FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Click through to the link: and read the comments, particularly from the poster "Asimov". The good stuff starts on page 13.
There are scads of quotes which literally had my mouth hanging open.
Examples include: -- an admission that an attempt to replicate THEIR OWN PUBLISHED DATA came out to within half a degree (!!)
These are very promising. The vast majority in both cases are within 0.5 degrees of the published data. However, there are still plenty of values more than a degree out.
-- an admission that some of their codes EXPLICITLY give incorrect results:
The IDL gridding program calculates whether or not a station contributes to a cell, using.. graphics. Yes, it plots the station sphere of influence then checks for the colour white in the output. So there is no guarantee that the station number files, which are produced *independently* by anomdtb, will reflect what actually happened!!
-- explicit admission that they are recreating a cloud correlation function from the year 2000 from scratch because both the original correlation data file and construction file have been lost:
; program to construct cloud correlation coefficients (with DTR) ; method approximately follows New et al 2000 ; this program is required because Mark New has lost both ; the correlation data file, and construction files ; written by Tim Mitchell 10.01.03
-- a plaintive cry for help that they don't even know which files they are looking *at*:
So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet both contain monthly files.
(and in a similar vein, this gem):
Then - comparing the two candidate spc databases:
spc.0312221624.dtb
spc.94-00.0312221624.dtb
I find that they are broadly similar, except the normals lines (which
both start with '6190') are very different. I was expecting that maybe
the latter contained 94-00 normals, what I wasn't expecting was that
thet are in % x10 not %! Unbelievable - even here the conventions have
not been followed. It's botch after botch after botch. Modified the
conversion program to process either kind of normals line.
Decided to go with the 'spc.94-00.0312221624.dtb' database, as it
hopefully has some of the 94-00 normals in. I just wish I knew more.
Conversion was hampered by the discovery that some stations have a mix
of % and % x10 values! So more mods to Hsp2cldp_m.for. Then conversion,
producing cldfromspc.94000312221624.dtb. Copied the .dts file across
as is, not sure what it does unfortunately (or can't remember!).
And (to my mind) the coûp de grace:
..knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment
endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally
undocumented so we'll never know what we lost.
22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
OMG WTF???
Remember. The science is "settled".
Yep. Down at the bottom of the Erlenmeyer flask.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Cheers!
For once, I am literally *speechless*.
Cheers!
It’s all just mind-boggling..... a first-semester college freshman is expected to be more competent and rigorous than this. These ass-clowns want to run the whole world and they can’t even run their little 3rd-rate “climate research” center with any competence and honesty!!
Don’t know if you’ve seen this comment (below) in the HARRY_READ_ME files, but he sure does sound incredibly frustrated, noting the “hopeless state of our databases.”
I’m no programmer and I’ve just been browsing around a bit in the comments included in the HARRY_READ_ME files posted at the links below, but this statement of despair does seem to indict the whole project of trying to make any scientific use of this incoherent mess of badly recorded and often undocumented data (at another point the commenter noted that he “hates” this project for the spaghetti mess of garbage data and bad code that has been dumped in his lap):
**** “OH #### THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.” ****
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-35t.html
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html
But, but... Al Gore and Ed Begley, Jr., both said the debate is over.
I wish they’d quit *****ing out the cuss words - they’re the only one’s I understand.
Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...
Call for Congressional investigation...
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers..
Obama: 'Step closer' to climate deal...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.
Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."
bump
The breeze is blowing the smoke away. (it was coming from a smoke machine, not a fire!)
“...So, to me this identifies it as the program we cannot use any more because the coefficients were lost. As it says in the gridding read_me:
“Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it.
This hasn't mattered too much, because the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995 sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway.”
———”So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED.
“Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not.
And the only difference is that one directory is apparently ‘monthly’ and the other ‘annual’ - yet both contain monthly files.”
“So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!!”