Discussion with Pete Ridley #5 Barrett's MODTRAN

This is my second post to Pete Ridley's response to "Discussion with PR #3" since his response was quite long winded (2150 words), including a thousand words worth of diversion into John Cook bashing that inspired an independent response, see "Discussion with PR #4"

Here I wanted to get back into attempting to figure out what Pete Ridley's trying to say regarding various MODTRAN model outputs.  Unfortunately, he already responded this morning and totally avoided the substance and questions of this post, instead spewing out more petty complaints and distractions.  

Since, Pete can't seem to get himself to focus on the substance of his claims and these posts and I don't want to play an endless game of dog-chasing-tail with him, I've rejected his latest off-topic comment and await one that sticks to the substance of this series of posts and that address some of my very reasonable and specific questions.  
{cc - 8:30am MDT}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404937678421#c8690081790713282323

{lines 6 to 68}PART 1 ... CC wrote “ .. I do hope my links helped you get clear on some of your misunderstanding regarding the mistaken CO2 saturation meme? .. ” -  

Ridley writes: NOPE!! I’ve never mentioned “saturation” or its derivatives. It was you who on 7th July pretended to jump to the conclusion that I want you “ .. to leap on the contrarian ‘discovery’ that CO2's insulating effect get's saturated .. ” 

~ ~ ~

"Pretend" what?  I was quite explicit:

"I imagine at the root of your riddle is that you want me to leap on the contrarian "discovery" that CO2's insulating effect get's saturated, thus we have nothing to worry about and can add as much as possible.  Am I close?"

So why the drama queen act?  

Why not simply answer the good-faith question I asked?  You know Pete, had this been a constructive-rational discussion you would explain where and why you're convinced I'm mistaken.  But you don't do that, do you?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

when in reality (as you full well know) I quite reasonable drew your attention to and hoped “ .. that you would acknowledge the diminishing impact on OLR of increasing atmospheric CO2 content .. ”.

~ ~ ~

You pointed me at some links, here's what you wrote:

"Let me make a suggestion. If you seriously wish to improve your lay understanding of the greenhouse effect get a copy of Dr. Jack Barrett's introductory booklet "Global Warming: The Human Contribution" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-The-Human-Contribution-ebook/dp/B0083IOWPU). It only costs about US$3 and should clear up most of your misconceptions."

~ ~ ~

Curiously now that I've had time to look in to this Dr. Barrett I find that real working atmospheric experts find this chemist's home spun theory filled with misconceptions.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100302192409/http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/esef_thread.txt

Jack Barrett who is at Imperial College in London  (and was supposed to publish these ideas in Spectrochemica Acta, ~1994)  said somethinglike this: 

   - The lowest thirty meters of the troposphere already contains
sufficient CO2 and H2O to absorb all the radiation emitted by the
Earth's surface (except in the "10 micron" {7.5-14 5m} window). 

   -When CO2 absorbs the emitted radiation it does not re-emit it
because in its radiative lifetime (105s) it suffers 104 collisions,
which are enough to transfer the energy to N2 and O2 which do not
emit IR radiation.  Hence emission of IR from the Earth's surfaces
to outer space is prevented at all wavelengths except in the 10 micron
window.  

Under such circumstances further additions of CO2 to the
atmosphere would be expected to have little effect on the average
global temperature.  For example, the burning of all the fossil fuels
on earth would raise the CO2 level to 1400 ppm, from its current
level of about 355 ppm.  If the above reasoning is true this could
cause vegetation to flourish, as it did during the Cretaceous period
(144-65 million rears ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth) and when
it is now thought that the temperatures were not too different from
what they are currently  (Nature 370, 453(1994)).

Here is the response that came later: 

   Barrett's analysis assumes that global warming is driven by changes
in the radiation balance at the Earth's surface.  This is not so. 

What happens is something like this: 

   It is true that the CO2 molecule suffers many collisions between
the time that it absorbs radiation from the solid Earth, and re-emits
it in all directions.  This means that it is in thermal, and radiative
equilibrium with its surroundings at each altitude.  As we go up in the
troposphere, the temperature of that atmosphere drops, and hence the
temperature of the CO2 at greater elevations also drops.  At these lower
temperatures found at the top of the atmosphere, the energy is radiated
into space because there is so little CO2 above it that the atmosphere
is essentially transparent at these emitting wavelengths.  

