Re: [asa] AGW discussion

As I understand it, the CRU at the University of East Anglia has been the
primary repository for worldwide temperature data. They obtained the raw
data from climate researchers worldwide and processed it to take care of
differences in instrumentation and collection techniques. Apparantly the
original data was tossed when the CRU moved into new quarters in (I believe)
the 80's, making it impossible for statisticians to determine whether valid
statistical methods were used in deriving the processed data. My personal
opinion is that it was unconscionable for them to destroy the original data.
Until we get more information from the UEA I guess the best conclusion we
can draw about what data was lost is "all of it."

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> John,
>
> I hear this "lost data" claim on a pretty frequent basis and am really
> quite in the dark as to what, precisely, is being spoken about.
>
> I think if, rather than vague remarks about "missing data" people were to
> refer to specific data sets (e.g. "daily temperature figures for San
> Francisco from 1845 to 2003" or something of similar precision) we might be
> better able to determine the credibility to such claims.
>
> As they stand they lie beyond scrutiny.
>
> What, precisely, is "missing"?
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
>
> Randy,
>> Would you not consider the issue of interpreting the original data one of
>> your categories below? Is everyone satisfied that the original adjustments
>> were accurate and warranted? How can we ever resolve this conclusively if we
>> no longer have that data?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 2:44:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] AGW discussion
>>
>> I'm not quite sure why it would be helpful to start yet another blogsite
>> or debate site on this topic. The experts in the field have posted pretty
>> well everything on the topic and I don't know what we would add to the
>> dialog. Virtually everything we have to say has been said in one way or
>> another. www.realclimate.org has many key contributors to the field
>> weighing in and addressing questions. In fact, it is worth following their
>> contribution to the email issue at
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
>> Then there is www.skepticalscience.com which seriously considers the top
>> 74 skeptical arguments on global warming at
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>>
>> I previously provided the link to the 2007 conference which has a
>> tremendous amount of information. The overview talks say it all.
>> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/agenda.html
>>
>> I don't think we have anything else to add. Any data or information that
>> counters this are most welcome. The problem is that most arguments from
>> skeptics make one of the following categories of misunderstanding:
>>
>> 1. Focusing on a subset, spatially or temporally, of the global trend
>> data. (I.e. focusing on the last decade or just Greenland)
>> 2. Speculating on amplification effects of solar activity
>> 3. Misunderstanding the role and validity of models in climate research
>> 4. Confusing surface vs atmospheric vs deep ocean thermal attributes
>>
>> We would all be thrilled to hear of any data that demonstrates there
>> isn't, or won't be, a problem, or of any analysis of data that alleviates
>> the problem.
>> But right now I don't see that a forum of this type would generate any
>> valuable addition to the field. If people do not believe the experts in the
>> websites above, then why would they believe us when we repeat that
>> information?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:18 AM
>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Subject: [asa] AGW discussion
>>
>> Rich, Terry, Randy, Ted
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a discussion of the AGW science between:
>>>
>>> -Glenn Morton, a former member of this list, taking the con. He accepted
>>> AGW in the past but is now skeptical.
>>>
>>> -Randy and Rich taking the pro side, we have heard some of their
>>> positions recently on the list.
>>>
>>> To my mind in order to have a reasonable discussion the ability to show
>>> graphs, tables, pictures etc is essential, so I suggest we use one of the
>>> blogging services on the web that supports such. All posts and comments
>>> would be moderated prior to posting and would be limited to say 1 a day plus
>>> minor clarifications from each side. Only comments from the moderators or
>>> the three participants would be allowed on the blog. List members with
>>> questions could send them to the list and the moderators or participants
>>> could decide whether to take them up or not. Moderators would be Ted and
>>> Terry although I think David Opderbeck would be good if we could get him.
>>>
>>> I should point out to people that both Glenn and Rich, at one point did
>>> not accept an evolutionary origin for life and now do. Thus if enough data
>>> is thrown at them they have in the past changed their positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave W
>>> ps I copied Glenn and while I did not run this particular proposal past
>>> him, I think he would be willing. Glenn's GW web side is:
>>> http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.