Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 1 Dec 2009 15:08 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:12:09 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > Even so, if the NAMDO--which affects temperatures and weather and > clouds--isn't understood, as you concede, how did those climate models > accurately project and integrate the effects of those clouds over all that > simulated time? If the GCM doesn't know how many, how reflective, and how > widespread the clouds are, how can it compute and integrate the solar > input to calculate total warming? It can't. > > It's bogus. Everybody knows Garbage In, Garbage Out. Therefore, garbage into a garbage "model" yields Garbage Squared. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 15:36 On Nov 28, 10:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 5:15 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 10:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged > > > > from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to > > > > 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an > > > > uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?) > > > Check out the ranges of forcings estimated here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas > > > " * water vapor, which contributes 3672% [a 2:1 range] > > * carbon dioxide, which contributes 926% [3:1] > > * methane, which contributes 49% > > * ozone, which contributes 37%" > > These aren't, stictly speaking. forcings. > > If you had read further down the page, you would have come across this > line > > "It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact > percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases > absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that > the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of > each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; > the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[8][9]" > > Forcings are calculated for for actual atmospheres containing > specific concentrations of gases and this particular source of > uncertainty largely goes away. Since the lapse rate means that water > vapour concentrations drop away quite rapidly with increasing > altitude, this isn't an entirely trivial calculation. > > For the record, you have just proved - once again - that you don't > know what you are talking about. You skipped the introductory sentence: "When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:" So, you've made a useless distinction. In IPCC-ian cant, "forcing" means yet something else to what it meant in common language. The upshot is still that--whatever the term-of-art be in your particular cult--the heat inputs from those sources are not accurately quantified, and their uncertainty dwarfs the heating thought to be from manmade CO2. > > > It might be if it had been offered by someone who knew what they were > > > talking about. These are the sorts of numbers that Christopher > > > Monckton comes up with > > > >http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec7 > > > > More reliable sources seem to be able to come up with a narrower > > > range. > > > >http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204 > > > They estimate it using models: > > > "So how is Radiative Forcing calculated? For the most > > part, it is estimated using data from what is referred > > to as General Circulation Models (GCMs). These > > models use numerous methodologies[...]" > > As I mentioned in the post to which you are responding, (a point also > made in the wikipedia page you cited, but don't seem to have read > either), the greenhouse effect of each gas in the atmosphere depends > on the concentration of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, > and you have to construct a model of the atmosphere before you can > calculate a radiative forcing for that atmosphere. I read it, but I don't get your point. The alleged contribution of these GHGs to Earth-warming in Earth-atmosphere is what matters, nothing else. It's not a mystery, it's a planet, with a well-known atmospheric composition. So the correct measure of GHG-warming potential would be of each gas' contribution in the mix as naturally occurs on Earth, or dF/dConcentration in close approximations of that mix, or some such, obviously. If they don't know that exactly, they don't know anything. If you want to insist the mix varies widely, having large effects, then you have to show that your model accurately predicts how much water vapor and so forth appears everywhere on the planet, at all levels of the atmosphere, and integrates that correctly over time. You can't meet that burden. And still you should be able to supply one overall measure of each gas' influence, to a precision better than the AGW you're asserting for CO2. Just integrate the contribution, per volume, over the atmosphere. That gives a number, per gas, that could be listed in that table. And, to be of any use, it'd better be an accurate number. > > > gives a figure of 1.66 W/m², with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m². > > > The same source goes on to give a 4:1 uncertainty range(!) for net > > anthropogenic forcing: > > > "Overall, the total net anthropogenic Radiative Forcing > > is equal to an average value of 1.6 W/m² [0.6 to 2.4 W/m²]. > > This means a warming of the climate." > > IIRR these are 95% confdence limits, and include quite a lot of > uncertainty to cover features of the atmosphere that the current > generation of climate models, running on the current generation of > computers don't model well. > > We may be able to do better in a few years Despite your protestations: 4:1 bounds on a 95% confidence interval. That's a joke, of course. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 15:53 On Nov 28, 11:17 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 5:53 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > > Global Climate Models fail simple tests like that. They don't know > > from ocean currents. > > Yet. Because we don't yet have the ocean current data to plug into > them. That's one reason long-term predictions from global climate models don't and can't work. Your explanation of that failing doesn't make it go away. > > They don't accurately model clouds. > > Yet. > > > Without > > those things you can't model heat flow from the equator to the poles, > > which is what drives our entire climate. > > Nonsense. You just can't model as accurately as you could if you had > the data about the ocean currents and didn't have to smear out the > effets of clouds. Without clouds, you're not modeling life. They cool the days, and warm the nights, in case you hadn't noticed. GCMs perforce have to integrate those heat inputs; if they don't, they don't work. It's that simple. > The heat still has to get from the equator to the poles, and you can > plug in black boxes that will do it well enough for government work. > > > That *is* our climate. They > > assume static ice