Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 05, 2009, 21:46
Interesting code analysis here:

http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm

Read carefully. Non-programmers possibly won't appreciate all the points, but there's enough for the layman to get some appreciation of the problems.
DarkMagus
170 posts

An answer to one of my questions...
Dec 06, 2009, 00:10
BBC admits to policy of effectively one sided reporting of global warming. One uncomfortable reporter!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm
stray
stray
2057 posts

Edited Dec 06, 2009, 08:17
Re: Hi Guys!
Dec 06, 2009, 07:25
Sorry, been busy so only just got round to this.

DarkMagus wrote:

Here's an example of my understanding of data. Say I'm using temperature records in a computer model taken from sites that have seen a change in urbanisation and therefore ambient temperature due to local man made influences. How do I correct for that with any degree of certainty? Do I pick a number that fits the trend I want to see? How do I know I'm right? I can't. Also, say cloud cover is a bigger influence on temperature than CO2, how do I model cloud cover for the last 100 years say? Where's the accurate data for that? You have to make something up. Only you couch it in some nicer language. Getting the picture? We simply do not have reliable data over any significant period of time. When I do any measurements, everything is traceable to national standards & therefore has some chance of validity. Can you say that of the temperature measurements from around the world for the last few centuries? I doubt it. Then factor in weather stations moving & the fact they are measuring at individual points, not integrating over wide areas & the picture starts looking even more unreliable.


Seriously ? Are you really just plucking (really bad, illinformed) scenarios out of the air without really knowing exactly what datasets are actually available in order to defend your position ? well, it isn't defending your position very well, and I say again, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of modelling/analysing complex datasets. This paragraph you have written kinda confirms it.

I'm guessing you've read someone going off on one about the 'aperture effect' as you mention cloud cover. So ? Does that negate the positive correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature increases ? No, it doesn't of course (assuming here that you do know something of what you're talking about you should agree). The underlying trend/correlation is still there, yes ?

Sure, we don't know why it's happening exactly (remember the causal/statistical link between smoking and cancer here) and as in every other mathematical model of a non-linear, non deterministic, recursively adaptive system we can never, ever be sure we have all the numbers on the table. So ? What you definitely CANNOT say is global warming is BS when there is a definite statistical link between CO2 emissions and global temperature increases, seen ? What you can say, and we probably agree here, is that we have no way of sensibly predicting how bad things are going to get EXACTLY and WHEN.
We can say however things are bad and they are going to get worse.

Also

DarkMagus wrote:

Can you say that of the temperature measurements from around the world for the last few centuries? I doubt it.


You see, if you did know what you were talking about then saying that is being a bit of a cock right ? You do know there are ways of dealing with such inconsistencies mathematically right ? You do know that it is possible to create regions of legitimacy accross disparate datasets yeah ? You do know that an unknown variable at a particular time can be reasonably inferred from a seperate dataset where a calculatable relationship to the unknown exists ? Also, ever heard of regression analysis ? That could also probably be used against a more solid dataset. God there are so many ways of dealing with things like this you know ? Edit : I bet theres even some kind of awesome probability based approach you could use too (Peirce perhaps ?).

I could pull apart every bad example from the above paragraph but I won't, cos I'm taking you at your word that you do actually know something about the subject of modelling and data analysis. Therefore I'm putting this post of yours down to being from the cheap end of philosophy, a poor attempt to point score against a considered uneducated. However, if you do believe what you've said, and honestly think these problems you've raised are the major issues then seriously, read more.

Edit : All datasets have different health warnings attached to them in terms of their consistency and reliability. People like me know this, we know how to cope with it, and publish how the analysis was done, and how confident we are about the results/conclusions. Not only that, but there is this thing called peer review.

