Recuerdan el superestudio demostrando que la antártida se calentaba?

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Sí, claro que lo recuerdan.  Si salió en “Nature”!

Pues no dejen de leer lo que me acaba de llegar por e-mail. Se lo dejo entero (y, lo siento, no puedo traducirlo, ando muy mal de tiempo. Si alguien se anima, colgamos la traducción)

Escribe Marc Morano, director de comunicación del Comité del Senado Norteamericano de Medio ambiente:

Alert: Real Climate Woes: Pielke Jr.: ‘Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre’

Morano, Marc (EPW)


Alert: Real Climate Woes: Pielke Jr.: “Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre” – February 4, 2009
Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate . . .Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. (Details here and here.) In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve’s blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. I am sure that there are legions of graduate students and other scientific support staff who do a lot of work on a project, only to find their sponsor or advisor, who initially proposed the idea, as first author on the resulting paper, who might have empathy for Gavin’s logic. […] But lets be clear, in science, the ethical thing to do is to give full credit to the origination of an idea, even if it comes from your arch-enemy. Gavin’s outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone’s ideas and taking credit for them does not help.

Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed – by Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009
Excerpt: On Monday, Feb 2, Gavin Schmidt explained some “ethics” to realclimate readers as follows: [Response: People will generally credit the person who tells them something. BAS were notified by people Sunday night who independently found the Gill/Harry mismatch. SM could have notified them but he didn’t. My ethical position is that it is far better to fix errors that are found than play around thinking about cute names for follow-on blog posts. That might just be me though. – gavin] As readers know, I was interested in who was the scientist that, unbeknowst to me, had “independently” identified the problem with Harry – a problem overlooked by BAS, NASA GISS for a year or so anyway; and a problem which had been missed by his realclimate coauthors, Steig and Mann, during their preparation of Steig et al 2009, and which had been missed by the Nature peer reviewers. And remarkably this had been “independently” identified just after I had noted the problem at Climate Audit and Climate Audit readers had contributed ideas on it, even during the Super Bowl. Yesterday, I inquired about the identity of Gavin’s “mystery man?” Today (Feb 4) the British Antarctic survey revealed the identity of Gavin’s “mystery man”. It was… GAVIN.

Schmidt’s Antics Prompts Laughter Scientist “How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?”
Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?”

Report: Error in Antarctic Warming Paper? Warming trend ‘arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together – Australia’s Herald Sun – February 4, 2009
Excerpt: But Steve McIntyre, who did most to expose Mann’s “hockey stick”, now notices a far more embarrassing problem with Steig’s paper. Previous researchers hadn’t overlooked the data. What they’d done was to ignore data from four West Antarctic automatic weather stations in particular that didn’t meet their quality control. As you can see above, one shows no warming, two show insignificant warming and fourth – from a station dubbed “Harry” shows a sharp jump in temperature that helped Steig and his team discover their warming Antarctic. Uh oh. Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it: Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.
Read this link and this to see McIntyre’s superb forensic work. Why wasn’t this error picked up earlier? Perhaps because the researchers got the results they’d hoped for, and no alarm bell went off that made them check. Now, wait for the papers to report the error with the zeal with which they reported Steig’s “warming”.

Prominent Scientist ‘Appalled’ By Gavin Schmidt’s ‘lack of knowledge’ – ‘Back to graduate school, Gavin!’ – Climate Science Blog – January 29, 2009
By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Excerpt: Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin! […] Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have. A few lines from that essay deserve repeating here. […] From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future.
[Note: for more analysis of the warming partisans at Real Climate, see these links from Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv’s website: “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point ‘has been refuted by real scientists at ReaClimate.org”. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them”. ]

Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
202-224-5762
202-224-5167 (fax)

Ya ven. Así está el patio. Por cierto, según GISS, Enero 2009 presenta una anomalía de 0,332°C. Menudo calor!


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

14 comentarios en «Recuerdan el superestudio demostrando que la antártida se calentaba?»

  1. Otro mas interesante:

    The Blackboard – Harry Highlights by RyanO

    Basically, even though the reconstruction used the bad Harry data, the effect when comparing reconstructed anomalies to actual is very minimal. If you take the mean of the slopes, you get a whopping -0.003. So RegEM overestimated the slopes just a wee tad.

    I’m pretty convinced that Dirty Harry – though sloppy – has no substantive effect on their results. (I have another issue with their results, but I have to work through it first. Has nothing to do with Harry, though.) So my verdict is that Harry is interesting, but irrelevant to their conclusions.

    Y ya paro…

  2. Dejo por aqui la opinion del vilipendiado Gavin Schmidt sobre el efecto de estos errores, por si puede ser de interes:

    Real Climate – Antarctic warming is robust

    There is a big difference at Harry of course – a reduction of the trend by about half, and an increase of the trend at Racer Rock (the error there had given an erroneous cooling), but the other points are pretty much unaffected. The differences in the mean trends for Antarctica, or WAIS are very small (around 0.01ºC/decade), and the resulting new reconstruction is actually in slightly better agreement with the satellite-based reconstruction than before (which is pleasing of course).

  3. Como referencia de las temperaturas del verano en el hemisferio sur, en Buenos Aires hoy tenemos máx. 22 grados centígrados con un frente frío que se aproxima del sur.
    Las temperaturas hasta hace unos días fueron de unos 30 grados. Un año atrás teníamos temperaturas próximas a 40 grados.
    Es un verano desacostumbradamente frío.

  4. “Siple”?
    Leches, si yo ,todas las mañanas,creia que eso significaba “cuarto de baño” en noruego.
    sorry.

  5. Lo que ocurre es que los calentólogos usan lo que los expertos denominan “Modelos climáticos computerizados adaptativos”.

    La complejidad de cálculo de tales modelos los hacen inaprensibles para el común de los mortales pero la clave está en que se caliente la Antartida o se enfríe, se tomen los datos de la estación Gill, de la estación Harry o de la estación de Atocha, el modelo es adaptable de forma que la conclusión siempre sea que la culpa es del CO2.

    No sé si ha quedado claro o hacen falta gráficos.

  6. Clausius, en Australia han tenido un verano tórrido. En fin, esperamos a los datos de las otras tres agencias

    No, sé por una fuente australiana que solo fué en la zone de Melbourne o Sidney, no me acuerdo, en otras partes de Australaia estan teniendo un verano mas frio de lo habitual.

  7. Chesco, si el calentón les sale de interoextrapolar datos, y uno de ellos es erróneo en, pongamos un 500% a su favor, ¿pa qué preguntar? Inter polo de limón. Te descojonas, que diría b.

  8. Luis,
    he estado siguiendo la historia.
    Hay cosas que no entiendo de esta gente haciendo ciencia. Cuando uno genera los datos experimentales, es lo más exacto y cuidadoso posible y aún así a veces hay errores. Pero esta gente trabaja con datos que no han generado ellos, y por tanto deberían ser todavía más cuidadosos. Pero no. En los cálculo del periodo 1979-2003 de las 4 localizaciones les sale:
    Byrd: 0.12
    Harry: 0.81
    Mount Siple: -0.06
    Siple: 0.16

    Y a estos tios no se les pasa por la cabeza que algo anormal tiene que haber para que el dato de Harry sea CINCO VECES MAYOR que el siguiente (5*0.16 =0.80) ????.

    Joder no lo entiendo

    Saludos

    1. Creo entenderlo, Chesco. Y si estoy en lo cierto (y la mía no es una opinión “válida”, pero la de muchos -cada vez más- climatólogos y geólogos sí lo es) lo que ocurre es que NO les importa y que sí se dan cuenta. Es más, esos datos les interesan. Les pagan por ello. Triste.

  9. Jua, jua, juaaaa.
    Es que esto ya empieza a ser de chiste. ¿Se sabe cuándo va a publicar Nature un disclaimer? Jua, jua, jua. ¿Y se sabe ya si en el disclaimer van a publicar también los nombres de los “científicos” que han hecho la “comprobación” del susodicho artículo “científico” antes de publicar? Jua, jua, jua, jua.
    ¿Aparecerá también aquel tipo en este blog que se jactaba de que eramos unos impresentables cuando cuestionábamos los datos del “estudio riguroso” publicado? Jua, jua, jua.
    Lo más sensato que he leido al respecto, del Dr. Craig Loehle, insuperable:

    How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?

    Saludos,

  10. ¿Lo de enero quiere decir que a pesar de haber tenido -20ºC en toda Europa central, la anomalía esa indica que ha subido la temperatura? Si es así sí que ha tenido que hacer calor en otras partes del planeta…

Los comentarios están cerrados.