sheets and static vegetation, i.e., semi-static > > albedo. IOW, they run on hamsters. And they're missing some wheels. > > > They're getting better, but they still aren't predictive 100 years or > > even 20 years--or even 10 years, as we've just seen--into the future. > > Of course they are predictive. It's just that the predictions are a > good deal less than perfectly accurate. > > > So, pointing to GCMs as proof of apocalyptic prognostications of doom > > is, well, bogus. They just aren't nearly that good yet--they don't > > handle all the many factors well enough--and even if they did we have > > no way to prove they're right, to know they haven't omitted something > > important, or just plain made a mistake. > > They aren't proof of apocalyptic prognostications of doom. They are > tools that let us see that if we continue to inject CO2 into the > atmosphere at the current rate or faster, the world will be several > degrees warmer than it is now within a hundred years or so You can't draw any such conclusion. It's entirely possible we'll have more clouds, or more reflective clouds, and the whole thing will balance out. Or it could all be horribly worse. The models just can't say. It seems entirely likely we'll be warmer in 100 years than now--we've been warming ever since the last ice age (during this interglacial thereof, technically). Not long ago elephants had fur. Now they don't. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 16:44 On Nov 28, 11:18 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2:44 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Nov 27, 10:19 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at > > > > the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our > > > > understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, > > > > how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth.. > > > > Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I > > > could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much > > > simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in > > > the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work. > > > > If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much > > > about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither > > > of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our > > > opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive. > > > So, your argument is that you're a poor judge of source code when you > > see it, and that it's all over your head anyhow. And, you can say > > this without reading the code, or trying to see if it makes sense. > > Therefore, the code is reliable. > > No. You want me to have blind faith in your judgement of the > reliablity of the code. Granting your memory and credibility problems, > even you should be able to understand that this might not be evidnece > of sound judgement. > > > You argue from faith: blind faith, sight unseen, in people you don't > > know, their measurements, their adjustments, their understanding of > > the processes, their integrity, and their code. All these are > > necessary. > > In a large number of different people who are publishing comparing the > results they get from a range of different models. This sort of > process seems to work well in a lot of different areas of science, and > there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that it isn't working > in climatorlogy. > > > I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never > > looked. That's faith. > > I didn't say ot was pure. I said I didn't trust your judgement. Then read it yourself you goof. Don't defend what you haven't seen to someone who has. <snip posting conspiracy theory> > > > The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce > > > accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to > > > predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because > > > didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo > > > project is only now beginning to telling us about. > > > You'll notice that I pointed that shortcoming out years ago, here? > > In another post which has mysteriously vanished from the archives? Okay, let's just address that, shall we? In the following post, for example, I said that you can't model climate without ocean currents, and I explained weather models to you, Bill: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/879070f8223754b1?scoring=d& ===== Quote ===== Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design From: James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:41:41 -0700 Local: Fri, Aug 24 2007 12:41 pm Subject: Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst? Bill Sloman wrote: > James Arthur wrote: <snip> > > Currents move heat. You can't predict where a current will wind up > > unless you can predict the other currents it will interact with. To > > predict those you need to know their initial state. > > If you can't predict the heat flows, you can't predict the climate. > We know that you can't predict the weather that way, let alone the > climate. Incorrect. Weather *is* predicted that way: intial conditions input into a finite element analysis (FEA) modelling program. The results are surprisingly good these days, but the farther you project the results, the greater the model diverges from reality.[...] > The equations you have to solve to do detailed predictions are too > sensitive to intial conditions for it to be possible to predict the > weather more than four or five days in advance. AIUI, weather can be predicted decently well as much as two weeks(?) in advance by the above method.[...] === <snip>=== > In order to predict the climate, you have to lose the fine detail and > set up lumped approximations that capture the average behaviour of the > system - it isn't precise or exact, but it does give you a better > understanding of the system than does throwing your hands up in the > air and denying that any kind of prediction is possible. That would be kind of useless, wouldn't it? How do you propose to know the climate without knowing the course and temperature of the Gulf Stream, that huge moderating influence to the U.K.'s (and Europe's?) weather? Surely we've not forgotten the large affect El Niño has on our weather? Or the jet stream, for that matter. How can one make claims about the future climate without knowing these? And how can you project these surface effects without knowing the deep ocean currents? ===== End quote ===== Quod erat demonstrandum. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Jon Kirwan on 1 Dec 2009 17:22