However, at that altitude the intensity of the emitted radiation is decreases
(recall the Steffan-Boltzmann law says that: I is proportional to T4).  Thus the
loss of radiative loss of energy to space from this altitude drops,
because of the presence of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  If now more CO2
is added to the atmosphere then the level from which the emission occurs
rises.  

Since the temperature of the emitting CO2 is even lower,
radiation leaving the Earth is reduced.  The climate then warms until
once again the input of solar radiation just balances the radiative
loss to space.  The fact that near sea level the CO2 concentration is
sufficiently high to absorb all the radiation in the main CO2 band
is therefore irrelevant!
~ ~ ~

This Jack Barrett has quite the track record.  He's exactly the sort of person I would classify as a "wingnut" precisely because he creates his science in the vacuum of his own mind, then when the folks, who understand what he's working at, point out his numerous errors - rather than listening to them, thinking about it and learning more - he starts pointing that grand conspiracy finger, everyone else is the fool and he's a self-imagined Galileo fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.  Yea, right and heat seeking missiles can't recognize to their targets.  

~ ~ ~

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Barrett 

Barrett is not a climate scientist 

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, there is a "JC Barrett" listed as a co-author of a single research paper on cloud densification published 13 years ago. 

In an article published in 1994 in the New Scientist he suggested that the lowest 30 metres of the troposphere already contains all the CO2 necessary to absorb all the radiation reflected and emitted back by the earth's surface at most infra-red wavelengths, except for the "window" between 7.5 and 14 micrometres, through which radiation escapes back into space. [3] Other scientists strongly disagree with him. [4] 

~ ~ ~ 

http://www.desmogblog.com/jack-barrett 

November 1995 

Barrett was a signatory to the “Leipzig Declaration.” According to SourceWatch he was also a keynote speaker at the Leipzig Declaration launch. [5], [6]
The declaration states, “we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised and premature.” 

--- 

Barrett co-authored a paper with the UK climate change denier and former BBC broadcaster David Bellamy titled “Climate stability: an inconvenient proof” which was published in Civil Engineering in May, 2007. The paper sets out to prove that, even if there is a doubling of carbon dioxide in the next decade, it “will amount to less than 1°C of global warming.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

       

Ridley, then you went on:

"I repeat, that is pseudoscientific gobbledegook and you can find out why by looking here (https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/AtmConcentration.bmp) and here (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-composition).

~ ~ ~ 
Why won't you simply explain what you're driving at - are we disputing atmospheric gas concentrations, or what?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If you don’t understand the point that I’m making then ask a scientist such as Dr. Jack Barrett (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page3.htm). While you are at it spend some time reading the excellent articles that he and Professor David Bellamy provide. They are targeted at lay people like thee and me."

~ ~ ~ 
So what the hell is this, you initiated this dialogue, don't tell me to read someone with a terrible reputation.  Tell me yourself, if you have a clue, if not, what are you doing here?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ridley continues:

I can’t imagine anyone who fails to understand the difference between “diminish” and “saturate” ever being able to understand the message from those MODTRAN plots that I sent you, but you fully understand the difference, don’t you!. 

I really don’t believe that you are as stupid as you try to make out. The impression that I keep getting from your comments is that you are deliberately distorting what I say so that you can continue promoting your CACC propaganda. 

Your” .. You give the impression that you think it's simple as 1+1=2 .. ” comes across as just another example of your wriggling and squirming. One thing for sure, those MODTRAN plots that I sent to you do give a much clearer picture to laymen like thee and me than would the scientific formulae upon which MODTRAN is based of what happens to the OLR when atmospheric CO2 concentration changes from 0ppm through to 700ppm. 

~ ~ ~
You keep telling me how wrong I am and that it's right there on the graphs, "anyone can see it".  Well no, anyone can't see it!  And even if they can "see it" WHAT DOES IT MEAN?  And if you can't explain it, take your tease somewhere else, because all you're doing is crazy-making.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

They show clearly that there is no saturation effect but a diminishing impact upon OLR as atmospheric CO2 content increases, most noticeable at levels significantly lower than they have been for centuries. 

~ ~ ~
Now Ridley, can you please explain what that means?
And how does what you're thinking differ from what the links I've shared here (and at our discussion #3) are talking about?

And of what significance is it for current CO2 trends and our warming situation these days?
How big, or little, is this effect of your's in relation to the established big effects that are currently being measured?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ridley writes:

I love this from the extract that you used “ .. even a small number of CO2 molecules is sufficient to completely absorb the IR beam .. ”.   On the other hand those plots do show clearly that the effect on OLR diminishes considerably with increasing concentration and that any increase from the 280ppm levels claimed to have existed pre-industrial revolution have had and will only have a marginal impact.

~ ~ ~ 
Then what is your explanation for Earth observations over the past half century?  And how does this help us understand today's situation and the near future of 400++ppm?
         
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I also loved how in almost the same breath you talked about “ .. everything I've read by real practicing experts .. ” then referred to John Cook’s skepticalscience.com blog 

~ ~ ~ 

This is quite the twist.  Ridley, you just wanted me to learn from a home-made atmospheric "text" book by a one-time chemist who claims he has disproven 100 years worth of atmospheric physics.  

And now you start picking on John Cook for not being a practicing scientist when he never claims to be such an expert, nor does Mr. Cook claim to be smarter than the practicing experts as your friend Dr. Barrett clearly does!  

Mr. Cook is a reporter, a communicator and collector of peer-reviewed scientific publications, he is also the archivist of the best on-line collection of peer-reviewed climatological literature, one that's geared toward the curious lay-person out there.  It's all about the science and John seems an honorable man fulfilling a much needed function in this "public debate" about global warming.

PS http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/discussion-ridley-4-skepticalscience.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

           

It seems to me in closing I should repeat some of those questions you ignored from Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

What in the world are you going on about?  

I wrote our atmosphere's insulating medium (GHGs) has increased by a third.   

Mr. Ridley Are you claiming that is false? 

CO2 has increased by 40%(today) 

As of 2000: "Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO₂ are about 390 ppm and CH₄ levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. (N2O from below 270 ppb to over 400 ppb)"  http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html 

Water vapor is the tricky one because it is temperature dependent and varies a great deal with time and location.  The basic thumbnail figure I've read is that for every degree C° of warming water vapor increases 7%, but like you hinted at, H2O packs the greatest insulating punch. 

OK, now what's your issue Ridley? 

Are you complaining that my 1/3 was a convenient round number and that I didn't bother to figure it out to a few decimal points? 

Is it the H2O? 

Is it long lived greenhouse gases? 

Although none of that actually has to do with MODTRAN, or the OLR reading at the TOA... does it?  {outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere} That's a different issue, isn't it?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Sources used in "Discussion with Pete Ridley #3"

MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere 

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html 

- - -

The first global warming skeptic 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=414  

- - - 

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part One

January 3, 2013 by scienceofdoom 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/03/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-one/

- - - 

Atmospheric Physics Thermodynamics 2 

N. Kämpfer

Institute of Applied Physics University of Bern

5.3.2013

http://www.iapmw.unibe.ch/teaching/vorlesungen/atmosphaerenphysik/FS_2013/AT_FS13_Thermodynamics_2_handout.pdf 

Discussion with Pete Ridley #4 The SkepticalScience Factor

In order to make Pete Ridley's 2150 word long response to my "Discussion with Ridley #3" manageable I went and copied the response from his website and pasted it into a word program, then I eliminated blank lines and the resultant line numbers and word  (including links) counts are what I'm using - the #s may not translate with absolute precision - please consider them rough orientation coordinates.  

Since about a thousand of Ridley's words have to do with a diversion into dissing John Cook and the SkepticalScience.com team.  I've decided to separate this John Cook business into it's own post, though I only quote a few words of Pete's attack.  I will get back to Ridley's confusing MODTRAN song and dance in a later post.

I imagine Ridley took umbrage at my calling some of his sources "Wingnuts" because that's when he comes back at me claiming that John Cook was a scoundrel on a par of O'Sullivan.  

OK sure, I should learn to use more sterile wording, but you know with all the needling Ridley dishes out, he ought to be man enough to take a little in return.  

But then among contrarian types the double-standard is standard.   {Incidentally, at the end of this post I offer a look at these characters Ridley puts out there as trustworthy sources - which they most certainly are not.} 

In any event, Ridley took my infraction to mean it was open season on John Cook and his SkepticalScience.com team.  Oddly I made no mention of John Cook nor did I quote him.  What I did was share a portion of an article that was posted at SkepticalScience.com.  The article was written by Riccardo who happens to have a PhD, though in materials science - and this from his SkS bio: 

"Being a long time sailor, I needed to know at least the basics of meteorology. More recently I developed the interest in climate science and thought that I could take advantage of my background in physics to study and communicate it."

~ ~ ~ 

I'd like to ask Pete Ridley: what's wrong with having someone like that report on the state of knowledge regarding GHGs and their respective convective equilibrium, radiative equilibrium and such?

Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

At first I had intended to go through our longish email exchange and pick out highlights I wanted to discuss, but I'm over it.  Ridley's given me plenty of fodder in real time plus he's taken up enough of my time already.  Here we go with the third installment.  

This time I am not posting Ridley's complete 1400 words since, quite frankly, too much of it is confusing gobbledegook, to borrow his own term.  If you're into the slough check out his link below, see if you don't agree that Ridley seems conflicted and unsure if he wants to talk political shenanigans or science, although I'm getting the feeling it's all the same to him.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404767773627#c6142771578776265384

Pete Ridley - July 7, 2014 14:16 PART 1 

What on earth gave you the idea that I wanted to Talk science here? My blog name gives the game away about my topic of interest – Global Political Shenanigans. Anyone deciding to read articles on this blog should recognise from its name that they are likely to encounter comments from politicians and political pundits like Christopher Booker, Matt Ridley, Nigel Lawson and his GWPF. {...} 

I did try to help you to find reliable sources of information about greenhouse gases to help you better understand the impact of atmospheric CO2. It seems to me that you need all the help that you can get. 

{...} “ .. It seems that the difference between thee and me is that I am searching for the truth about CACC while you are simply promoting your environmentalist agenda .. ”.

~ ~ ~

Yea, my agenda... like honestly learning about our Earth's geophysical processes.  What do you have against learning about our planet or being concerned about our biosphere's wellbeing?  

You do realize it's our life support system, don't you?

Incidentally, why shouldn't Earth have an advocate?

complexity and confusion, and the public's Need To Know

As part of my 'process' I find good YouTube lectures to listen to and make short notes, listed by time signature, both for learning and as a nice relief from trying to communicate with contrarians -  also hopefully as a study aid for the curious.  Usually I post them over at citizenschallenge.blogspot.

In any event, I've been going through Professor Alden Griffith recent talk at Wessesley College and he said something that tied right into this dialogue with Ridley and his basic implication that the scientific community of experts should not be trusted and that somehow there needs to be some civilian scrutinizing of scientific claims and details. {yea, Ridley you never said it in those exact words, but buddy, that's what I'm hearing you say.} 

29:50 - complexity and confusion. . . "public should not have to know everything about climate science, just as we shouldn't have to know everything about medicine. We have doctors, we have people that we trust to do this, …"

Prof. Alden Griffith on Climate Change as a Perfect Storm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj0kWcurtOI

WellesleyCollege

Published on Jan 14, 2013

Alden Griffith, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Wellesley College

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We have a global scientific community of people who got into science because they wanted to understand how things really worked in the world around them.  They have dedicated their lives to learning about our planet and it's biosphere and the geophysical processes that operate our biosphere and drive our climate system. 

Throughout the scientific community we have smart, skeptical, ambitious people who's work get's looked at by a whole community of other smart, skeptical, ambitious people… experts in their respective fields.

Precision and accuracy and clarity of description is prized and failures get discovered and outed.

Discussion with Pete Ridley #2

Deep down my hope is that some intelligent students read some of these posts, because I've learned that taking the time to answer and hope for a rational discussion with a denialist character like Pete Ridley is a hopeless endeavor.

But, it's not a hopeless exercise if it helps some better understand the types of diversions denialist have honed to a fine art.  Perhaps it'll help some better prepare for the various "debate tricks" and tactics you'll run into if you vocally defend serious professional rational scientists and their findings against the Republican/Libertarian ideologues who see nothing but a political contest to win at all cost with license to fabricate their facts at will.  

Not much else to add.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pete Ridley said...

Discussion with Pete Ridley #1

{edited Saturday evening}

Recently I've exchanged a couple emails with Pete Ridley, our unlikely connection is on account of mutual blogging regarding that fraud John O'Sullivan, though I haven't taken the time to become acquainted with the particulars of their feud.
[Ridley has reminded me that we had actually met earlier, in the comments section - http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-earth-climate-wars-dr-iain-stewart.html ]

In any event, though Ridley and I agree on our contempt for O'Sullivan, Ridley doesn't accept the scientific consensus among climate experts regarding global warming and what's driving it. 

Not sure why, but lately he's taken to counseling me on the errors of my supposedly gullible scientific establishment loving ways.  In the process I've been pulled into a discussion at globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com, that has in turn motivated me to use a couple quotes as a vehicle to highlight some of the dishonest tactics used by such folks.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Ridley writes: In November 2013 you (CC) opined that " .. Colorado experienced its most extreme weather event in recent memory between Sept. 9 and 15.  .. resulting in massive flooding .. Predictably, folks are asking: Is this related to man-made global warming?  That a question that is both easy and tough to answer.  Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans have indisputably warmed .. our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  Given such geophysical realities, it is self-evident that all extreme weather events contain elements of this newly energized climate system.  And that much more of the same must be expected. So in that sense, the answer is easy: Yes .. " (see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html). 

That's a lot of conviction from someone with no more than lay understanding of the subject. Despite your efforts in that article to give the impression of a sound understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates you demonstrated that your understanding is very limited. {Pete "tells" me I'm wrong, but doesn't show us by confronting my specific claims with contra-evidence.  What's up with that?  

A)   Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans … B)   have indisputably warmed … C)   our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  }

Let me give you an example.

Scientific Principia International, O'Sullivan, Ball, Abdussamatov, Postma and more

I'm simply an individual so it's tough to keep up with all the latest happenings.  Thus, I admit I don't know why, but for some reason my posts regarding the so-called "Principia Scientific International" have been receiving quite a spike in views recently, so I figure perhaps it's time for a few updates:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
here's some more updates:

Spotlight On PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd. (2012)

- http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

SpotlightON - PSI Acumen Ltd. (2013)

- http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html

Curriculum Vitae for John O'Sullivan (2010)

- http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html

courtesy of Pete Ridley 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Principia Scientific Int'l versus Dr. Michael Mann

John O'Sullivan is a principle founder and pusher of "Principia Scientific International" a group of AGW deniers intent on spreading misinformation and furthering the echo-chamber's crazy-making regarding the scientific knowledge surrounding our planet's climate.

And since I don't have the time to devote to helping expose the various nonsense around this group I can at least share the efforts of others.

At http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/  Pete Ridley is doing a fine job of examining the details of PSI's beautifully worded 'mission statement' compared to the reality of what they do.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

" .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. "

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the spirit of the quotation above this article aims to provide as much transparency as possible about Principia Scientific International (PSI)’s origins as well as the motives, methods and ambitions of those whose vision PSI was. Anyone having little or no knowledge of PSI should find it worthwhile initially referring to the promotional material published on various pages on the PSI Web-site (http://principia-scientific.org/). It presents a picture of what PSI purports to be and relevant quotes will be made in this article as necessary when considering whether or not PSI lives up to those praiseworthy claims.

Comments in this article are based upon the facts collected since my first involvement during 2010 with the significant participants in PSI. I will concentrate initially on those individuals who played a major role in founding the organisation. " .. British legal analyst and science writer, John O’Sullivan pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. .. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada's most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball .. Tom Richard .. the driving force behind Neveu Design .. has made the PSI website .. adaptive to the growing demands of an ambitious and globally-expanding science publishing and communications hub .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/about/principles-of-association). After that I propose to take a look at each of the other individuals involved.

Read on it gets quite interesting . . . 

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 As for Dr. Michael Mann and all the claims of the data he is supposedly hiding please consider this post over at Legend of Pine Ridge.

http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-michael-manns-data-is-available-on.html

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Dr. Michael Mann's Data is Available on the Internet

"My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers.  Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced...


My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”"---Dr. Michael Mann's letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)


Mendacious people who spread falsehoods on the Internet about the alleged fabrications of climate scientists often claim that the famous Penn State climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann has kept his data secret. Actually, as Dr. Mann's 1995 letter to Congressman Barton states, Dr. Mann's data is available on Internet at government and university sites.


Dr. Mann's computer programs are a secret because they are his private intellectual property; still, researchers can develop their own computer codes and use Mann's data to verify his results. Scholars have replicated Dr. Mann's results by using his data with their own computer programs.


Researchers need not have access to exactly the same computer programs (or “code”) as Dr. Mann developed. Dr. Mann's results can be replicated using his underlying data and methodologies. See the letter (7-15-05) that Dr. Mann sent to the corrupt Congressman Joe Barton explaining the true facts and listing the Internet sites where his data was stored in 2005.


The MBH [Mann-Bradley-Hughes] data have been publicly available for more than a decade now! When Dr. Mann moved from U.Va, the same information and data were maintained through his Penn State research site.


Here are some links where the data can be found:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/


More generally, links to ALL the MBH research data, etc. from ALL of the MBH studies are here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/research/research.html

posted by Snapple

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dr. Michael Mann also has his own Facebook Page that is a valuable source of information coming from the man himself, along with many informative comments as proven in my previous post.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist