the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climate Audit Mirror Site

Posted by Jeff Id on November 21, 2009

For those of us who have been experiencing Climate Audit withdrawal, Steve has decided to run a mirror site on WordPress.

Steve McIntyre was the center and subject of many of the emails and much of the controversy.  He discusses the FOIA requests and what appears to be a collusion to block FOIA requests by government employees and climate scientists.

CRU Refuses FOI Request

Let’s see if we can crash this one too.


11 Responses to “Climate Audit Mirror Site”

  1. Jeff Id said

    Comments don’t seem to be working at CA. Another interesting discussion is at Lucia’s and Roger Pielke juniors.

    Here’s Lucia’s post which has links to the Pielke post.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/enemies-caught-in-action/

  2. dearieme said

    The market-ticker blog carries a very nice find:-

    “ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently – I have no memory of this at all – we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

    OH F**K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

    Maybe the reason that these rogues wouldn’t hand data over to McIntyre is that they realise that their data archive is a squalid heap of junk.

  3. crosspatch said

    “The market-ticker blog carries a very nice find:-”

    That find would be in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file in the “documents” directory.

  4. vjones said

    Extract from HARRY_READ_ME.txt file:

    crua6[/cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre] ./getcountry
    Enter the database to search: ../update_top/db/tmp/tmp.0904151410.dtb

    Enter the country name to extract: FRANCE
    104 stations written to ../update_top/db/tmp/tmp.0904151410.dtb.FRANCE

    Somehow, I’ve added 71 new French stations?! Surely I’d remember that. Especially
    as they’d have had to have arrived with the MCDW/CLIMAT bulletins. Sizes:

    crua6[/cru/cruts/version_3_0/fixing_tmp_and_pre] wc -l *FRANCE
    2725 tmp.0705101334.dtb.FRANCE
    3700 tmp.0904151410.dtb.FRANCE

    That’s not so bad. Well the ratio’s improved. Could be a lot of unmatched incoming
    stations?

    Oh, ****. It’s the bloody WMO codes again. **** these bloody non-standard, ambiguous,
    illogical systems. Amateur hour again.

    First example, the beautiful city of Lille. Here are the appropriate headers:

    tmp.0705101334.dtb.FRANCE:
    70150 506 31 47 LILLE FRANCE 1851 2006 101851 -999.00

    tmp.0904151410.dtb.FRANCE:
    701500 5034 306 52 LILLE FRANCE 2000 2009 -999 0
    7015000 5034 306 52 LILLE FRANCE 1851 2008 101851 -999.00

    So.. just what I was secretly hoping for (not!) – a drains-up on the CLIMAT and MCDW
    programs, otherwise known as climat2cruauto.for and mcdw2cruauto.for, as well as the
    merging program, mergedbauto.for.

    Runs to more than 300 pages. Commentary on running files “/cru/dpe1a/f014 & /cru/tyn1/f014”

  5. Geoff said

    From 1121721126

    From: Keith Brxxxx
    To: jto@x.xxxxxxx.xxx,eystein.janxxx@xxx.xxx.no,tcrowxxx@dxxx.edu
    Subject: thoughts and Figure for MWP box
    Date: Mon Jul 18 17:12:06 2005

    Dear Peck, Eystein and Tom
    At this point we thought it was important to review where we think we are with the MWP Figure.

    First, we have no objection to a Figure . Our only concerns have been that we should

    1/… be clear what we wish this Figure to illustrate (in the specific context of the MWP box) – note that this is very different from trying to produce a Figure in such a way as to
    bias what it says (I am not suggesting that we are, but we have to guard against any later charge that we did this). We say this because there are intonations in some of Peck’s previous messages that he wishes to “nail” the MWP – i.e. this could be interpreted as trying to say there was no such thing, and

    2/ …agree that we have done this in the best way.

    The truth is that there IS a period of relative warmth around the end of the 1st and start of the 2nd millennium C.E. , but that there are much fewer data to base this conclusion on (and hence the uncertainty around even our multiple calibrated multi-proxy reconstructions are wide). The geographical spread of data also impart a northern (and land) bias in our early proxy data. My understanding of Tom’s rationale with the Figure is that we should show how, because the timing of maximum pre-20th century warmth is different in different records, the magnitude of the warmest period (for the Hemisphere , or globe, as a whole) is
    less than the recently observed warmth.

