A Climate Of Bad Code

[seedload]

Which is the question I have been asking for days now. Why isn't the predicted hot spot observed?

Because there is a "...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.”

At least according to Peter Thorne. Gavin Smith agrees. He says, "Indeed" to this theory.

Sounds like some more corrections to the observed temperature record are in order. If the measured temperature record doesn't match the models, figure out a theory about what is wrong with the measurements and adjust them. This is the established climate science method. It is a living breathing scientific method.

Here is a link to real climate's answer to your question which is also where my quotes originated.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... pshere-ii/

[bcglorf]

If the measured temperature record doesn't match the models, figure out a theory about what is wrong with the measurements and adjust them. This is the established climate science method.

It certainly looks like that is the approach. Unfortunately for the catastrophic AGW crowd, in real science when the models don't match the measured data, you adjust the MODELS!

[MSimon]

If the measured temperature record doesn't match the models, figure out a theory about what is wrong with the measurements and adjust them. This is the established climate science method.

It certainly looks like that is the approach. Unfortunately for the catastrophic AGW crowd, in real science when the models don't match the measured data, you adjust the MODELS!

Let us suppose the models are right. What they are admitting is a lack of warming. Not surprising given the indications of data fudging. As you point out the answer is NOT an adjustment of the tropo data to match the models.

Now if there is a lack of warming then it may also indicate the models are wrong about CO2.

The RC boys have painted themselves into a corner if they can't "fix" the tropo data.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, what are you talking about with "hot spots"? Got a cite?

[MSimon]

MSimon, what are you talking about with "hot spots"? Got a cite?

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspo ... st_30.html

I have some words about that here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -code.html

BTW it is a well known problem and has been discussed for years. Here is more:

search - signature of AGW

[MSimon]

AGW proponents control the ground. Where they are losing is on the high ground - space.

The oceans seem to be getting away from them as well. (ARGO buoys)

Recent history the AGW folks control. The geologists have a different idea.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... a-and.html

And the snow in China? AGW.

[Jccarlton]

AGW proponents control the ground. Where they are losing is on the high ground - space.

The oceans seem to be getting away from them as well. (ARGO buoys)

Recent history the AGW folks control. The geologists have a different idea.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... a-and.html

And the snow in China? AGW.

Two things:
One, you can get a good price for coal in China. Two, is Mr. Hu going to have his head by the end of winter.

[Josh Cryer]

This is another new claim I have come across, I admit that they get more and more esoteric. From your article: "Conclusion 1: IPCC Climate theory is wrong" and "Conclusion 2: CO2 is Innocent"

I should send you to this Asimov essay I recently discovered about "right and wrong."

Here it is: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... fWrong.htm

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/

This is an amusing case of picking less accurate data to represent reality, from people who claim that the data isn't accurate to begin with. It's basic cherry picking. But as we can see, as the data is improved, the models are vindicated (not just with the satellite record, but with other areas, too).

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.

[MSimon]

This is another new claim I have come across, I admit that they get more and more esoteric. From your article: "Conclusion 1: IPCC Climate theory is wrong" and "Conclusion 2: CO2 is Innocent"

I should send you to this Asimov essay I recently discovered about "right and wrong."

Here it is: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... fWrong.htm

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/

This is an amusing case of picking less accurate data to represent reality, from people who claim that the data isn't accurate to begin with. It's basic cherry picking. But as we can see, as the data is improved, the models are vindicated (not just with the satellite record, but with other areas, too).

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.

Actually the tropo stuff is measured with balloons. Which are calibrated before being sent aloft. As opposed to ground temps which get calibrations much less frequently and are not end to end i.e. the instruments are checked but not the sensors.

As to peer review. You have to be kidding me. After a long history of complaints about collusion in climate science by sceptics we have proof. So there is no telling what is not in the record.

And you know - the heart of science is scepticism.

Feynman - one minute in is the good part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY

More Feynman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

[Josh Cryer]

Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo208.html

Are Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood part of this global conspiracy?

In the tropical upper troposphere, where the predicted amplification of surface trends is largest, there is no significant discrepancy between trends from RICH–RAOBCORE version 1.4 and the range of temperature trends from climate models. This result directly contradicts the conclusions of a recent paper by Douglass et al. (2007).

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... JCLI1929.1

Are Leopold Haimberger, Christina Tavolato, and Stefan Sperka part of this global conspiracy?

We find that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are greater than the surface warming and increase with height.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Pu ... u.2005.pdf

Are Qiang Fu and Celeste M. Johanson part of the global conspiracy?

Oh my oh my!

At middle and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the zonally averaged temperature at the surface increased faster than in the troposphere while at low latitudes of both hemispheres the temperature increased more slowly at the surface than in the troposphere.

http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Vi ... 006392.pdf

Are Konstantin Y. Vinnikov, Norman C. Grody, Alan Robock, Ronald J. Stouffer, Philip D. Jones, and Mitchell D. Goldberg all part of the global conspiracy?

Oh crap! Phil Jones is in there. Clearly all of the analysis from all of these scientists must be thrown into question, because the peer review is corrupted and all of these people are evil conspirators to take your money!

What a bunch of unscientific garbage. Invoking Feynman here is a disgrace.

"You shouldn't pre-decide what is is we're trying to do except to find out more about it."

I see no evidence that these scientists are "pre-deciding."

[MSimon]

From the RC link:

First off, Lanzante and Free do an excellent job in really pinning down the biases (compared to satellites and models)

Well, well, well. Satellites haven't found the hot spot either.

Fortunately the models have found them. Therefor of course the satellite data is in error. The same error the radiosonde data has.

Now here is where I agree with the RC folks:

These biases undoubtedly exist and the issue is to work out whether they are due to instrumental problems, sampling issues, errors in model physics or errors in model forcings (or all of the above!).

They admit the models could be wrong. I'd give that as the most likely cause.

Now Josh. If you were a real scientist/engineer you would welcome scepticism. Because every good scientist/engineer knows (as Feynman points out in the first video): The easiest person to fool is yourself.

You ought to give up "denialist" rhetoric. It is unbecoming. It makes it seem as if climate science is really political science. It puts you in with the Lysenkoists. Do you really want to go there?

In any case your RC link does not explain why observation does not match theory. You will have to do better than that if you are going to convince me. You see to make a convincing case you have to nail the error. As my quote above shows. The RC folks have done no such thing.

So is it the models or is it the data?

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon,

Well, well, well. Satellites haven't found the hot spot either.

Fortunately the models have found them. Therefor of course the satellite data is in error. The same error the radiosonde data has.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Now here is where I agree with the RC folks:

These biases undoubtedly exist and the issue is to work out whether they are due to instrumental problems, sampling issues, errors in model physics or errors in model forcings (or all of the above!).

They admit the models could be wrong. I'd give that as the most likely cause.

Absolutely, they could very well be wrong. They have yet to pin it down. But you're saying, explicitly, and quoting, btw, some crackpot, that because the models are wrong or may be wrong, that all of the theory should be thrown out. I recommend you read that Asimov essay I linked earlier.

Now Josh. If you were a real scientist/engineer you would welcome scepticism. Because every good scientist/engineer knows (as Feynman points out in the first video): The easiest person to fool is yourself.

I do! I look at everything you guys say critically. The fact that you don't believe that I read that whole paper you linked suggests to me that you have a mistrusting nature, and exhibit an arrogance that suggests you are incapable of accepting new information that goes against your views.

I read that whole thing dude. Even the parts where he (Evans) goes on about water vapor feedbacks. And this, btw, is using data from 2006 (as I initially posted), when we know that since then the data has become far more accurate, allowing the signal to be discovered. You think that signal is pattern matching and manipulating (by dozens of scientists, mind you), and that the whole science is screwed because it is incomplete.

You ought to give up "denialist" rhetoric. It is unbecoming. It makes it seem as if climate science is really political science. It puts you in with the Lysenkoists. Do you really want to go there?

Heh. Nice jab, but I'm not biting.

In any case your RC link does not explain why observation does not match theory. You will have to do better than that if you are going to convince me. You see to make a convincing case you have to nail the error. As my quote above shows. The RC folks have done no such thing.

They have shown that the warming signal in fact exists, and that Evans is using data from 2006 (in an updated paper in 2009) to "prove" his point. The data is improved, his argument doesn't change. He is classically attacking an incomplete view of the data, and you're letting him get by with it. This is precisely why it is an insult to my hero Feynman that you deign to post something from him, explaining about real science. You certainly are not looking at this critically.

Why does Evans think that data from 2006 is better than data from 2007, 2008, and 2009?

So is it the models or is it the data?

Both or neither: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... fWrong.htm

But probably a mix of the two. The key is that the view is getting better. You cannot refute that.

[TallDave]

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.

[MSimon]

They have shown that the warming signal in fact exists,

So true. I don't doubt it. But that is not the question.

Is it the natural recovery from the last cold spell (ended around 1850 or so) or is it CO2?

So far the data do not match the predictions (equator tropo warming) based on the models. Which are heavily weighted to CO2. In fact tropo warming (around the equator) is what I would expect if CO2 was the cause. Radiation (quasi) balance and all that.

We know that there is a natural 300 year (roughly) cycle. So let me see. 1850 + 150 = 2000. Which says we may be headed for a 150 year cold spell.

Now we have a 300 year cycle lining up with a 60 year cycle (PDO) and both going negative. It could get cold rather fast. On top of that we have the AO going negative. Baby it's cold outside.

And why bring up Feynman? For the simple reason that he makes the case that scepticism is the essence of science.

But I forgive your intemperateness. You are rattled. Nothing unusual. When I didn't believe in warming the inescapable fact of warming (I came to my senses around 1998) shook me. It is good to have your world view shaken. It makes you realign your view with the facts. Always useful for an engineer. It has happened to me plenty of times before. I'm used to the feeling.

I remember when Rick N. said that strong magnetic fields would reduce (greatly) the need for coil case cooling. Do you know how much time I put into solving the cooling problem? Lots. And lots. But that was a pleasant surprise. Not so hard to take. And I still have what I learned from solving the non-problem. Like figuring out how to protect the coils from a neutron flux. Useful if pB11 doesn't work and D-D does.

If we are passing the peak of the (approximately) sine curve (10 years of flat temps) the decline will get faster from here out. Time will tell.

BTW given the roughly 5 year residence time of CO2 I expect the rate of rise of CO2 to decline as the oceans cool. We are already seeing hints of that. Ocean solubility and all that. If it gets cool enough long enough it might even reverse.

And volcanic action has been rather low for quite some time. If volcanoes kick in on top of the natural cycles we could be headed for an ice age. For which we are totally unprepared due to spending all our time worried about warming.

[MSimon]

The fact that you don't believe that I read that whole paper you linked suggests to me that you have a mistrusting nature,

Did I in fact say that? Or even imply that? I may have. Point it out to me.

I applaud your scepticism of my position. You might honor me with a similar courtesy (that denialism stuff is the stuff of political science).

I think you are in error. I have shown you one or two places where that may be so. And in a rather long winded reply you agree I may have a point.

Progress.