4 ms·

It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded l

It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.

yters 8y ago
It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
- Comevius 8y ago
  Are you refering to the two email leaks from the University of East Anglia (Climategate), the one in 2009 and the 2011 one to Russian servers? There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it. I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there. For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
  - yters 8y ago
    Yes, the 2009 leak. Did you look through the material yourself? And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner. UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me: - Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization. - The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything. - The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations. This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.

yters 8y ago

It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P

Comevius 8y ago
Are you refering to the two email leaks from the University of East Anglia (Climategate), the one in 2009 and the 2011 one to Russian servers? There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it. I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there. For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
- yters 8y ago
  Yes, the 2009 leak. Did you look through the material yourself? And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner. UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me: - Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization. - The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything. - The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations. This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.