Some days I think it can’t get any crazier out there, and then I’m surprised yet again.
From Dr. Loonie Lonnie Thompson, of Ohio State University:
“I think we’ll have to get off this planet for glaciology to have a future,” Thompson, a climate researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center said at an international symposium at Ohio State University.
His next surprise came just last month, when he and a crew of OSU researchers went to Papua New Guinea’s largest ice cap to collect ice core samples.
The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point. Rain, not snow, fell on the crew.
The rain and the warm air threatened to erase the ice cap.
“That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,” Thompson said.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/23/1788090/vanishing-ice-caps-have-experts.html#ixzz0xRKGw8MB
=================================
Dr. Thompson if you leave Earth, will you leave the ice core data archives behind that Steve McIntyre has been asking for, for years now?
Kaufman et al: Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby
“Thus, several years later, not just me, but young Arctic scientists are frustrated by data obstruction by Thompson and Jacoby. Unfortunately, these young scientists are unable or unwilling to record these frustrations in public and the records remain incomplete to this day.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sometimes I feel I’m in a time warp in the middle ages when disease was caused by “bad vapours”.
Goodness me, New Guinea overall a warm and humid climate -what would you expect. !
Australia’s “ice cap” in the Snowy Mountains in winter often has temperatures above freezing with rain . Whats new.
What a load of piffle and hogwash. No understanding of the weather in NG.
If it won’t pass on its own, you should see a doctor.
What?
Oh, pedant…
Never mind.
I’m a bit confounded that Dr Thompson was so surprised. It appears that the PNG glaciers have been in retreat for many years. See: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/6_1_2.pdf
According to this source highest retreat rates were in the 1940s and the 1970s
Actually, if Dr Thompson and his warmist colleagues were to leave the planet, it probably would lead to global cooling. They are responsible for remarkable volumes of hot air.
Anthony – I’m glad to hear that the surfacestations.org paper is almost ready. To me, that paper should be getting the majority of your attention (maybe not now that you’re having a stats person review it) to help establish the sceptical side of the science.
I expect it to get railed on hardcore through the peer review process. My experience with peer review is that scooping someone or stepping on their toes ensures a fiery review, even if it is unjustified. Hopefully you know of an open and unbiased editor who will be able to ignore the political side of the equation. I thankfully got that once when I had a reviewer harp on an entire paper without any real scientific arguments…it made the entire process much better.
Best of luck to you,
-Scott
Thanks Anthony, for putting up MikeC’s petard from which he continues to dangle himself. To me it seems he was trying to make a show of legitimacy with the term ‘publish the data’ when the data is already available – I have seen it. What he did not made clear is that he wants to see your statistical and mathematical treatment of the data during a check by peers before you publish it, which is entirely different and none of his or my business.
Dr Thompson’s hiding of data and processes is what I have come to expect from those who make a living from it. It is a form of priestcraft. “I have seen the hidden messages secreted in the private vaults and because of my superior knowledge of the inner meanings, I now know what will happen future. It looks really bad. What you must do/not do is….. Believe me.” Priestcraft. The age of priests is over.
The long-standing refusal by the CRU to release data and then to respond to FIOA requests with ‘it is already on our webservers’ is illustrative of the priestly mentality. Yes the whole data was (evenetually) on the servers (at least that is what we are led to believe) but they would not say which of the sites on the servers were used to make their astonishing claims for warming. Thus no one could infer their math because no one knew which sites were selected to generate their conclusions. The pretense of compliance matched the pretense of their claimed level of global warming.
Personally I prefer to share raw data and my calculation methods for my work because there are wide disagreements on how to process it and what to state at the end. How better then to get collegial, corrective input? Maybe I am just less afraid of contradiction.
Perhaps there is just too much money in the GW industry. Will people now be patenting their calculation methods to ensure 20 years of steady income? If so, it really is worse than I thought.
MikeC says:
August 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
“Anthony promised”
Prove it.
Anthony, if Thompson won’t share data, why don’t you submit a FOIA to Ohio State. It is a public university in Columbus, and there should be many people in Columbus who would be happy to help you with this. (I am in Southwest Ohio). The fact that the Ohio Supreme Court is in Columbus, means any challenge should be relatively economical to make.
JD
We worked with Lonnie here in Alaska on ice cores. We are NOT scientists, only the ones who take care of them. We wondered about some ideas he had at that time. Now we really wonder. By the way, we were out on the glaciers that surround us two days ago and it was pouring rain. Sometimes the temps are in the high 70’s while we are on the ice and somehow we are still surrounded by the things…
Anthony,
Just a nitpick – your claim that all researchers hold their data until publication is not genuine. I’m sure some do, but in general, government policy for government funded grants limits data exclusivity to a small time frame just after the experiment in question to give PIs sufficient time to start on publications.
Of all the projects I’ve been involved with (in atmospheric science), all have required the public release of data after 6 months regardless of whether or not a paper had been published using said data. Even non-QCed data had to be released.
Now, I do agree that MikeC is being a bit juvenile here in his continuous demand for data, and personally, I couldn’t care less if the data is public or not. If it was collected from private donations (or on your own dime), and the understanding of whomever contributed was that the data would be private until publication then thats fine. But I want to point out that if your data does support your claims, and if your paper is strong enough to stand on its own, then it shouldn’t be an issue if others have access to the data before a paper is published. Especially if the paper is in final review.
Couldn’t we do a ‘Hitchikers guide’ on them and send the glaciologists off on the first spaceship and tell them we’ll follow on the next….? 🙂
cheers David
Better put our wellies on first (sic)
Geoengineering won’t undo sea level rises
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19353-geoengineering-wont-undo-sea-level-rises.html
Matt says:
August 24, 2010 at 1:13 am
Odd, none of the atmospheric science projects I’ve worked on have required all the results to be made public at any time, and definitely not within 6 months. On the other hand, the projects I’ve worked on have all been for methodology development rather than massive data collection.
-Scott
Scott:
Who are you funded by? All projects I’ve been involved with have been funded by US gov’t agencies. But not all agencies/governments/etc have such a guarantee to open data.
Also, note, I’m talking about data, not results. The raw stuff. For an example, see here: http://www.arm.gov/data/docs/policy, specifically the section on IOPs. Looks like their policy is even less than 6 months now…
Data originating from ARM funded sources during IOPs will be quality assured and released to the ARM External Data Center as soon as possible after collection, but no later than 90 days from the date of completion of the IOP or campaign. When released to the ARM External Data Center, data are considered publishable, but users are cautioned to confirm data version with the originator before publication.
Sounds to me like the data is open and public. If the raw data is on surfacestations.org, then it HAS BEEN released. The analysis is under review. Making rough drafts of a paper really doesn’t make sense. I really don’t understand the problem.
Uh um,
I meant – making rough drafts of a paper public…
“”” MikeC says:
August 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
How it’s usually done is irrelevant because Anthony promised to do things differently by keeping everything out in the open… and he did have everything out in the open until Menne 2010. But even Anthony’s claims about Menne and the gang at NCDC coming after him do not justify going back on his word. So I say again, Anthony, RELEASE THE DATA. “””
That will be a scientific first. I can just see one of the peer reviewed journals (maybe Reviews of Modern Physics) publishing barefoot pages of data; with nary an abstract; let alone a paper to connect the data to.
Maybe if I sent them my local phone directory numbers they might print them; well after peer review of course.
Evidently Mike; it seems totally lost on you just how silly it is to publish data, without anything to connect it with. I’m sure that even after Anthony does release his paper and its data, that it is going to be ages before the journals get it into print anyhow. You might even have to come to WUWT to read it.