Re: ping Jörg: on what 'raw data' is

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:40:30 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:23:09 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:05:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
Hi. I just came across (for entirely different reasons) two articles
by someone I very slightly know, Bob Grumbine. His blogs neatly
address the discussion you and I had regarding raw data.

This one nicely discusses _some_ of the problems:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/11/data-set-reproducibility.html

As does this one:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-is-surface.html

[...]

I'm glad to see that you read the articles, though. Thanks.

We can disagree over this or that behavior, or suggest solutions that
may not have been used but could have been... all of us have had our
licks on that score. I think the point I wanted to hear from you
about is the complex struggle understanding, meaningfully, with what
is observed by instruments of various kinds, operated differently, the
usually non-ideal nature of the dataset (lack of buoys and lack of
them in well placed positions for analytical purposes, for example),
and so on.

It's non-trivial squared. If that got across, regardless of how you
feel one person or another succeeds at it, then you got my point.

I've never disputed that. What I really don't like and what I see as a credibility concern is when scientists tell other scientists (by their actions or non-action, not so much directly) "Hey, we know how to handle this complex stuff and you don't, so go away". Turf protection has no place in science.

Humans are humans. So? What makes the processes of science special,
if not entirely unique, is that they provide mechanisms to _deal_ with
human foibles. None of them are perfect. And if you expect that, you
WILL be disappointed. But if you are willing to embrace an imperfect
system that does a _pretty darned good_ job, then you will find it
something worthy of your respect yet always needing observation and
correction here and there over time. There are few systems of
organized humans of any kind other than physics which address human
errors and self-deception as well. And climate science has had some
uniquely difficult problems to solve here and they've done a yoeman's
job of it. If you truly take some time here to see what they've had
to face (lack of ability to experiment with our planet, for example,
and it's complexity in terms of large numbers of important systems and
system interfaces that cannot be 'reduced' away, for example) and how
well they've succeeded despite these challenges, you'd gain a great
deal of respect.

I have. And as I've said here before, I was quite definitely on the
other side of the fence on these things back in the mid-1980s and up
to 1990. It was that year that I managed to have supplied enough
energy and personal time that I began to "see." Nothing since has
changed that basic understanding, though a great many details have
swept away my earlier ignorant assumptions about this or that.

...

Did you check the dates on what you imagine as 'bad'? If I gather
your point, that was a long time ago. (Yes, there are newer emails
that aren't old, there... but those emails are fine so far as I can
see.) Besides, the subjects being disputed in a bit of an _ornery_
way were not barred, but instead were included in the reports in a
meaningful way despite bickering about it.

As I said, I'm not proud of each and every fragment. But it changes
nothing I spent time on nor any of my other understandings from less
personal experience. And from what I take from the letters, if
anything the final outcome was to include (not exclude.) That fact
affected the early (and later) IPCC reports to be even more
conservative than they should have been, in my opinion -- and that has
become abundantly clear since.

By the way, the current CO2 track, last two or three years, is above
the worst-case scenario that the IPCC AR4 dared consider that humans
would act along. Humans are indisputably the cause of that rise. (If
you dispute that, you and I have almost nothing to say to each other
until you apply yourself. It _is_ indisputable, Jörg. And the only
solution here is to spend your time. And I can't do that for you. You
will have to walk the walk, yourself.) There really is no question in
my mind about the fundamental conclusions. There is plenty of room
for debate about details, though.


Ok, we've had that topic before and we disagree on quite a few points there. If I may ask, what's your comment on the story below?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

To me that's tantamount to thumbing their noses at the whole world. That really took the cake.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ping Jörg: on what raw data is
    ... about is the complex struggle understanding, meaningfully, with what ... Humans are humans. ... What makes the processes of science special, ... you dispute that, you and I have almost nothing to say to each other ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • What you dont Understand. (lots)
    ... Introduction to Living Intelligent Systems ... understanding is not possible. ... Historically humans learn about themselves from the things they build. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: natural intelligence
    ... language certainly seems to fit some common usage of the word. ... Certainly my personal understanding seems to be closely connected with my ... elicits an emotional and consciousness-based reation in humans. ... continuous flow of output behaviors in response to continuous flow of ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Nonhuman Intelligence
    ... world in different terms than Humans and their former subject ... Intelligent Life will be more Cultural Differences than ... difficulty of Europeans of the 17th Century understanding the ... understand the aliens' thinking. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Paleoanthropologists Often Assume That Chimp Societies Are A Reasonably Good Stand-in For Th
    ... How can I dispute it when you don't define the metric by which you make ... Yet you'd have us pretend that humans aren't? ... If you are making a qualitative claim (that human communality is in some ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)