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>>> <much snipped, my apologies> >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. >>>>>> If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from >>>>>> it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of >>>>>> money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, >>>>>> then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't >>>>>> really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that >>>>>> made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that >>>>>> shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really >>>>>> doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So >>>>>> again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that >>>>>> someone else should have caught. >>>>>> >>>>>> An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal >>>>>> correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by >>>>>> Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this >>>>>> inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results >>>>>> that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all >>>>>> over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go >>>>>> back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. >>>>>> Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, >>>>>> Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with >>>>>> the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious >>>>>> time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by >>>>>> all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since >>>>>> they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any >>>>>> case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data >>>>>> sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they >>>>>> discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama >>>>>> team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months >>>>>> to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and >>>>>> republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the >>>>>> spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work >>>>>> long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's >>>>>> work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing >>>>>> their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much >>>>>> credit given for this. Just credit taken away. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering >>>>>> questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not >>>>>> duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. >>>>>> That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is >>>>>> important. >>>>>> >>>>>> _Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs >>>>>> and interim data aren't that important. ... >>>>> But raw input data is. That's what it was about. >>>> Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. >>>> Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where >>>> _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary. >>>> >>>> Mind telling me what raw data you asked for? >>> Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed. >> >> That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several >> methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways >> from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique >> characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a >> sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements >> and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant >> to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data." >> >> It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking >> for. > >I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request >I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did >not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data. >To be able to understand where their conclusions came from. By 'local water level' were you talking about a specific area? Or everywhere in the world? There are many instrumentation differences, methodology of measurement differences, and so on, if you are talking global. On the other hand, if you were talking about the SF bay area and some specific team and time frame, I think you'd probably get the data. Here in Portland, we have a NOAA weather office, for example. They do things like read temperatures, monitor rain precipitation, snow precipitation, wind speed and direction, and the usual lot of your basic measurements. Some of the data is intermittent -- snow fall has ceased to be measured, about 10 years ago, and monitoring wasn't begun until perhaps the 1950's. Some of it is continuous, like temperature, going back a ways. However, the locations of the measurement, the type of measuring instrument, the frequency and timing of those measurements, and the calibration methods used have changed over the years. Even though there is some digesting of the data before it makes it into their SF6 preliminary product, it's still not reliable and certainly not usable as a continuous dataset without a lot of specific information to help. Much of that information isn't even available on the web. Even the more recent data only goes back 5 years -- by policy, after this late Bush took office and had key staff in Washington DC _order_ (I've read the order, personally) the datasets curtailed on the web. They do have data going back further and, upon request, sent me much of it. However, to make use of that data as well as other data that still remained only in paper records, I has to personally visit the office and take days of time going through stacks of old papers and copy out calibration standards and references and methodology. And that is just one process variable for one site. So what exactly were you asking for? >> Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of >> subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 >> discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't >> "raw data" without my saying so. >> >> Here, take a look at this one from this year: >> >> http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf > >1.12mm/year, or 0.77mm per the other guys. Whew, we won't drown then :-)) Mostly, I wanted to point out the effort required to fuse even just a couple of data sets. My above comments give you even more about it. By the way, 1.12mm/year represents perhaps (in my opinion) the single largest source of rise, right now, except perhaps thermal expansion. In other words, mountain glacier loss is pronounced and not to be set aside or laughed at. Broadly speaking, it's important and widespread. >> Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me >> a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues >> involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved >> understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means. >> >> Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to >> some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They >> wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw >> data. Which raw data? > >I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never >assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying >data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read >those but they are still provided. > >If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open. >Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken. Well, the