Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#31

Post by conjectures »

ajford wrote: post #23
wolfgke wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is easy (in the sense: takes little time) to check if the opposite side provides the data and source code of the computer program that lead them to the conclusions. If not, one can simply give out this reason. If they do, on the other hand, I consider it as sufficiently scientifically intesting to analyze what different kind of model their program used (that lead to different conclusions) and why this mode…

The problem is that budgets for science are controlled by the relatively uneducated (as is seemingly the case for most legislators), at least when it relates to the fields of science. And they are often easily swayed by unreviewed and unverified articles in public magazines/newspapers/blogs/etc. Even more so for the public, who hold a strong sway over legislators due to elections and what-not. So it is in no way easy…

Indeed. Though I think we need to resist the slide towards post-truth politics.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#32

Post by jackmott »

dozzie wrote: post #30
frankmcsherry wrote: post #28

I'm personally inclined to support the climate change folks, being a scientist and stuff, but it's a bit crap to claim that it was a one word typo when the original text apparently read: > For predictor selection, both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period to avoid inflating the correlation coefficient due to the presence of the global warming signal present in the obse…

Well, what you expect from people who happen to turn around in their (unverifiable) models 180 degrees (Amazon jungle net produces oxygen! No, it's a net consumer!) and who routinely produce models that use some physical value (heat capacity in greenhosue effect), but fail to account for major substances influencing the value (water concentration in atmosphere)?

I'm not an expert on the history of opinions on amazon oxygen, but

>but fail to account for major substances influencing the value (water concentration in atmosphere)?

is absolutely false.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#33

Post by jackmott »

wolfgke wrote: post #2

I see a large problem in the fact that (as it seems) the original data and the computer code is not published, too. This is in my opinion a contradiction to the scientific principle that any result or conclusion has to be able to verified independently as much as possible. Though not publishing data and computer programs (and ideally a virtual machine for independent execution of the program code, too) is unluckily a…

>any result or conclusion has to be able to verified independently as much as possible

Well, collecting the data yourself and writing the code yourself would be even more independent.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#34

Post by dalke »

wolfgke wrote: post #27
elcapitan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if there is so much to support - they most likely run some archaic Fortran code that only 5 people in the world understand, compiled for some specific cluster, where it runs multiple days for one dataset, and is only numerically stable in that particular environment.

This is why on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720 I also suggested to provide a virtual machine image if possible (unluckily providing one is in my opinion not always possible). On the other hand if another team ran the code independently and we really saw that it is numerically unstable in another environment, this would be, in my opinion, a strong case for the importance of providing the source code.

I don't think you understand what elcapitan means by numerically stable.

Numeric stability is a function of the environment. If I take an algorithm designed for 128 bit IEEE binary floats and implement it on a system with 64 bit floats, then it may be unstable.

That doesn't say anything about the correctness of the original method for the original environment. It only means the method wasn't designed for the new environment.

You are used to a world where computers are a commodity, likely based around the Intel architecture, and almost certainly using IEEE floats.

What do you do with a computer program written for Anton, a specialized computer for doing molecular dynamics built using specialized ASICs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_(computer)

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#35

Post by jackmott »

jkot wrote: post #9
bertil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that for climate science, a lot of effort is spent to debunk claims, by well-financed groups who will publish without independent peer-review but with a clear goal in mind. Allowing those groups to access the same data means that the researchers will have to spend a lot more effort explaining why those claims are unfounded. That means the researchers are not really encouraged into sharing the data…

Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. Climate science is way more important than astronomy. It should have much higher standards for transparency, not other way around.

> Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science.

It is not paranoid, it isn't even secret.

Koch Brothers Exxon Heritage Foundation

are just 3 examples. It is absolutely within the purview of science to consider these things, as is anything. You can't just declare it off limits. We observe and have records of these groups paying people to write fake sciency-sounding reports on climate science constantly.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#36

Post by jackmott »

jkot wrote: post #3

> Meanwhile, our team received a flurry of hate mail and an onslaught of time-consuming Freedom of Information requests for access to our raw data and years of our emails, in search of ammunition to undermine and discredit our team and results. > The mammoth process involved three extra rounds of peer-review and four new peer-reviewers. From the original submission on 3 November, 2011, to the paper’s re-acceptance on…

There has been enough raw data and code out there for an amateur to confirm that global warming is real for decades. I did it myself ~10 years ago. Here is a small subset of data and code that is public domain:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#37

Post by a2l »

SeanDav wrote: post #29
phaemon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we're not. The complete opposite in fact: the planet would naturally be cooling now were it not for the increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

> "Technically speaking, we’re living during an ‘Ice Age’ today – in the sense that we have a world with glaciers. However, the present time is a relatively warm phase within a period of geological time when glaciers and ice sheets have typically been larger and more extensive than now." Taken from: http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+St... There are other sources, but this is one example that m…

Also from the same site:

> "Since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (an important greenhouse gas) has risen significantly above the level it would be naturally. It now stands at over 400 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Evidence from ice cores (see Lesson four) tells us that the normal level for CO2 in the atmosphere during ‘interglacial’ times (such as the Holocene in which we now live) is 270 to 290 ppm, and that at no time over the last 800,000 (the time covered by ice cores) has the CO2 level been as high as it is now. (CO2 is thought to be at its highest level for three to five million years.)"

http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+St...

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#38

Post by jasonellis »

frankmcsherry wrote: post #28

I'm personally inclined to support the climate change folks, being a scientist and stuff, but it's a bit crap to claim that it was a one word typo when the original text apparently read: > For predictor selection, both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period to avoid inflating the correlation coefficient due to the presence of the global warming signal present in the obse…

The one word typo was in the code, not the paper. It was setting DETREND to FALSE instead of TRUE. Their assertions were based on thinking they were working with detrended data instead of the raw data that they actually used.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#39

Post by titzer »

dzdt wrote: post #15

Global warming denialists are attempting a denial-of-service attack against global warming science. The goal is to keep the science unsettled so no major policy changes are made while those making the most profits from climate-changing activities continue to do so.

I was about to respond to your comment and argue that some of them generally have good intentions, and that your comment was paranoia about a conspiracy....but then I realized you pretty much nailed it. I used to doubt climate science...15 years ago. Now I don't.

Re: How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking

#40

Post by SeanDav »

a2l wrote: post #37
SeanDav wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Technically speaking, we’re living during an ‘Ice Age’ today – in the sense that we have a world with glaciers. However, the present time is a relatively warm phase within a period of geological time when glaciers and ice sheets have typically been larger and more extensive than now." Taken from: http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+St... There are other sources, but this is one example that m…

Also from the same site: > "Since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (an important greenhouse gas) has risen significantly above the level it would be naturally. It now stands at over 400 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Evidence from ice cores (see Lesson four) tells us that the normal level for CO2 in the atmosphere during ‘interglacial’ ti…

You misunderstand me - I am not talking about man made climate change. I am saying that having data that shows current temperatures are highest ever in 1000 years is not surprising, given that temperatures have been rising for last several thousand years.

If one had a time machine and went back 1000 years, took temperatures and compared them to those from previous thousand years, one would not be surprised to see that on average they were higher.

Post reply on HN