Flawed climate data • Hacker News Board

Re: Flawed climate data

#11

Post by mechanical_fish » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:31 AM UTC

rjurney wrote: post #8

ghosttrails wrote: post #7

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.

Public funding should require full disclosure of all data as well as the paper generated by the research.

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.

Re: Flawed climate data

#12

Post by lukifer » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:37 AM UTC

earle wrote: post #4

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...

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.

Re: Flawed climate data

#13

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:38 AM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #11

rjurney wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public funding should require full disclosure of all data as well as the paper generated by the research.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Flawed climate data

#14

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:40 AM UTC

earle wrote: post #4

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.

Re: Flawed climate data

#15

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:50 AM UTC

rjurney wrote: post #6

How reliant are we overall on tree data to track temperature trends?

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.

Re: Flawed climate data

#16

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 2:55 AM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #11

rjurney wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public funding should require full disclosure of all data as well as the paper generated by the research.

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.

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?

Re: Flawed climate data

#17

Post by sorbus » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 3:06 AM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #10

ghosttrails wrote: post #7

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 c…

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).

Re: Flawed climate data

#18

Post by kevbin » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 3:25 AM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #10

ghosttrails wrote: post #7

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 c…

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.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/99_6.cfm

Re: Flawed climate data

#19

Post by grandalf » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 3:28 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #16

mechanical_fish wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

I'd download it. I think the idea of a "napster of academic research" is a great idea, fwiw :)

Re: Flawed climate data

#20

Post by patrickgzill » Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 4:04 AM UTC

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?