|
Post by sentient on Dec 4, 2009 19:55:04 GMT
I am still looking for a really good thread which catalogs (hopefully meticulously) the full suite of comments found in the code in FOI2009.zip, and/or some good analyses of some of the routines. Oddly enough, one of the better ones seems to be Monckton/SPPI 30Nov09 paper.
Aside from the e-mails and aspersions therein, the foundation of the AGW hypothesis would seem to be deeply tied up not only in the data and what has been altered, but how and why it was altered.
Does anyone know of a place where this either has happened, and the results posted, or is still ongoing, and the current results organized well?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 4, 2009 20:20:40 GMT
I am still looking for a really good thread which catalogs (hopefully meticulously) the full suite of comments found in the code in FOI2009.zip, and/or some good analyses of some of the routines. Oddly enough, one of the better ones seems to be Monckton/SPPI 30Nov09 paper. Aside from the e-mails and aspersions therein, the foundation of the AGW hypothesis would seem to be deeply tied up not only in the data and what has been altered, but how and why it was altered. Does anyone know of a place where this either has happened, and the results posted, or is still ongoing, and the current results organized well? There are others, but here's just one section of the code. The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them Tocubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/How anyone can continue to apologize for these jackals is beyond my ability to understand their logical reasoning process.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 4, 2009 21:06:06 GMT
My comment to that blog post was a little critical: As an engineer myself I was deeply disapointed by your post which simply boiled down to “this adjustment looks like a hockey stick…therefore this is proof the code was used to publish fraudulent temperature data” First of all I thought engineers would be especially positioned to understand how code can be used to test different ideas, creating a slew of code some active and some not active which can easily be misinterpretted. You point out the adjustment shape looks like Mann’s hockey stick. I am very suprised you would think that, to me the adjustment goes flat in the last half, which Mann’s hockey stick did not. Furthermore your conclusion that this code was used to fabricate temperature data is based solely on this flawed comparison. I just don’t understand this mate, why would you jump to such a conclusion just because this adjustment goes up in the middle and Mann’s hockey stick goes up at the end? You haven’t even shown that this coded adjustment was used in any published results. This is certainly not proof, there is a whole step of analysis missing. For example it’s entirely possible that the adjustment code was simply to test something and this was never used in published results. Did you spot that yearlyadj is never used for example? The line it would have been used on is commented out. That doesn’t mean much but it does go to show this code is not to be interpreted literally. There is an analysis of this code here in whcih the author claims to have tracked down the publication this code was used for, and found that the adjustment code was not used for it: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 4, 2009 21:33:07 GMT
socold, I'm really sorry, but do you believe that there is a computer program in existence that can accurately model the Earth's climate?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 4, 2009 21:54:40 GMT
I believe there are computer programs that do a good job at modelling the overall climate based on current scientific understanding of it's mechanisms. Not 100% accurate as current understanding is incomplete, but a rough guide.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 4, 2009 22:10:29 GMT
I believe there are computer programs that do a good job at modelling the overall climate based on current scientific understanding of it's mechanisms. Not 100% accurate as current understanding is incomplete, but a rough guide. SoCold: When one can't model the hydro cycle, any model is worthless. I am not against models, I hope at some point in the future they produce valid results. So far tho.....they are not even close. I don't think I have to list the failures do I?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 4, 2009 22:52:28 GMT
The hydro cycle can be modelled, what you are arguing is that it isn't modelled well enough. Well I don't think it has to be anything near perfect to provide us with an idea of how it can be affected by changes.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 4, 2009 23:11:59 GMT
The hydro cycle can be modelled, what you are arguing is that it isn't modelled well enough. Well I don't think it has to be anything near perfect to provide us with an idea of how it can be affected by changes. SoCold: The hydro cycle is not modeled well at all. Would be like tring to fit a 1 1/2 inch shaft in a 1" hole. Both are round, but no way in the world it is going to fit. The hyrdo cycle has a model life of approx 6 hours. Why do you think even short term forcasts are wrong so often? IT does NOT follow the lows/highs etc as we know them well. Just when one thinks it will....it goes back to chaos again. I will believe a fellow who has studied this all his life when he says that anyone stating otherwise is not being honest.
|
|
|
Post by georgebaxter on Dec 5, 2009 0:46:11 GMT
A model can only be considered reasonable if it shows a good accord with the real data. Which is why having the real, raw data is so important in the discussion about the temperature changes. If anyone wants to plot the Met Office data themselves, there is also a link to data ( albeit "adjusted" ) as used in the diagrams. It is in the bottom left hand corner. hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.htmlInterestingly, in Feb 2008, the global temperature dipped to a mere 0.03 C about the norm. The Met Office must have been worried sick, in case it dipped below zero. I think that they are accurately posting the data. They normally make adjustments over a period of months, as more data comes in. That figure 0.03 was originally 0.05 C. Back to the models. I do not recall anyone ever making a prediction of a decade of no increase in temperature. Why should they? There is nothing in the current models to suggest that. Nor is there anything in the current data to suggest that the temperatures will rise by 6 C in the next century. My view is that the current models make a fair first approximation, but nothing that can be used for useful extrapolation. The reason that I think that is that there are still too many poorly defined parameters. The effect of the Earth's own magnetic field may come into play soon, as the poles are now starting to undergo one of their periodic reversals. The oceanic effects ( Pacific Decadal Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation ) have both been positive over the past decades but are now both switching to be negative. The Met Office now incorporate the NAO to predict European weather more accurately. The reduced solar activities ( low sunspots, low solar wind ) will also allow greater cosmic ray penetration. Slower Atlantic Conveyor will contribute less energy to the Europe. So the expectation ( mine anyway ) is that Europe in particular, and the Arctic, will get appreciably cooler in the next 20 years. The reason that I think that models are inadequate is that they are over-estimating the importance of CO2. The Met Office acknowledge that CO2 is essentially saturated in the atmosphere. Not literally, but CO2 can only absorb in certain, and rather narrow, bands in the IR spectrum. And the current CO2 levels are already absorbing their maximum amounts ( or a near as damn it ). So more CO2 will not make are significant impact. If the models are to be credible, then they must explain/predict the current flat level. La Nina is the current explanation, but as they are short time scale ( year or two, not decadal ) that cannot be the reason. The major parameters have probably been identified ( but who would have predicted global dimming ). The first order effects are known, but there are now probably greater than expects secondary or tertiary effects to consider. Not to mention an chaos in the system
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 5, 2009 2:56:20 GMT
To keep things interesting, I have started watching the temp much more carefully, and the graphs that show the anomolies.
Will be interesting to see how December plays out. November was warm here, and like a switch, December came in with a roar and we are now once again averageing below our seasonal mean temp. The forcast for the next 7 days is indicating that we are going to be 3-4F below seasonal once again.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Dec 5, 2009 5:25:40 GMT
sOcOld:
You were asked this question: I'm really sorry, but do you believe that there is a computer program in existence that can accurately model the Earth's climate?
You answered: I believe there are computer programs that do a good job at modelling the overall climate based on current scientific understanding of it's mechanisms. Not 100% accurate as current understanding is incomplete, but a rough guide.
Follow-up question: How much under 100%? Would you agree that with the minimal differences responsible for the massive feedbacks suggested by the models that even a marginal amount of inaccuracy would render the "rough guide" meaningless?
Then you wrote: The hydro cycle can be modelled, what you are arguing is that it isn't modelled well enough.
Follow-up question: Obviously it is not very accurate, but is it included in the AGW prediction models or is it just a separate model?
In both cases I believe you know the answers to those questions but your original responses were deliberately ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2009 13:10:02 GMT
The hydro cycle can be modelled, what you are arguing is that it isn't modelled well enough. Well I don't think it has to be anything near perfect to provide us with an idea of how it can be affected by changes. SoCold: The hydro cycle is not modeled well at all. Would be like tring to fit a 1 1/2 inch shaft in a 1" hole. Both are round, but no way in the world it is going to fit. The hyrdo cycle has a model life of approx 6 hours. Why do you think even short term forcasts are wrong so often? IT does NOT follow the lows/highs etc as we know them well. Just when one thinks it will....it goes back to chaos again. I will believe a fellow who has studied this all his life when he says that anyone stating otherwise is not being honest. It's climate modelling not weather modelling. The hydrological cycle is modelled, the inaccuracy of that is reflected in wide model results. Until a climate model can show < 1C warming from a doubling of co2 I remain unconvinced that uncertainty with hydrological cycle modelling can make the co2 problem go away. If the uncertainty was that significant it should be easy to play with the uncertainty and get a model to show < 1C warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2009 13:15:21 GMT
The reason that I think that models are inadequate is that they are over-estimating the importance of CO2. The Met Office acknowledge that CO2 is essentially saturated in the atmosphere. Not literally, but CO2 can only absorb in certain, and rather narrow, bands in the IR spectrum. And the current CO2 levels are already absorbing their maximum amounts ( or a near as damn it ). So more CO2 will not make are significant impact. Doubling co2 from current levels still leads to about 3.7wm-2 less energy going into space. That energy imbalance is equivalent to a 2% increase in solar output.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2009 13:28:00 GMT
sOcOld: You were asked this question: I'm really sorry, but do you believe that there is a computer program in existence that can accurately model the Earth's climate?You answered: I believe there are computer programs that do a good job at modelling the overall climate based on current scientific understanding of it's mechanisms. Not 100% accurate as current understanding is incomplete, but a rough guide.Follow-up question: How much under 100%? Would you agree that with the minimal differences responsible for the massive feedbacks suggested by the models that even a marginal amount of inaccuracy would render the "rough guide" meaningless? A lot under 100%. I think the range of inaccuracy is reflected in the range of climate sensitivity, 1.5C to 4.5C. I think modelling inaccuracy makes this range wide, but that actual sensitivity is v very likely somewhere in that range all the same. Ie I think if it was at all possible that climate sensitivity was < 1C (net negative feedbacks) the range would encompass that. If models were all shot to inaccuracy and useless I would expect the climate sensitivity range from models to be more like 0.5C to 8C. The water cycle is in the GCMs. If the water cycle could cause a large negative feedback in climate that resulted in low climate sensitivity I would expect someone would have shown that possibility in a GCM. Uncertainty in the water cycle surely makes such a result easier to produce.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 5, 2009 13:47:39 GMT
SoCold: What you are missing here is that the hydrologic cycle is not well enough understood. We all know that. I am not talking about weather when I say the cycle has a 6 hour certainty. Example: Long term forcasts rely on what is known at a present time about the hydro cycle. Being in ag, I watch the long term. I have to try and plan a year in advance concerning the hydro cycle. The ND climate office has done studies concerning El Nino and La Nina effects on moisture. This is extremely important in my state as ag is the largest industry.
The result of those studies has shown that it is a 50-50 chance in the long term forcast. This gets back to Osborn stating it is an educated guess and anyone saying otherwise is not being truthful.
You are insistent on the validity of the hydro cycle in the GCMs. I look at reality, and the reality is that the forcast made by the GCM's is 50-50.
Another example is temps: Not one forcast was even close to the temps experienced in the Mid West of the US this past summer. Ditto many other growing seasons.
The slab model works in a lab setting, but it just does not work in the chaotic setting of reality. I don't know how much more simple I can make it for you.
I am saying this in a friendly way now. You really do need to look at lifes experiences to fully understand what I said here. That is the test that needs to be passed.
|
|