report I cited provides all you need to know. From there, you can realize the assumptions and know at least some of what else may need to be examined further. You know the data sets, broadly speaking, and can track those down (or ask for more details.) You know the results and methods and probably could get very close to replication, if you put in the work he did. What else should have been included? >> Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" >> You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, >> exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? >> What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder >> if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that. > >But I would not brush them off. Depends. If the subject were far, far more complex and the question illustrating much, much further to go in terms of education... you might. I think I definitely would brush them off, because I frankly care about my time, unless they somehow showed me the were serious enough to work hard for their own opinion. If someone is serious and can show it, I usually agree with you. I love it when people want to know things and are willing to put in the sweat to get there. But there are so many people out there who aren't. And in climate science, it's is _so_ politicized and there is _so_ much money there for those willing to do little other than confuse and waste others' time, that you really _do_ need to be a little careful. Even the late Bush administration actively worked hard to "make this political." I only wish the world were different. But it isn't. Still, many scientists are generous people and a lot of them will give away their time even when the questioners msy only be asking to be annoying and will never do anything with the effort granted them. Best foot forward is to show you have put in some time, first, and know just a little bit about what they've done and are currently interested in. Just as that would be a best foot forward with you. For example, I know that you look for other than boutique parts and often have a cost/space issue and sometimes deal with controlling RF power levels fewer have to. If I were writing to you for information, it might go just a little further perhaps that I was at least aware of some of your own concerns and could couch my request in a way that presents well. It's just good practice. >> I would. >> >> This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing >> some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the >> issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine >> your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it >> into a context they understand. >> >> I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about >> electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it >> patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even >> thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it >> worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How >> can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know >> they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a >> short, directed answer that helps, either. > >Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the >sound of your radio?" I think you know what I mean, though. They might be asking also for a lot of work on your part in the request. (Presumed here, because when you ask a scientist for 'sea level data' you probably are asking for an hour or two of their time, if for no other reason than to explain to you the caveats of it.) And yes, taking your point it would be nice if scientists would ask you for more about what you plan to do or what problem you are trying to solve, so they can better advise you even if they don't plan themselves to provide everything. Often, they can refer you to someone else, or a good book on the subject. >> It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going >> around asking questions. >> >> I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind >> of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think >> about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of >> someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider >> how you might have to respond in similar circumstances. >> >> The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.' > >It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for >brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be >that hard. Yes, it can. Which stations? How long of a period? Did the instrumentation change? If so, when and when and when? Did the locations change, too? If so, what are the calibration differences? How were they determined and with what precision and variances, based on methods used? What methods were used? Have there also been changes in the land mass, itself, based upon satellite observation or other geologic information that confounds the measurements in the interim? Etc. I'm only just getting started. >>>>>> ... If you are going to attempt >>>>>> replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to >>>>>> do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a >>>>>> chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of >>>>>> course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of >>>>>> course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all >>>>>> anyone really needs. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in >>>>>> answering the questions, then you don't even need that. >>>>>> >>>>>> The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And >>>>>> they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too >>>>>> many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing >>>>>> methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at >>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where >>>>>> I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually >>>>>> understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ... >>>>> Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? >>>> I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood >>>> them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend >>>> what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then >>>> still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate >>>> keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with >>>> understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they >>>> want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly. >>>> >>>> I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I >>>> refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I >>>> didn't feel up to it. >>> But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not >>> just send a link to a web site with the data? >> >> Because it doesn't exist? Sometimes, the data is developed as an >> output of specific methods applied to a range of datasets coming from >> a variety of sources of varying pedigree/provenance and