UK's Climate Research Unit server Hacked -- Cat out of bag

[EvilYeti]

I just got email from Tim Lambert @Deltoid re: potential FOIA request violations. He pointed me to this press release from CRU

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre ... /CRUupdate

CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

So there goes the last of the supposed "scandal". Again, this is similar to my experience with FOIA requests; i.e. most of them are from cranks that ask for something that either doesn't exist or you otherwise don't possess, or when they get what they ask for throw a fit when it doesn't fit into their paranoid fantasy world. I have to admit that filing a FOIA request for something that is already in the public domain is a new one and strikes me as a pretty pathetic attack.

Anyways, the real story is the hack itself and the resulting slander...

"...we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capita ... scien.html

[xouper]

I really don't get this. What on earth is wrong with gaining qualifications at any age? I'd say it's admirable.

If you are a professional or otherwise successful, sure. Go for it.

For the record, that's exactly the category I am in, and everyone who knows me personally in real life already knows this. Obviously Yeti does not believe that, but honestly does anyone here actually care what Yeti thinks? Yeti's opinion of me has absolutely no basis in fact.

Xouper is the exact opposite. He's never left school, likely never will and spends his days taking cheap shots at real scientists while hiding behind a picture of one; which I personally find grotesque.

The 'permanent student' is the worst of the worst in academia and far and away the most unpleasant and childish customer for me to deal with. Imagine trying to work with a 15 year old in a 45 year old body and you will have an inkling of what its like.

Thankfully, working for a top-ranked research institution, we have barriers in place to keep rubbish like this out.

If anyone wants to see an official denial from me, then here it is: except perhaps for my age category, nothing Yeti has said about me is true. Yeti is simply making up shit. If anything, it makes him look bad, not me. I don't know why he chooses to embarrass himself like this. and unlike Yeti, I do not feel the need to boast about my professional career since it has no relevance to anything on this forum.

[xouper]

Is that supposed to be another insult?

Unlike you, I am not a poser who claims to be a unix expert.

How on earth could you ever be fit to judge who is?

I don't have to be a unix expert to see that in your own weasel way, you inadvertently conceded he was right.

We can add 'lack of English comprehension' to your litany of personal failings.

Nope. It is obvious to those following that thread that you got pantsed. Deal with it. Your own sudden change in demeanor in that thread gave you away and everyone can see it. It was the same kind of change in demeanor that a bullshit artist does when he suddenly realizes the person he is bullshitting is a true expert and his bullshit has been outed. But feel free to keep spinning what happened if you feel the need to save face. Of course we also know what kind of person constantly feels the need to boast about his (alleged) superior prowess.

[DrMatt]

In any case, the "cat out of the bag" is that tree rings stop working as a climate indicator when there's significant air pollution, so to cover such eras you have to add back in the real data. And a media circus based on taking part of that statement out of context.

Now, move along here, there's nothing to see.

[Rob Lister]

In any case, the "cat out of the bag" is that tree rings stop working as a climate indicator when there's significant air pollution, so to cover such eras you have to add back in the real data. And a media circus based on taking part of that statement out of context.

Evidences?
And if true, what other sensitivities impact growth? Warmth? Chill? Wind? Carbon fertilization? Insects?

What is more likely is that tree rings just suck as thermometers.

You might even say, 'there's nothing to see there'.
:lol: :lol:

[Mentat]

Air pollution on a global scale exists in nature albeit intermittently. e.g. Krakatoa.

It may not fuck up the planet as much as the persistent man made stuff, but why wouldn't it throw off the tree-ring "thermometer"?

It would in one way: volcanic air junk can cause a drop in global temperatures.

[Mentat]

It would in one way: volcanic air junk can cause a drop in global temperatures.

But would it be reflected in the tree rings or not?

I'm not arguing anything right this minute, just trying to figure out what is or isn't actually the case with tree ring measurements.

For the really big explosions, I guess so. If the trees are situated in the lava or pyroclastic flows, there could be some alterations. Globally, I think so too.

