Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

[Martin Tomasek <tomasek () ufe cz>]

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > 1) Can you measure temperature with error less than 0.1C?
> >     
>
> Why do you *think* they take a whole bunch of measurements and average them?
>   

Because they believe averaging will reduce that error. I think they are 
mistaken.


> > 2) Do you know about how big is measurement uncertainty for your data?
> >     
>
> You *do* realize that instrument calibration is a pretty well understood field?
>   

Yes, I have background in measurement theory..

> > 3) Do you know that satellite temperature measurements are models, 
> > calibrated by ground temperature?
> >     
>
> Did you know that the mercury thermometer is just a model based on expansion
> and contraction of a liquid? Oh noes, we can't trust them. Or the ones
> based on two strips of metal with different coefficients of expansion. Oh
> wait, we can't trust *any* measurement, because its a model calibrated against
> something else...
>   

Lol, but that satellite measurement is done through poorly understood 
area (the atmosphere), calibrated with biased temperature measurements 
and designed with belief that layered structure of the atmosphere is 
constant over whole earth (which is not true). And then presented as 
reality. What should I think of such a people?

> > 4) Do you know that most of temperature measurement is done in urban 
> > areas, biasing the measurement?
> >     
>
> Unless youre referring to the fact that there's a higher density of
> measurements in urban areas (for example, could be 1 per square mile in
> the city but only 1 per 40 square miles in the country).  Rest assured
> that is *not* a major challenge for anybody who actually understands how
> to do modelling, because you *never* get a nice perfect rectangular mesh
> of perfect sensor readings. You get messy data, broken sensors, that
> one area you couldn't put sensors into the experiment because there was
> a structural support there, the subject sneezed and moved slightly,
> etc etc etc.  So dealing with missing/incomplete data has been understood
> for as long as scientists have been analyzing datasets.
>   

It is more difficult than you think. I tried to find info on some of 
weather stations in the US. The ones which seemed suspicious the moment 
I looked at the data. Then I googled photographs of some of them. One 
was on a parking lot, second was just after pub's ventilation etc.. At 
the moment I suspect that there are more of highly biased weather 
stations. If I'm right, when anyone calculate average temperature from 
such a data, it will show bigger temperature growth. If there is only a 
small number of highly biased stations, everything is ok of course.

I should cluster the stations by data, but it wouldn't prove anything 
without someone who would look at the actual station in natura. I have 
no time for trip over the US photographing weather stations, so I can't 
verify it.

> > 5) Do you know something about 'butterfly effect'? (great differences in 
> > state trajectories by some time, which reduces prediction horizont of 
> > your model, depending on measurement error)
> >     
>
> Did you know that the scientific discipline that first understood the
> butterfly effect was, in fact, meteorology?  They've been working at
> understanding it longer than anybody else.
>   

Yes, I know about Lorentz, who discovered that effect. I do not take 
'they have been working on it longer than..' as an argument.

>   
> > 6) Do you know that reality is more real than any model?
> >     
>
> Oh, give me a *fucking* *break*.  It's called the Scientific Method. Make
> a hypothesis, see how close it fits to reality, and fix it when it doesn't.
>   

I know this is trivial. But I have seen some graphs, related to 
climatology, which speaks for itselves. :-( Look for example at IPCC 
reports. Look at the graphs. You understand this, but they don't. (Or 
they do but want to produce more scary graphs to get more money)

Yes, I am slightly paranoid on IPCC. I consider IPCC as 
environmentalistic institution.

> > I am quite sure most of IPCC climate scientists won't pass even 3 of 
> > these 6 points. :-((
> >     
>
> I'll take that wager. :)
>   

:-)

--
Martin Tomasek


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.