellite measurements, and worldwide ground temperature measurements for current data modeling.
Historical data sources include ice cores, tree ring data, geological data (e.g. evidence of past glacial activity), and coral analysis. To some extent, human sources can also be used for historical data -- journals and old weather station logs -- however, I think those are generally considered to be examples of local weather events rather than climate data.
The first thing we have to acknowledge is that paleoclimatology yields century-term trends; it's not able to tell us the precise local temperatures of a given day 500 years ago, for example.
So what climate scientists do is establish "ranges of uncertainty"; their graphs and data show that, given the raw data, the reconstructed temperature was somewhere between Y1 and Y2 for a particular hundred-year period.
After comparing the reconstructions, going as far back as a.d. 1000, scientists are finding that every source of paleoclimatic data that they can come up with is showing that current temperatures are well above historical temperatures, even after taking the uncertainty into account.
That is, this century is the warmest global century since a.d. 1000, even if all of the paleoclimatic data were interpreted as warmly as possible.
They don't agree precisely in the shape of the graph -- glacial studies show a slightly different-shaped graph than borehole studies do, for example -- but the aggregate graphs do all agree on a warming trend over the last century.
However, in geological terms, a warming trend over a thousand-year period is not that big of an indicator. So what happens if we go back further?
There is a paper [1] which uses data from several other studies to reconstruct temperature deviations at 20 different global locations over a 2000-year period. It argues that the statistical methods used in other paleoclimate models are flawed, and uses a different statistical method which concludes that, in the absence of tree ring data, the Medieval Warm Period (approx. 950 a.d. to 1250 a.d.) was warmer than the current century.
I don't have the necessary background in statistics to be able to analyze the two different methods. However, even if we take that paper at face value, 2000-year data is still not geologically significant.
So, we turn to Antarctic ice cores. Specifically, data from the Vostok ice core sample shows a clear 150,000 year warming and cooling cycle, going back about 400,000 years ago (with increasing uncertainty).
At first glance, someone might think that this is damning evidence in the case for AGW. However, the recent thousand year period is a mere blip on a graph stretching back 400,000 years, so it's difficult to see the part that has climate scientists really concerned:
The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and reconstructed over the last thousand years, is dramatically greater than at any other point in the last 400,000 years. Specifically, CO2 concentrations have peaked at around 300 ppmv during the 150,000 year cycle, but are currently at around 383 ppmv.
To put this in perspective, the difference between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now, versus the amount in the peaks of the last 400,000 years, is close to the same as the difference between the peaks and the troughs.
So while the Earth clearly does have its own warming and cooling cycle, we have induced a dramatic change in the cycle, which should lead to some interesting results.
It's literally FUD (UD?), in that the skeptics are spreading uncertainty and doubt about the legitimacy of the models and the underlying data that the world leadership has accepted as gospel truth for the past decade. But it might be good FUD, because it might reopen intelligent discussion on a topic where debate has consisted of name-calling for just as long.
But it might be good FUD, because it might reopen intelligent discussion on a topic where debate has consisted of name-calling for just as long.
My suspicion is that it will renew name-calling in a discussion that has consisted of name-calling for just as long, but then, I'm a cynic. Fingers crossed, though.
Ah yes, The Financial Post. The newspaper I turn to for all of my climatological analysis. It's like International Journal of Climatology, but with better op-eds and stock listings.
If Mars is heating up a the same rate as earth, they [martians] must have quite a complex underground freeway system to produce all that CO2 on Mars, which is obviously causing Marsian Warming...
The primary evidence for Martian warming is a comparison of two photographs, one taken in 1977 and one taken in 1999, in which the planet appears brighter in 1977 than in 1999.
However, the cause of the albedo change was attributed to dust storms, not to a change in climate per se. Further, if there had been climactic change, there were only two datapoints to go on and a line drawn between them -- not exactly the kind of data that anyone on HN should choose to draw conclusions from.
More recent photographs suggest that there may be climactic cycles in effect, however the data gathered so far is utterly insufficient to even begin to guess at the systems and behaviors involved in that other planet.
One thing we do know is that Martian atmosphere is dramatically different from Earth's, and it doesn't make any more sense to draw conclusions about the one based on the other than it does to, say, conclude that Windows is subject to the same security vulnerabilities that Macs are.
How is it erroneous logic to infer human causation in global temperature rise, but not erroneous to infer a solar causation from a temperature correlation between Earth and Mars?
In my mind, the question is not whether human activity affects climate, but how much. It seems absurdly naive to me to think that tens of billions of tons of CO2 combined with widespread deforestation will not have repercussions of any kind.
