A Climate Of Bad Code

[Luzr]

The new analysis adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that these discrepancies are most likely the result of inaccuracies in the observed temperature record rather than fundamental model errors.

And you obviously see nothing wrong with such statement, right?

Of course, we all know, observations must be wrong when they do not match the model.

I would say this is also a scientific method used to adjust station data, right?

[Josh Cryer]

We were discussing Evans' "hot spot" paper which I went out of my way to read, and I sourced various data points showing that the hot spot does in fact exist in the real world, and that the models got it right. Finally I pointed out that Evans' paper sources 2006 data, implying that with his last 2009 update (Dec 20th), if he was an honest scientist, he would take into consideration these new data points. And he would not make such grand proclamations about the science which is itself admittedly incomplete.

Feynman truly admired the experimental process of science, to do experiments, that was the grand thing. Indeed, if an experiment was broken or if the data didn't make sense, it was considered a good thing, because it gave the scientists something to think about, to work out. But here with the denialists, we see things like TOD changes, or station moves, and we get arguments about how the science isn't sound. We see data from 4-5 years ago being brought into the discussion, as if it represents the current state of our knowledge. And this is supposed to be considered rational debate.

Feynman would smack these people upside the head. He had his own theory about particles, but when quarks were proven, and they fit the *evidence* he basically accepted that his theory was wrong. He really disliked people who did not respect the scientific method of experimentation and reproduction. Before he died he actually did some String Theory bashing, Lubo's (anti-"warmist" String Theorists) would probably have something to nasty to say about that.

[Josh Cryer]

Luzr, the temperature measurements were wrong and Spencer (a famous anti-AGW activist) had to change his data. Proving even *real* scientists with an anti-AGW bent have to cede to the peer review if the peer review finds errors.

I find it likely that the RSS and UAH satellite measurements will once again have to be modified due to errors, but they will be found in due course.

[MSimon]

You think that signal is pattern matching and manipulating (by dozens of scientists, mind you),

There is lots of grant money for CO2 is the cause of warming. That could bias results. Wouldn't be the first case of that.

and that the whole science is screwed because it is incomplete.

If you are aliasing the wrong cause (CO2) for the right one (natural variability) it is not just incompleteness. It is error.

BTW the IPCC remit (in the simplest of terms) is: if we don't know a cause for the warming it must be man made CO2. That is a case of correlation = causation. Which we know is unscientific. The signature of CO2 caused warming is missing. Some think it is bad data. Others think it is bad models. Neither proposition has been adequately explored to nail it.

It would be nice if we had a model or three that conform to the ERBE data (low gain) and see what kind of predictions we get. Then we do a full up verification of such a model to see if it is consistent with the data and then we see if it predicts better than the high gain models.

Right now we need more high quality data.

What is normally done in such a case where the results are important is to put two teams on it. Pro and con. At this point we have only one team.

If Svensmark is correct (we will know around 2013 or so) then the current models are crap. And so far his data is holding up. That would be another unaccounted for alias. Time will tell.

[Josh Cryer]

We won't have a definitive* answer until CLARREO goes up, but by then it will be far too late to curb emissions on a global scale. The US is the only country in the world whose emissions are consistently dropping (since 2006). We are heading in the right direction. It's China and India who need stringent policies, and we shouldn't do business with them, to be honest. I know it's a scary prospect, the US actually making its own junk again (low level consumer stuff), but yeah, I'd like to see us move in that direction rather than being the biggest Chinese importers.

*By definitive I mean that no one can argue on any side whether or not the data is good enough, and it will give us numbers on forcing and sensitivity that will produce models with extreme climate forecasting ability (as opposed to the hind-cast that people are dubious over).

[MSimon]

I sourced various data points showing that the hot spot does in fact exist in the real world

I have read your links and they show no such thing. All that has been done is to call the measurements into doubt.

====

What I have seen recently is statements that the current cooling is the result of natural variability. I'm OK with that. Now why not the warming?

====

With the release of the CRU e-mails and data the bar for proof just got a lot higher. "Could be" doesn't cut it. Even "likely" is not good enough.

And orthodoxies are hard to counter. Remember when margarine = good and butter = bad? I think that went on for a decade or two.

Or the counter orthodoxy of bacteria cause ulcers? That took quite a while to counter the prevailing wisdom. For a long time that view was shut out of the debate. Why? There was data for something else.

And now it looks like the ozone hole may be natural because the intermediate products the theory predicts are not there in sufficient concentration. It may not be chlorine at all. Or the theory of how chlorine does it is wrong.

Doubt is the soul of science.

[MSimon]

It's China and India who need stringent policies, and we shouldn't do business with them,

Two problems with China. If they don't keep building out their grid and improving their energy infrastructure they will have a revolution.

Second - we have to do business with China. They hold too much of our paper.

And it is telling that the USA (not a Kyoto signatory) is the only major in the world reducing its CO2 (not intentionally). While the Kyoto signers are increasing theirs (intentionally).

And what is happening in Britain is a cautionary tale. They are cutting back on coal fired plants without a suitable replacement. I predict they will change their policies. Who wants to go from a first world energy supply to a third world condition? After a while people start to notice. And get pissed.

[Luzr]

We won't have a definitive* answer until CLARREO goes up, but by then it will be far too late to curb emissions on a global scale. The US is the only country in the world whose emissions are consistently dropping (since 2006). We are heading in the right direction. It's China and India who need stringent policies, and we shouldn't do business with them, to be honest. I know it's a scary prospect, the US actually making its own junk again (low level consumer stuff), but yeah, I'd like to see us move in that direction rather than being the biggest Chinese importers.

Well, this line of thinking is one of my AGW related fears. China-India will NOT reduce CO2. Do you plan to wage a war on them because of that?

I know it sounds ridiculous now, but let journalism to beat the drums for a couple of more years and maybe the idea will not sound as ridiculous for average U.S. citizen anymore. Of course, all of that if perception of "climate change" continues. But that does not take a lot. Just one climatic event bigger than Katrina, a couple of thousands death, then compare to 9/11 and blame it on China...

[MSimon]

Oh. Yeah. I forgot to mention one of my all time favorite orthodoxies.

"Drugs cause addiction" - that one is pretty much gone in the medical community. The general public and "science" writers (upholders of orthodoxies) not so much. And that one has been going on for hundreds of years.

[MSimon]

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/about-mission.html

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/docs-decadal.html

Natural and human-induced changes in Earth's interior, land surface, biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans affect all aspects of life. Understanding these changes requires a range of observations acquired from land-, sea-, air-, and space-based platforms. To assist NASA, NOAA, and USGS in developing these tools, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked to carry out a "decadal strategy" survey of Earth science and applications from space that would identify the key scientific questions on which to focus Earth and environmental observations in the period 2005-2015 and beyond, and present a prioritized list of space programs, missions, and supporting activities to address these questions.

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/docs/Decadal_Survey.pdf

http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/docs/CLARR ... Survey.pdf

Background: Stripped to its fundamentals, the climate is first affected by the long-term balance between (1) the solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth, ocean, atmosphere system, and (2) the infrared (IR) radiation exchanged within that system and emitted to space. Thus, key observations include the solar irradiance, incident and reflected, and the spectrally resolved IR radiance emitted to space that carries the spectral signature of IR forcing of climate and the resulting response of that climate system. As a key part of the recognized imperative to develop long-term, high accuracy time series with global coverage of critical climate variables, this mission addresses the objective of establishing global, long-term climate records that are of high accuracy and tied to international standards maintained in the U.S. by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, it is essential for societal objectives that require the long-term climate record, that the accuracy of the core benchmark observations be verified against absolute standards on-orbit by fundamentally independent methods.

You will note that they allude to the low accuracy, non-traceability, and data fudging of current surface data. And since planning started a while ago I think they must have known something well before ClimateGate.

Right now the best data we have on Earth temps comes from the ARGO buoys. And we only have about 5 years of that.

[seedload]

Anyway, since you guys insist on linking denialist websites rather than peer reviewed papers (which I would actually enjoy reading as opposed to having to sift through political bullcrap), I will just link RCs debunking of this "hot-spot" stuff: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... pshere-ii/

That was funny. I consider myself one of "you guys" and I already linked to the same website and actually included the same quote you did. I said that this was the defense (a bit sarcastically) and then you actually use the defense. Funny.

Notice a trend? Data (evidence) doesn't fit the theory. Data must be wrong. Theory must be right. Need new theory to explain 'fixing' the data to fit the original theory.

[MSimon]

Headline news:

Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States

Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years

Vermont sets ‘all-time record for one snowstorm’

Iowa temps ‘a solid 30 degrees below normal’

Power goes out at Reagan National outside DC

Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years

Peru’s mountain people ‘face extinction because of cold conditions’…

Beijing – coldest in 40 years

World copes with Arctic weather - Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA

Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years

GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK

Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade

Northern Sweden on the way to 50 degrees below zero

You can find the links here:

the-frigid-hit-parade

[Scupperer]

And what is happening in Britain is a cautionary tale. They are cutting back on coal fired plants without a suitable replacement.

Britain's suitable replacement.

[seedload]

UAH anomaly down to .28.



(January, so far, is trending below the mean.)

It's sure tough to get a .5/decade trend outta that (still holding steady at .1). I'd say Al Gore's oceanfront condo was a good investment. Ironic, when you consider he's paying for it with dollars gleaned through fears of sea level rise.

... and since that trend is measured during the positive cycle of PDO and since temperature will trend slightly down for the next 20 years or so during the negative cycle of PDO, that satellite decadal trend number will certainly take a dip. 0.05 degree C per decade is the real number and hasn't changed since the instrumental temperature record started.

Linear warming since the end of the little ice age combined with oscilating temperatures caused by multidecadal oscilations such as the PDO results in -

• trend of cooling from 1880s to 1910s,
  thrend of warming from 1910s-1940s,
  trend of cooling from late 1940s to 1970s,
  trend of warming from 1980s to 2000s,
  trend of cooling staring in the 2000s.

Cooling and warming trends are similar in slope regardless of CO2 level.

We are entering the cooling phase.

[MSimon]

And what is happening in Britain is a cautionary tale. They are cutting back on coal fired plants without a suitable replacement.

Britain's suitable replacement.

Wicked.