    The reconstructions we plot in Chapter 6 already express the mean Hemispheric warmth (after various selection and scaling of data), and so the additional information that the MWP box figure should show must relate to the scatter of the proxy data. There seems to be a consensus that this is best done by showing individual records , and we are happy to agree.

    What we worry very much about, however, is that we should not produce a Figure that then conflicts with the picture of proxy evidence for Hemispheric mean warmth as a whole,shown in the main Chapter Figure. By showing a composite (as Tom has done) and scaling against another (30-90degrees N) temperature record -this is just what is done.

    As we promised, Tim has produced a similar Figure, using the same series plus a few extras, but omitting the composite mean and the scaling against instrumental temperatures. The idea was to include as many of the original input series (to the various reconstructions) as we could – though avoiding conflicting use of different versions of the same data. The precise selection of records will have to be agreed and, presumably, based on some clear, objective criteria that we would need to justify (this will not be straight forward). This, along with Tom’s plot (forwarded by Peck) is in the attachment.

    We would like to get your opinion now, and especially Tom’s, on the points regarding the composite and scaling. We would be in favour of just showing the series – but do they make the point (and emphasise the message of the text in the box)? Or does the scatter of the various series as plotted, dilute the message about the strength of 20th century mean warming (note the apparently greater scatter in the 20th century in our figure than in Tom’s)? Can you all chip in here please.
    best wishes
    Keith and Tim
    P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA .

  6. […] Climate Audit Mirror Site « the Air Vent By admin | category: mirror | tags: been-experiencing, climate, climate-audit, […]

  7. Don B said

    On Saturday, November 21, The Denver Post carried a shortened form of Andy Revkin’s NYT article on page 21A. The piece included Revkin’s statement that since it was widely accepted that mankind had caused global warming, this didn’t matter.

    Boulder’s Daily Camera had nothing. I wasn’t surprised.

    It will be interesting to see what is in the Sunday papers.

  8. rcrejects said

    Peter Webster (who unlike Steve McIntyre was given access to CRU data) has posted at RC (CRU Hack thread, Post 862).

    Quote: Peter Webster says: 22 November 2009 at 11:23 AM

    Gavin,

    I don’t think it matters whether or not the hacking and subsequent publication of emails is illegal. The point is that damage has been done to the credibility of climate science. I have been a long believer in the transparency of science and the need for free access to base data and corresponding meta-data, techniques used and arguments for inclusion of exclusion of data. We faced this problem early in the TOGA period and developed a 2-year policy that has been widely accepted in funding agencies world wide.

    If the CRU data had been made publicly available for scrutiny at an earlier time, then these recent events would have been irrelevant. The data sets and their interpretations would have sunk or floated on their merit. Given the importance of a surface temperature record for the wide-ranging implications to society, science and etc., these data should have been made available a long time ago. The only way for credibility to be regained or earned is for the data sets in question to be made available for wide scrutiny. For data sets collected by a PI (e.g., ice cores, coral, and other proxy sets) the 2-year TOGA should perhaps apply. Accumulated data sets (e.g., collections of surface temperature records and etc.) need to be made available immediately along with the accompanying data I have mentioned above. I believe that it would be great folly for backs to be turned at this time. I know that I will hear that there are agreements with different countries in place that preclude making data widely available. I am sorry to say that would ring a little hollow.

    Data was made available to some of us and I am grateful for that as it has proven extremely important in trying to understand the 1935-45 warming. Perhaps a way around the fiscal issue is to state which data is precluded from being made available. I guess that is meta-data as well. But I think that we have to move on as openly as we can be. /Quote.

  9. Jeff Id said

    #8 That’s fantastic news and all anyone really wants. It’s good that people realize the old guard and cover methods are dead. If they want to keep burning the Jet fuel while telling us not to, they need to provide the rationale openly.

    Thanks for the copy.

  10. rcrejects said

    Jeff. Peter Webster has put up another post at the RC “CRU Hack” thread. He is obviously more than ticked off by what has been revealed.

    Post 991

    “Peter Webster says: 22 November 2009 at 5:41 PM

    Re: message 898: Please explain, Charlie, when was it a “mistake” to provide a scientist with data?

    BTW, and as an aside, I think the 1940’s bump raises some unanswered questions.

    Are you saying these should not be raised or some groups think they should not be raised?

    Hmmmmmm……

    Peter”

  11. Thankfully some bloggers can write. Thank you for this read.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: