3 ms·

> Apparently, you aren't supposed to know that IPCC's climate change reports are based on raw data that was lost some time in the 1980s. I honestly don't know

by Joeboy 17y ago

> Apparently, you aren't supposed to know that IPCC's climate change reports are based on raw data that was lost some time in the 1980s. I honestly don't know to what extent, if any, any of the IPCC's reports rely that data, but strongly suspect saying they're 'based on' it is a significant overstatement of the case.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
Published research in any scientific field relies on citations of citations of citations. The data lost dates back to the 1970s, so it's not obvious what relies on it and what doesn't. I don't think the field of climate science is going to vanish in a puff of logic, the way some of its politicized critics are clearly hoping. But I do think that we ought to wait for a thorough, open audit, rather than assuming that climate science should continue as before with no changes.
patio11 17y ago
To satisfy your curiosity I went looking for you. It didn't take long. Chapter One. Figure One. It is the top graph. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg This is cited as WGI FAQ 3.1 in the text, which if you look here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html is footnoted as 1) from the HadCRUT3 data set. HadCRUT3 is (to the best of my understanding) what the dog didn't eat. (You can download it here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ )
- Joeboy 17y ago
  Thanks for that. However, the inclusion of this graph still doesn't demonstrate that the report is 'based on' the missing raw data. There are plenty of other datasets they could have chosen that would have shown the same thing.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    How do you know? Can you provide links to some? Remember that the key is to establish the provenance of the data, perhaps by documenting the circumstances under which it was collected and the people who did the work, rather than just to proffer up a set of numbers.
    - Joeboy 17y ago
      > How do you know? Can you provide links to some? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php I'm afraid I don't have time to document the circumstances under which they were collected or the people who did the work.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  I really wish they'd zoom out these graphs. Seeing the trend for only the last 100 years is useless.
- DougWebb 17y ago
  >> "Seeing the trend for only the last 100 years is useless." That's why they don't zoom out the graphs. When you can see a few hundred thousand years, you realize the planet is currently nowhere near as warm as it has often been in the past, and that the global average temperature fluctuates a lot. The AGW people want to "prevent" the change, but that's not possible, and the debate has been distracting us from the real challenge: how will we survive and thrive despite the change?

by Joeboy 17y ago

mnemonicsloth 17y ago

Published research in any scientific field relies on citations of citations of citations. The data lost dates back to the 1970s, so it's not obvious what relies on it and what doesn't. I don't think the field of climate science is going to vanish in a puff of logic, the way some of its politicized critics are clearly hoping. But I do think that we ought to wait for a thorough, open audit, rather than assuming that climate science should continue as before with no changes.

patio11 17y ago

To satisfy your curiosity I went looking for you. It didn't take long. Chapter One. Figure One. It is the top graph. http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg This is cited as WGI FAQ 3.1 in the text, which if you look here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html is footnoted as 1) from the HadCRUT3 data set. HadCRUT3 is (to the best of my understanding) what the dog didn't eat. (You can download it here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ )

Joeboy 17y ago
Thanks for that. However, the inclusion of this graph still doesn't demonstrate that the report is 'based on' the missing raw data. There are plenty of other datasets they could have chosen that would have shown the same thing.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  How do you know? Can you provide links to some? Remember that the key is to establish the provenance of the data, perhaps by documenting the circumstances under which it was collected and the people who did the work, rather than just to proffer up a set of numbers.
  - Joeboy 17y ago
    > How do you know? Can you provide links to some? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php I'm afraid I don't have time to document the circumstances under which they were collected or the people who did the work.
bumblebird 17y ago
I really wish they'd zoom out these graphs. Seeing the trend for only the last 100 years is useless.
DougWebb 17y ago
>> "Seeing the trend for only the last 100 years is useless." That's why they don't zoom out the graphs. When you can see a few hundred thousand years, you realize the planet is currently nowhere near as warm as it has often been in the past, and that the global average temperature fluctuates a lot. The AGW people want to "prevent" the change, but that's not possible, and the debate has been distracting us from the real challenge: how will we survive and thrive despite the change?