[Mentat]

Decreased sunlight = less growth?

That, and doesn't year long cold slow down metabolism (and thus growth) or something for trees?

[Mentat]

I understrand what the correlation is between tree rings and temperature, the question is why does air pollution throw it off?

Particulates throwing off sunlight comes to mind.

[Cool Hand]

What is more likely is that tree rings just suck as thermometers.

This appears to be a very reasonable inference. If true, it also suggests that any models, analysis, and forecasts using tree rings for proxies for man-made thermometers are probably using unreliable data.

The likelihood of unreliable data being part of the analysis leading to alarmist claims regarding rapid modern climate change is one of my most persistent sources of doubt on this subject.

CH

[Cool Hand]

I understrand what the correlation is between tree rings and temperature, the question is why does air pollution throw it off?

Particulates throwing off sunlight comes to mind.

That's not the question he's asking you. You are giving circular answers.

CH

[Mentat]

I understrand what the correlation is between tree rings and temperature, the question is why does air pollution throw it off?

Particulates throwing off sunlight comes to mind.

That's not the question he's asking you. You are giving circular answers.

CH

Circular? It's morning, I'm sick, so I've just been throwing stuff off the top of my head. (and not with good english)

Although I don't see how my last post is circular.

[Mentat]

Here: Air pollution (if it's particulate) blocks sunlight. Decreased sunlight may lead to decreased growth.

About as circular as a brick.

[Bearguin]

I thought the issue was the increased CO2. By increasing the amount of CO2, the trees are able to maintain higher growth rates with decreased temperatures.

So, if Krakatoa tossed a lot of CO2 into the air, but lowered the overall temperature, this temp drop may be hidden if just looking at tree rings.

But it is tough to rely on tree rings for temperature data when the correlation hasn't been proven for periods there is actual temp data.

[Mentat]

Why would tree rings grow more if the temperatures went down and sunlight decreased?

[robinson]

Because trees grow due to water and nutrients more than any other factor. Unless they are shaded by other trees.

Tree rings are not considered a reliable source of temperature data. By scientist who study trees.

[Mentat]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

[robinson]

This is where "hide the decline" comes in. When you compare tree ring growth with accurate current data, they don't show a direct relationship between growth and temperature.

More accurate dating using isotopes has shown a more direct correlation between temperature and growth, but again rainfall is the dominate factor.

Isotope measurements show clearly both the little ice age and the medieval warming period. Two events that "the consensus", whatever the fuck that is, try to deny happened.

Other methods also show clearly the warm period and the little ice age.

[Cool Hand]

I understrand what the correlation is between tree rings and temperature, the question is why does air pollution throw it off?

Particulates throwing off sunlight comes to mind.

That's not the question he's asking you. You are giving circular answers.

CH

Circular? It's morning, I'm sick, so I've just been throwing stuff off the top of my head. (and not with good english)

Although I don't see how my last post is circular.

First, sorry you're sick. I hope you feel better soon.

I meant that you are answering the same question over and over (as in being circular in your responses), but I don't think it's the question Abdul is asking.

You seem to think Abdul is asking about the mechanism for how particulates in the air, whether from volcanoes or man-made pollution, can block sunlight and cause worldwide temperatures to fall. Check. I think most of us who completed high school get that.

What I think you're missing in Abdul's question is that he gets that too. He's asking why pollution (or volcanoes) would make the tree ring data as proxies for temperature (on the belief they act as natural thermometers) unreliable for those periods, or in his words, "throw it off?"

In other words, the rings should reflect periods of warming and cooling. Cooling caused by particulates shouldn't be any less reliable than cooling caused by any other means. What's so special about particulate-induced cooling that makes tree rings unreliable as proxies for real thermometers during those particulate dominated time periods?

CH

[robinson]

For the uninformed, alarmist scientist have tried to say the little ice age and the warm period only happened in Europe.

This is blatant fraud.

[robinson]

Well, if AA says it's good, I will look.

He's asking why pollution (or volcanoes) would make the tree ring data as proxies for temperature (on the belief they act as natural thermometers) unreliable for those periods, or in his words, "throw it off?"CH

Several issues. Increased CO2 causes increased growth, especially when rainfall increases. Volcanic ash can cause an increase in growth even when temperatures are lower.

In other words, the rings should reflect periods of warming and cooling. Cooling caused by particulates shouldn't be any less reliable than cooling caused by any other means. CH

Not so, because global dimming (pollution or volcano caused) does not effect growth the same as colder weather.

What's so special about particulate-induced cooling that makes tree rings unreliable as proxies for real thermometers during those particulate dominated time periods?

It seems to be a case of the data doesn't match, so it can't be reliable.

In other words, it got colder, but growth increased, so we can't use the data. Hence, hide the decline.

[xouper]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

See for example this tree: YADO61.

[DrMatt]

Is it a binary tree... or decimal?

[hammegk]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

See for example this tree: YADO61.

Does someone have a cite that debunks the (apparent) YAD061 situation and gets back on the AGW=TRUE track?

[robinson]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... world.html

Fascinating stuff.

Climategate. it just keeps going.

[Mentat]

I understrand what the correlation is between tree rings and temperature, the question is why does air pollution throw it off?

Particulates throwing off sunlight comes to mind.

That's not the question he's asking you. You are giving circular answers.

CH

Circular? It's morning, I'm sick, so I've just been throwing stuff off the top of my head. (and not with good english)

Although I don't see how my last post is circular.

First, sorry you're sick. I hope you feel better soon.

I meant that you are answering the same question over and over (as in being circular in your responses), but I don't think it's the question Abdul is asking.

You seem to think Abdul is asking about the mechanism for how particulates in the air, whether from volcanoes or man-made pollution, can block sunlight and cause worldwide temperatures to fall. Check. I think most of us who completed high school get that.

What I think you're missing in Abdul's question is that he gets that too. He's asking why pollution (or volcanoes) would make the tree ring data as proxies for temperature (on the belief they act as natural thermometers) unreliable for those periods, or in his words, "throw it off?"

In other words, the rings should reflect periods of warming and cooling. Cooling caused by particulates shouldn't be any less reliable than cooling caused by any other means. What's so special about particulate-induced cooling that makes tree rings unreliable as proxies for real thermometers during those particulate dominated time periods?

CH

I see. I don't think that the particulate cooling is any different, I just thought AA was asking how the particulates effected the size of the rings, not how the reliability changes. Which AFAIK, it doesn't.

[Mentat]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

See for example this tree: YADO61.

Is there a *scientific* article describing it? My google fu just brings up a bunch of blogs, all of which don't seem to be informative.

[hammegk]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

See for example this tree: YADO61.

Is there a *scientific* article describing it? My google fu just brings up a bunch of blogs, all of which don't seem to be informative.

I realize WattsUp is a blog. It does have an interesting picture re YAD061.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a ... tree-core/

Only Ed knows what the true situation is.

[Mentat]

As I understand it, one thing being claimed is the the tree ring data in modern times are not reliable due to pollution.

That they are not reliable is confirmed by measurements with thermometers, but the question is why?

If this is a foolish formulation of what's being claimed, please address why exactly.

It's not a foolish question. For one, I could give a million reasons of what could cause anomalies in the past few centuries due to human intervention in local ecosystems, ignoring global air pollution. But if you can find some trees in places virtually unaffected by society, and they all also deviate when calibrated, then there's definitely a problem. Whether or not that is the case, I don't know.

Pretty much: we can't rule out that we have an effect on tree growth aside from warming/cooling, but that doesn't mean trees are the most reliable things in the world. I don't know, and am not the most knowledgeable one on this matter.

For all we know, the introduction of a trace chemical from windex that leaks into the soil on every continent could inhibit amphibian reproduction, leading to a chain reaction that increases/decreases tree growth. (That's probably not too far off . . . ). Reason #21356.

