Your off-topic ratio must be literally around 99%. Your
I'm puzzled!
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |(Remembering some trivia from some threads about aiming TV antennas to
Sigh.
If I _knew_ the source and motivation (such as Climate Audit), I
I frankly don't know every circumstance. You can talk about yours and
Well, I think the FOI request process is one of many potentially good
I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, eitherJon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
[...]
In
some countries that is considered a criminal act (when you actually
delete it) and AFAIR a probe into this has been contemplated by two US
congressmen. And I think they are darn right to demand one now.
If data really has been deleted in this sense I guess some folks better
look for a nice place somewhere where they have no extradition. Maybe
Brazil?
snip of more I'll have time for, later
I'll admit this to you. The comment I quoted from your web site is
one of the two things that bothered me. But you really seem to be
seeing things there I don't, too. So lay this out carefully for me.
I'd like to see what you see, and what supports it.
Hope I did above
Maybe.
Anyway, yes I have a problem with this kind of frank comment. But I
saw the fuller context. I'd like to know if you went to the actual
exchanges, yourself, or if all you've done is read some angry summary
and got angry yourself without taking _your_ time to see for yourself.
Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled
out of some hat then this is very serious. And I hope the two
congressmen who want to have this investigated prevail with their
efforts. The people of this world have a right to get to the ground of this.
Oh, I think the emails are real. Though I can't say for sure, of
course. Could be doctored. But what I've read through 'looks real'
to me. So I tentatively conclude they are.
Some of them bother me. But I realize that these people are real
humans who have genuine emotions. I take the good with the bad, as I
said before. None of us are perfect.
No, we aren't. However, the style in those emails is something I have
never ever seen in business. It is a style that I do not like and that
raises suspicion.
I'm bothered by some of them, too. But you know? The emails I copied
out are some megabytes in size and cover _some_ interactions of _some_
people involved. They are a 'random snapshot' of some kind, but also
selective by their very nature. I think if the fuller context were
out there (all emails by all climate scientists) we'd find more, but
still on balance would find serious people working generally hard to
do serious and meaningful work, fairly and honestly. There will be
exceptions, of course. And some will obviously be less professional
and still others will do poor work, as well, that others know about
and snipe on about. But I think the _weight_ of it would be something
to be proud of.
As I said, though, these are people like you and me.
Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite
concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people
higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to
work for the common good.
I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an
organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then
an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case
but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point.
I didn't say "ethical." Don't change the goal posts on me in the
Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view ofAs you admit earlier here, the McDonald's approach _works_. Just
paint an emotion and people are driven like sheep by it. And this
technical stuff is beyond their ken, anyway. Or they don't have the
time because they have a life, too. So a good smear compaign works
wonders. Always has. Always will. And reading through emails is a
great way to find some really nice 'sizzle.' The public won't care
about the meat, anyway.
Yep. And I hope those scientists have learned their lesson, that one
does not write such stuff.
[...]
snip
Joerg:
I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.
I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion
about it.
Then I might use your own words: You need to bone up on this stuff.
No, I don't. If you want to inform me more fully because it is
important _to you_ that I know about it, that's fine. The mere fact
that I'm ignorant really means that I don't know everything there is
to know. But I already knew that. Oh, well.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You told me that I need to dive
deeper into climate science to have an opinion. I told you that you need
to dive deeper into the climate of the past and now suddenly that is wrong?
No, I'm just saying I don't know anything about "Schnidljoch." Never
even heard of it until I read your words. It does happen to be true
that I live a limited life.
See? Same here. I've got to work to earn a living, then there needs to
be family time, and volunteer work which I won't sacrifice to study
reams of climate stuff because then I'd let people down. This is why we
all must rely on other source we can trust for much of our opinion-building.
History is very important, and quite well documented because the Romans
were sort of perfectionists in this area. Archaeologists always came
across as honest and modest folks, at let to me. So when they find
evidence I usually believe them. And they did find evidence here, big time.
I think you are making too much out of far too little. But I don't
know what you see and perhaps you will be able to walk me through your
path so that I get it and agree with you. I already said a couple of
things bother me about the released letters and I've just today
admitted one of the general areas of that. None of it changes what
the knowledge I've gained in specific areas where I've spent my time.
Not in the least.
Schnidljoch is just one example of many, of passes in the Alps that have
been mostly or completely free of ice in the not too distant past (Roman
era). There is proof of that and I have pointed that out, with link. You
can actually go there and look at the stuff they found. Then it got
colder and they became covered in thick ice, became glaciers,
unpassable, uninhabitable. Just like large swaths of Greenland did. Now
the ice begins to melt again and lots of scientists panic ;-)
[...]
Well, I suppose I need you to inform me about all this.
In a nutshell, this is the story of what happened (a lot of the more
detailed write-ups are in German):
http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch/about/press_coverage/article_de.html?ID=182
I can almost here some of the guys from East Anglia exclaim "Oh s..t!
Why did they have to find this?" ;-)
I'll look later when I get some time. I probably WON'T get enough
time to form an opinion about it, though. Too busy over the next few
months and I _know_ in advance that it will take me weeks of research
to become comprehensively informed, if not months. I even suspect
_you_ aren't comprehensively informed on this. So maybe I should wait
until you agree with me, jointly, to walk the same walk here and both
become _fully_ informed on this issue before I proceed. Why should I
waste my precious weeks of life, if you aren't willing?
All I want is that AGW folks take this stuff into consideration. I have
looked for this because when I read in one AGW-related article that such
glacier conditions have never existed in civilized times I remembered
details from history classes, about the Romans, and that just didn't
jibe. Sure enough, it didn't.
We understand each other, then.Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@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.
Don't remember exactly. IIRC I asked for Asian stations where I couldn't
get at 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?
Jon, it doesn't matter anymore
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.
I know it is. But is also has been a few thousand years ago. Back then
many people were smarter than today. For example, I read about a French
architect who loudly said that building at the place where New Orleans
now is was a bad idea. And he gave the reasons. Nobody listened ...
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?
The report you cited is fine. However, since you said glacier melt is
the single largest contributor then why are some other estimates so way
off? Like this:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
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.)
No, I was just asking for pointers. Not hours of his time. A pointer, in
the sense of your example above, would be suggesting a certain web link
or book for further studies. I have done that numerous times when I had
the impression the requester was really not of to snuff yet. There have
been cases where I thought I'd never hear anything back until half a
year later someone thanked me and that he'd now understood how forward
power converters really work (using my pointer).
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.
Exactly.
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.
Again, all I wanted was a pointer. Like "If you want to know more about
the stations in Taiwan start with this link". That's all.
[...]
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.
My comeuppance was when my wife asked for some irrigation "over yonder".
I looked, ah, 10 feet tops, I'll do that Saturday. Big deal. Then I hit
one rock after the other, big ones where you think the other end of it
comes out in China.
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.
No, neither do I. I don't owe but can volunteer it. With a group of
scientists working for and paid by our tax Dollars that can be
different. There are some where I wouldn't want my tax Dollars to go to
but they do anyhow. What can ya do?
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.
All I did was ask a simple question. True, my only work was reading
publications which sort of didn't jibe with their numbers. And I wanted
to know or find out why. But let's leave it at that now. It doesn't
matter anymore.
I can't say that I have noticed anything of the sort. School children
A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take
I haven't noticed that the the usual suspects have shown any signs of
<snip>
"Literally"? Either you can find 99 off-topic posts for every on-topic
You are easy to offend? You certainly seem to have been vicariously
This is the .asc file from the LTSpice 4 simulation of a similar
I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power.
I think these days they use used oil pipes for fixing arteries.
I posted some links recently in reply to your rantings, try reading those.
Sorry, I forgot you
You are not doing science here, merely advocating your AGW religious beliefs!
You should folow politics a bit closer.
Barendrecht does not bother me the least, I do not live n Barendrecht, just like Joerg does not live in Oregon.
To someone who claims he has. Your 22nd November pratfall suggests
The section snipped seems to have been
Congratulations. You've established that you then knew that the