Climategate

Já muita gente ouviu falar sobre ele, mas muitos disco-baristas passaram ao lado.
Versão TLDR no fim

Quem foi envolvido pelo climategate?
Climatic Research Unit, da Universidade de East Anglia no Reino Unido

Quem são estes tipos da CRU?
Basicamente, são eles que "descobriram" o aquecimento global. Foram eles que analisaram, compilaram e publicaram os dados de temperatura e mudança climática.

O que expôs o climategate?
Vou deixar isso para vocês chegarem à conclusão. Espero comentários:

Email de 96:
"The data is of course interesting but I would have to see it and the board would want the larger implications of the statistics clearly phrased in general and widely understandable (by the ignorant masses) terms before they would consider it not too specialised."
Resposta:
"I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are …"
Tricking and milkin data, hmm...


Email de 96:
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?"
Temperatura globa de 95 através de dados apenas da Australia, hmm

Email de 98
"There is no evidence of the polar timber-line moving to the north during the last century."
Se o planeta estivesse a aquecer na ultima década, era esperado o movimento da linha de florestação

Email de 99

"I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.

They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. …"
Um loby ambientalista Autraliano pede a East Anglia para fazer um "beef up" dos dados pra serem mais alarmistas. nice...

A BOMBA de 99
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
Se lerem o mail anterior, ficam com todo o contexto:
Como não existem termómetros em todo o planeta desde á 1.000 atrás, os cientistas tiveram de usar, neste caso, dados dos anéis de árvores para chegar ás temperaturas passadas, isto é chamado de um Proxy. Como as árvores são termómetros MAUS (como se verá á frente) chegaram a um problema. Enquanto os dados recentes dos Proxy sugeriam que a temperatura tinha descido, os termómetros diziam que subia.

Que fizeram?
Mantiveram os dados dos proxies para 1961>, mostrando um planeta mais frio. Relembro que eles verificaram que os próxies não davam dados fiáveis.
Alternaram os dados dos termómetros e dos Proxy para 61-81 comforme era necessário para obterem crescimento, e de 81 para cima colocaram os dados dos termómetros, dando origem ao famoso gráfico:


Aquecimento global é muito possívelmente criado pelo ser humano right?
Email de 2000
"please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66% subjective probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons—read decisionmakers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside."

Email de 2000
"As I discuss in my … paper the “anomalous” late 19th century warming also occurs in a … tree ring record from central Colorado, the Urals record of Keith Briffa, and the east China … temperature record of Zhu.

Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920.

…

So, are you sure that some carbon dioxide effect is responsible for this? May we not actually be seeing a warming?"

Email de 2001
"Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so is often larger than 1°Celsius. … And they see this as evidence that the 0.8°Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special."

Email de 2001
"We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway."
De notar o "even if it turns out..."

Mail de 2001
"I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to the global warming debate, leaving ambiguity as to your opinion on the validity of the Mann curve (“hockey stick”) …."
"I am totally confident that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science."

Email de 2003
"Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. "
"Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor."

Email de 2003
"Can we not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being done over the next few years."
Melhor que editar a wikipedia hem?

Email de 2003
"Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your … reconstruction as the main whipping boy."
"If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of computer stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but never actually show how their method would change your reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated."

Email de 2003
"I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back."

Seguem-se depois uma série de emails sobre pedidos da data e do programa que o CRU usa. Eles fornecem algumas séries de data, mas nada do programa, até:

Email de 2005
"I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data—sent ages ago. I’l tell him this, but that’s all—no computer program. If I can find the program, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of undocumented FORTRAN!"
"I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on—it is because there was a mathematical adjustment when there were fewer data sets."

Outra BOMBA de 2005
"This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant."

"As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish."

Email de 2005
"One issue … is whether we can extend the Medieval Warm Period graph to include the 15th century. I don’t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of there being a global warm event around 1450. I agree with Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like this, so… can we extend the graph to extend up to 1500?"

Email de 2006
"The issue of why we dont show the temperature proxy data for the last few decades (they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.

…

Is the mathematical approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (the “hockey stick” paper) the answer to each question is no. It is not clear how robust and significant the more recent approaches are."

Email de 2007
"I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (and appears to go through around 1950) perhaps it’s not so bad. … In any case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly persistent inquisitor…"

Email de 2007
"Possibly I’ll get the raw data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and do some work to replace our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw data (i.e. as transmitted by the National Meteorological Services). This will annoy them more, so may inflame the situation."

TLDR version:
- "I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are …"
- "Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?"
- "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
- "Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920."
- " The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant."

Even more compressed TLDR version
-Famoso gráfico do aquecimento é fabricado.
-1998-2005(possivelmente mais) mostra que a terra está a arrefecer.


Fonte