Climategate: junk science, worthless data, and hookers

Head over to The Devil’s Kitchen to see what other techies think of what they’ve found in the program code leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Hint:  it ain’t pretty.

Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

…come with me on a wonderful journey as the CRU team realise that not only have they lost great chunks of data but also that their application suites and algorithms are total crap; join your humble Devil and Asimov as we dive into the HARRY_READ_ME.txt (thanks to The Englishman) file and follow the trials and tribulations of Ian “Harry” Harris as he tries to recreate the published data because he has nothing else to go on!

Thrill as he “glosses over” anomalies; let your heart sing as he gets some results to within 0.5 degrees; rejoice as Harry points out that everything is undocumented and that, generally speaking, he hasn’t got the first clue as to what’s going on with the data!

Chuckle as one of CRU’s own admits that much of the centre’s data and applications are undocumented, bug-ridden, riddled with holes, missing, uncatalogued and, in short, utterly worthless.

And wonder as you realise that this was v2.10 and that, after this utter fiasco, CRU used the synthetic data and wonky algorithms to produce v3.0!

You’ll laugh! You’ll cry! You won’t wonder why CRU never wanted to release the data! You will wonder why we are even contemplating restructuring the world economy and wasting trillions of dollars on the say-so of data this bad.

By all rights this should be the end of the global warming myth, but true believers (and those with a financial interest) will carry on. They’ll say all the right things about settled science and impending doom at the Copenhagen conference this month, maybe even come up with a “programme of action,” but, in the end, they’re like Prince Prospero and his guests at the grand ball, trying vainly to ignore the doom that stalks them.

Oh, well. At least they can console themselves with free sex.

RELATED: NASA is fudging (to put it nicely) the data, too. Marc Sheppard on Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline. William Jacobsen explains why 56 newspapers worldwide will lie to you tomorrow about global warming. More on that from Sister Toldjah. Michelle Malkin calls them 56 Chicken-Littles.

3 Responses to Climategate: junk science, worthless data, and hookers

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Phineas Fahrquar, Blago Bloggo. Blago Bloggo said: Three strikes you're out, #nopenhagen RT @irishspy: Climategate: junk science, worthless data, and hookers: http://is.gd/5eiNb #tcot #agw [...]

  2. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by irishspy: Climategate: junk science, worthless data, and hookers: http://is.gd/5eiNb #tcot #agw…

  3. ehmoran says:

    In 1890’s, Arrhenius built upon Fourier’s assessment of atmospheric properties plotting CO2 and temperature data collected in industrialized England. Arrhenius’ plots and calculations related CO2 and ambient temperatures. Callendar (1930’s) extended the analysis using long term observations from 200 stations reiterating the relation between CO2 and climate warming. Keeling (1950’s) began collecting atmospheric CO2 samples at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii which is the most complete record.

    USGS reports all volcanic activity produces nearly 200-million tons CO2 annually; although much less than human activity production. Mauna Loa, near the Observatory and the world’s most active volcano, had major eruptions in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Atmospheric CO2 levels measured at volcanoes indicate the degree of activity and estimated heat flow from one volcano are reported at140-mW/m2. Correlating CO2 and temperatures data collected near active volcanoes should be significant but not show a cause and effect relation; however, correlating world-wide data significantly shows CO2 lagging temperature by approximately two years. Arrhenius and Callendar analysis similarly could be significantly biased owing to urban heat-island effects and extensive coal burning at the time, as CO2 is an abundant byproduct of burning.

    Apparently, no laboratory control experiment to date, such as in a biodome, has shown CO2 levels influencing ambient temperatures. Tyndall (1861) measured the absorptive characteristics of CO2 followed by more precise measurements by Burch (1970). Absorbance is a measure of the quantity of light (energy) absorbed by a sample (CO2 molecule) and the amount of absorbed energy can be represented as specific heat of a substance. Specific heat of CO2 ranges from 0.791-kJ/kgK at 0-degrees F to 0.871-kJ/kgK at 125-degrees F and average atmospheric concentrations are 0.0306-percent. As revealed, the specific heat of CO2 increases as ambient temperatures increase showing CO2 likely is an ambient temperature buffer.

    The atmosphere contains from 4-percent water vapor in the troposphere to 40-percent near the surface. Specific heat of water vapor relatively remains constant at 1.996-kJ/kgK. Water absorbs energy (heat) and evaporates to water vapor. During condensation (precipitation), latent heat is released to the atmosphere thus increasing ambient temperatures. Water vapor holds the majority of atmospheric heat and regulates climate and temperature more than any compound. Historically, however, water vapor characteristics as related to climate were much less appreciated, but investigations concerning the significance water vapor plays in global climate-dynamics are just beginning.

    Energy not stored in the atmosphere is released into space through radiation. Re-radiation is the emission of previously absorbed radiation by molecules. Specific heat of water vapor and CO2 molecules shows that water vapor reradiates significantly more energy back to the surface and this case further is justified by quantities of each compound. Thus, this synopsis and other publications suggest that minute variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely results in an insignificant affect on climate; whereas water vapor likely is the significant factor. Nevertheless, this argument easily could be rectified with an appropriate biodome-type control experiment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,132 other followers