Hack

Most of you are probably already aware that recently someone managed to hack into the computer system at CRU (the Climate Research Unit in Great Britain). They stole over 60 megabytes of personal emails, which was posted online.

The denialosphere has trumpeted the contents as proof of the fraudulent behavior of climate scientists, especially Phil Jones at CRU. But what’s most remarkable is that even the bits pointed to as a “smoking gun” really don’t support that idea. There are certainly phrases which seem incriminating when taken out of context — but when put into context are nothing of the kind.

Continuing to suggest that climate scientists generally, and Phil Jones specifically, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world about global warming, when there turns out to be no real evidence of it in 10 years of personal communications (only words that can be twisted when taken out of context), demonstrates the idiocy of those who stand by that suggestion. If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.”

Certainly the emails contain some unkind words about certain people. I’ve said unkind things about some of them myself (here on this blog for all to see). In my opinion, the unkind words were earned by the loathesome recipients.

Perhaps the most enlightening revelation to come out of this sordid episode is how Gavin Schmidt (at RealClimate) has addressed the issue head-on but avoided any temptation to indulge in mud-slinging, even in the midst of this despicable invasion of privacy, unjustified by any of the contents of the messages. His conduct is exemplary, and illustrates a character and self-control that I can only envy. My respect for him knows no bounds.

My disrespect for the theives in likewise unbounded. They stole private communications, found nothing damning, but proved how willing — nay, eager — they are to distort things to make it seem as though they did. It’s every bit as immature and vindictive as stealing your sister’s diary and posting it on the internet. If she’d confessed to murder, there might be a reason to bring that to light, but when the worst you can find is that she said “I hate that bitch,” you have no business making her private thoughts public.

But that’s the level of the denialists. We’ve known for some time that their scientific arguments are completely bankrupt; now we know that they’re morally bankrupt too.

Born-Again Bayesian

I’m finally getting to the point where I can do my own typing (this is my hand, not Mrs. Tamino’s), but I’ve fallen far enough behind that I have catching up to do in lots of areas. Still, I thought I should resume blogging with a thank-you to readers.

AIC part 1: Kullback-Leibler Divergence

Warning! This post is mathematical. Disinterested readers beware!

One of the goals of time series analysis is to model the signal underlying the data. If the data have some random element to them, they’ll follow some probability distribution. The distribution might be dependent on external variables (like time), in which case we usually create a model in which the mean of the distribution is time-dependent. Suppose, for example, we model a variable as following a straight line time trend, plus random noise:

,

Message to readers

Thanks to all for continuing to visit in spite of the absence of posts. My injury was more severe than I thought at first. However, my wife is willing to help with typing so I hope to post something before too long … I can’t yet say exactly when, but possibly soon.

As for Steve McIntyre’s latest: I’m really not that interested. He just doesn’t have the credibility to merit attention. I have way better things to do.

Seasonal Cycle in Central England Temperature

For the moment, just a graph:

Seasons

I noted in this post that the GISS data since 1975 show a seasonal pattern (an annual cycle) in spite of being temperature anomaly. This is because they’re anomaly relative to a 1951-1980 baseline, so the seasonal pattern which is subtracted from the data is the average annual cycle from 1951-1980. The annual cycle in global temperature isn’t perfectly constant, and the difference between the annual cycle at any given moment and its average for the baseline period is detectable in the GISS data.

MacGruber!

MacGruber!
Makin’ lifesaving inventions out of household materials
MacGruber!
Gettin’ in and out of ultra-sticky situations
MacGruber!
The guy’s a friggin’ genius
MacGruber!!!

….. Scene: American Petroleum Institute Control Room …..

Andy: The door’s jammed, MacGruber. We’re trapped!

Vicky: And from the looks of that bomb, those methane clathrates are gonna explode in twenty seconds!

Andy: That’ll really increase global warming, MacGruber!

MacGruber: Calm down … I’ll defuse this bomb … Andy, hand me that paper clip.

Andy: Right here, MacGruber.

MacGruber: Vicky, hand me that scotch tape.

Vicky: You got it, MacGruber.

Andy: Wow. It says here that the American Enterprise Institute will pay ten thousand dollars for articles denying global warming.

MacGruber: Really? Boy, I could sure use that kind of money.

Vicky: Ten seconds, MacGruber!!!

MacGruber: Hold on, hold on. Tell me more about that ten thousand

Boom!

Crystal Ball

Gaze into the crystal ball …

Summer ‘09

It’s no surprise how often denialists focus on regions with cooler-than-average temperatures to imply that the globe itself is cooling. The latest spate of such posts is about this summer in the U.S.; maybe the “best” is this one:

Reply to Lucy Skywalker

You ask if I’m being fair. I doubt that you’ve been honest — not even with yourself.