[Cool Hand]

As I understand it, one thing being claimed is the the tree ring data in modern times are not reliable due to pollution.

That they are not reliable is confirmed by measurements with thermometers, but the question is why?

If this is a foolish formulation of what's being claimed, please address why exactly.

It's not a foolish question. For one, I could give a million reasons of what could cause anomalies in the past few centuries due to human intervention in local ecosystems, ignoring global air pollution. But if you can find some trees in places virtually unaffected by society, and they all also deviate when calibrated, then there's definitely a problem. Whether or not that is the case, I don't know.

Pretty much: we can't rule out that we have an effect on tree growth aside from warming/cooling, but that doesn't mean trees are the most reliable things in the world. I don't know, and am not the most knowledgeable one on this matter.

For all we know, the introduction of a trace chemical from windex that leaks into the soil on every continent could inhibit amphibian reproduction, leading to a chain reaction that increases/decreases tree growth. (That's probably not too far off . . . ). Reason #21356.

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable response. At least you are honest and forthright enough to say so, unlike Yeti who knows it all.

Anyway, regarding this issue, it's not really whether or not pollution affects tree growth. The bigger issue is whether using tree rings to measure global or even local temperatures is reliable. If not, then does it make any sense to use tree rings as proxies for temperature in situations where we don't have any other reliable means of measuring or checking historical temperatures?

The real question being implied here is whether we may be lacking reliable temperature data for those data sets that use tree rings.

At least that's the way I see it.

Ch

[robinson]

The real question being implied here is whether we may be lacking reliable temperature data for those data sets that use tree rings.

At least that's the way I see it.

Ch

Quite astute. And there are a lot of scientist looking at these problems.

[DrMatt]

As I understand it, one thing being claimed is the the tree ring data in modern times are not reliable due to pollution.

That they are not reliable is confirmed by measurements with thermometers, but the question is why?

If this is a foolish formulation of what's being claimed, please address why exactly.

Because up to about 150 years ago they corrolate pretty well with other things like CO2 in ice cores. They become outliers to all the other indicators just about the time that people start tracking temperatures in various places in a way that leaves a useful record. That happens to be about the start of the industrial revolution. That's about all. For really deep records they're useless because we hardly have any tree rings older than a few thousand years.

[Rob Lister]

Because up to about 150 years ago they corrolate pretty well with other things like CO2 in ice cores. They become outliers to all the other indicators just about the time that people start tracking temperatures in various places in a way that leaves a useful record. That happens to be about the start of the industrial revolution. That's about all. For really deep records they're useless because we hardly have any tree rings older than a few thousand years.

That may or may not actually be the case but the ice cores themselves were not correlated to thermometers.

[Rob Lister]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

But that is exactly what Briffa, et al did. Of course, it took years to find out that's what they did because they would not release their data.

[Mentat]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

But that is exactly what Briffa, et al did. Of course, it took years to find out that's what they did because they would not release their data.

Is this still about that damn tree?

[Rob Lister]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

But that is exactly what Briffa, et al did. Of course, it took years to find out that's what they did because they would not release their data.

Is this still about that damn tree?

That 'damn tree' is illustrative of every 'damn study' the hockey team did throughout each of their careers. It was not science, it was advocacy dressed up as science.

[Mentat]

You're an idiot to look only at one tree if you're looking for global trends.

But that is exactly what Briffa, et al did. Of course, it took years to find out that's what they did because they would not release their data.

Is this still about that damn tree?

That 'damn tree' is illustrative of every 'damn study' the hockey team did throughout each of their careers. It was not science, it was advocacy dressed up as science.

But why won't somebody link to it?

[robinson]

Link to what?

[robinson]

http://volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads ... rected.jpg

http://volokh.com/2009/12/04/looking-ba ... a-acoount/

There are only about a million web pages about the single tree and the hockey stick.

[Mentat]

I meant a scientific article using only the tree. If there isn't, then I can only chalk this up to a big strawman argument.