Compartir a través de

Don’t you wish the ClimateGate scientists did a better job of sharing their information?

  • Artículo

 

Seriously, how disappointed were you when the ClimateGate memos came out? 

Could a better conversation around the “precision” of the measurements been improved with clearer information about where the data came from?

Isn’t part of science the ability to repeat experiments? But if you are just a person with a laptop, etc. what do you do, how can you participate?

How hard is it to maintain data, code, etc. overtime. If you are a science student interested in doing long term research, you need to consider where to place you data and experimental workflows so others can duplicate your research. Unlike engineers who may wish to keep their processes secret so that they can make money off of their ideas, scientists need to make sure that their work can be duplicated by an independent party.

The current thinking is that the sea levels will rise between 1 meter and 2 meters by 2100, in the 1900s the sea level rose by about 33 cm (1 foot for the US reader).

As to the code behind the initial “hockey” stick, I wasn’t able to find it, because of all of the commentary both for and against the climate change science, or as most of us call it: weather. I did find out it was written in IDL and FORTRAN, I am very familiar with FORTRAN and it leans itself to bad code. (I have written my share of bad code in FORTRAN.)

So take a look at My Experiment at: https://www.myexperiment.org

Comments

  • Anonymous
    May 04, 2011
    I'm disappointed that it was a whitewash and clearly fraud that everyone is ok about. The numbers are secondary to the issue.

  • Anonymous
    May 04, 2011
    I am not sure it is a fraud, but the scientific process needs to be followed.  The programs were written in NCL, which is similar, but not the same as FORTRAN-90.  The question for me is this: Why didn't they maintain the use of the standard FORTRAN-90 and created a non-standard language NCL.  Not that this implies that the work is dishonest, just curious about their reasoning for not using standardized tools.  This would mean that more people could repeat their experiments.

  • Anonymous
    May 05, 2011
    The comment has been removed