there are a >> host of error bounds and other assumptions, known about and unknown, >> applied in order to generate an internal result that is then >> summarized. The interim data is internal and, frankly, doesn't really >> matter. They've disclosed the methodology and sources in the paper >> and they very well may not wish to send you the internal work product. > >Then I would have appreciated a link to that paper. Yes, I agree. >> Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results >> by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work >> for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have >> to do it, yourself, too. >> >>> It doesn't have to be >>> exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most >>> of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other >>> countries' agencies). >> >> May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from >> some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees >> at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that >> tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees >> from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone >> else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data >> set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is >> the explicit OUTPUT of a paper. >> >> Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, >> conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to >> know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. >> Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on >> your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not >> entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think >> and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. >> But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access >> the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of >> someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't >> have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you >> really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot >> more about you and what you intend to do with it. > >All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements, >averages, from the stations. Read my above comments. It's not 'that easy,' except to someone who hasn't ever done this. But of course, to those ignorant of the details everything seems 'easy.' Boy did I learn that digging my own foundations and perimeter wall cement forms! Just the very idea of 'digging a level base' seems easy enough to conceive. Until you go there and dig it out. Not the work, but what you find. I found biotic material here going twice as deep as I wanted to dig, in one corner of the area. And NONE of the books told me how to deal with it -- except to say that the foundation needs to based upon inert ground. So I knew I had a problem. It took me days to work out the answers and remove all of the 'bad' material leaving cavities, develop engineered fill on my own, learn how to tamp it down properly and bring the cavities back up, and move earth around the area to bring a more uniform appearance. Damn! I just wanted a level foundation. Reality impinges. Nothing is easy. Especially this stuff. >> I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years >> of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else >> have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have >> all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally >> misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know >> stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact. > >Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to >teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the >league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to >web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an >abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering >requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all, >lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from >publications). I think I have every right to control _my_ time. Sometimes, I think the effort is worth it and, since I generally agree with your approach, I often try. But in the end, _I_ decide when and where I am willing. Sometimes, I've got other things going on (like my daughter) that require my time and it's just a bad time that the request comes in. So I brush them off. I usually try and send them somewhere slightly useful and spend _some_ time, even then. But if the number of requests were high, perhaps, and my personal circumstances very demanding at the time... I might not respond at all. If the questioner is serious, they will either write in a few months or else they will find someone else. I don't owe anyone my time, though. >>>> Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by >>>> someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long >>>> ways, my experience. >>> That's what I always do. In requests as in replies. >> >> It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do. >> >>>>> That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look >>>>> at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After >>>>> finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed >>>>> off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would >>>>> have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great. >>>>> >>>>> <snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time> >>>> Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot >>>> better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own. >>>> YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting... >>> I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data >>> might be. I don't think that's asking too much. >> >> Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it >> unless you are more specific. > >Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly >what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from >areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not >interested in that particular data anymore. Show me what you know about getting 'sea level data.' What instrumentation is used, Joerg? Where and over what periods of time? What areas are markedly different in their methods? How have methods changed over time? How are they calibrated? How do you calibrate the differences in means and methods against each other (how do you match up measurements from one method with another, even in the same area?) How have positions of instrumentation changed and why? How does land level changes affect results? Which satellites and instruments aboard are also used in all this? How are they used? What processing is required merely to get a measurement out of satellite based equipment that can be used, in the first place? How long have they been in space? Etc. What work have you really done, here? Seriously. What puts you in the position of being able to come to your own opinion on any of it? Where are your callouses? Show me. Jon |