You do see that all you're doing is mumbling conspiracy theory with absolutely no real understanding of the science or the method right ?
stray
stray
2057 posts

Edited Dec 06, 2009, 09:06
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 06, 2009, 08:34
DarkMagus wrote:

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”


If they aren't being forced to recreate their homogenised set (as in there hasn't been anything put forward by the scientific community that completely blows away the initial axioms they drew up when they created the aforementioned set) then this is not an issue. Anyone with a background in IT, and/or science, should know this. You only need to go back to your raw data when your whole analysis approach has to change. Or you were remarkably dumb and got the granularity of a series of variables that you absolutely need at the wrong level (which can happen of course, especially in a research lab speaking from experience). Also, as Merrick points out, the raw data in question does exist elsewhere too.

I did reply to your other post too btw.
http://headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/55494/threaded/695396

Edit : And yeah, there is a lot of shit code running in research labs. It does annoy and horrify me somewhat. Scientists have a habit of thinking they can write code, or they think they know who is a 'good guy' when it comes to interviewing developers. It's fucked up. But then, if you see the salaries of developers in such enviroments then it isn't really surprising.
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 06, 2009, 11:07
You need to go back to your raw data to know it hasn't been distorted eithert deliberatly or accidently! Given the apparent handling of the data at CRU there is no way to know this is not the case. You appear to know nothing about traceability. At my work when we get one of our regular audits we need to show a chain of custody & proof of who did what right back to the recording of raw data. Any changes are recorded. EVERTYHING is retained. Given their budget the CRU excuse of "lack of space" just doesn't wash! We have a lack of space, but somehow manage. Clue: there are companies that will archive material for a reasonable fee.

Imagine the inland revenue queried your tax return? "Ah, I appear to have lost all my receipts & bank statements, but here's what I wrote down. Will that do?" It won't will it? Same with the CRU debacle.
stray
stray
2057 posts

Edited Dec 06, 2009, 13:48
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 06, 2009, 13:43
DarkMagus wrote:
You need to go back to your raw data to know it hasn't been distorted eithert deliberatly or accidently! Given the apparent handling of the data at CRU there is no way to know this is not the case. You appear to know nothing about traceability.


Given, yep it is crap of them. That isn't the point though in that it doesn't actually negate any analysis run on the homogenised set does it? Or maybe it does if they 'cant remember' the process of creating the set. Yep, during a review or audit they may be screwed for its lack, and rightly so. The fact that they don't have some of the raw data is not grounds to dismiss everything they've run against the mart they've built though. Plus, come on, plenty of good research is done against aggregated or value-added data by plenty of establishments that have no access to the raw data it was generated from. Stop being silly and disingenuous over the seriousness of this particular issue.

Comparing anyone elses dataset against your own, as you are doing in your -we manage with little space- argument is pretty dumb though considering you have no idea what they have, or had, in terms of resources and actual data quantities. Get a grip.

Edit:Oh and as I and Merrick have both pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES the raw data is available elsewhere, where they got it from in the first place. Plus the Hadley CRU is not the only research establishment working on climate models. Get over it. What is your problem ? You not getting funding ? Come clean and tell us what field you are working in.
DarkMagus
170 posts

Edited Dec 06, 2009, 22:45
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 06, 2009, 22:40
For what it's worth, I'm in the private sector with no financial stake at all regarding global warming. Real or not it affects my job in no way that I can see. Maybe you should ask the same of all those promoting the theory.

Your faith in the other researchers is touching considering how secrtetive they have been too. Every revelation seems to weaken their case, which perhaps explains it. I take it we should just trust them all...
PMM
PMM
3155 posts

in a nutshell...
Dec 06, 2009, 22:59
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
stray
stray
2057 posts

Edited Dec 07, 2009, 07:24
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 07, 2009, 07:22
Wait a minute.. So every time somebody argues a reasonable point against you you'll just ignore it ? But you expect other people to defend themselves. I thought you had a scientific or analytical background, yet you've ignored and refused to deal with pretty much every counter argument I've put to you. Either you were lying about your background, or you're shit at it.
stray
stray
2057 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 07, 2009, 07:26
DarkMagus wrote:

Your faith in the other researchers is touching considering how secrtetive they have been too.


And what is this shit ? Requires citations.
Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index