Climate Audit

jae

In the end, it’s important not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, where the “forest” refers to the totality of scientific evidence for global warming.

Can someone please direct me to this totality? Does it reside somewhere inside computer models?

Al Fin

It’s pretty clear that you were intentionally excluded, Steve. But no one needs to tell you how to make yourself so conspicuous as to become impossible to ignore–to your credit.

As for the comment about “not losing sight of the forest for the trees”, I think the choice of words is telling (not only for the bristlecones). Because in science, losing sight of the trees for the forest is an egregious error that leads to the sloppiness that is endemic in so much current climatology.

scp

http://home.comcast.net/~timhesterberg/ScientificIntegrity.html
says

The OTA has been replaced with kangaroo courts like recent congressional hearings on global warming, in which two climate research contrarians with industry ties were invited to challenge one researcher (University of Virginia’s Michael Mann), whose work has contributed to the overwhelming global scientific consensus on the issue. Naturally, the hearing did not convey the overwhelming consensus, but rather the impression of uncertainty and disagreement, and a score of 2-1 against climate change; see The Republican War on Science.

Linked from: From the Chair of the Computing Section (of the ASA).

trevor

Re: #7: It would be a quaint outcome, wouldn’t it, if a meeting held by NCAR to “develop a statement on the level of consensus” excluded participation by those questioning the science.

Don Keiller

re#6. Wow, poor Michael, all alone against “Big Oil” stooges.

bender

Re #11
No need to be confused about the lack of interaction. My visits over there led to nothing but ad hominem attacks and childish retribution. Why would I go back? They think they are the keepers of the truth, and they aren’t interested in factual arguments to the contrary. But don’t take my word for it. Go search their site. Their behavior is anything but scientific.

Steve McIntyre

#11. The supposed “lack of interaction” is one way. I link to realclimate (and Tamino, William Connolley and even Eli Rabett) but none of them link back. As far as I can tell, Gavin Schmidt does not permit links by commenters to CA and for a long time censored even the mention of CA, although the odd mention has slipped through this year.

Could you identify any posts in which I have taken a position that AGW is “more myth than science”? I’m pretty sure that I’ve never said anything that could be construed as taking any position on the matter. (I don’t necessarily endorse the views of posters here, and the majority of posts that I delete are venting by posters against AGW alarmism; I don’t have the time or energy to catch everything but I try to thin posts that are primarily venting.) My particular expertise is in the proxy studies and I’ve consistently stated that, merely because Mann’s study was flawed,or even if all the HS studies were flawed, that this did not mean that there wasn’t some other valid argument proving that AGW was a substantial rather than minor threat. I’ve been trying for a very long time to get someone to provide a coherent exposition of how doubled CO2 leads to 2.5 deg C global warming and have not obtained any satisfactory reply. I’ve emailed some major protagonists – Gavin Schmidt, Gerry North – asking for recommendations and not obtained any suggestions. Gerry North sent an article that was interesting, but not really on point. I’ve had enough experience with mining promotions to know that , just because someone is an untrustworthy promoter, doesn’t mean that he can’t have a legitimate discovery.

I don’t think that the Michael Mann stuff is valid, but it doesn’t mean that someone else hasn’t got a decent proof. But it’s surprisingly hard to find a fully articulated exposition. Prior to AR4, I suggested to the authors that they include such an exposition, but they elected not to.

steven mosher

RE 11.

I’ve been over to RC a few dozen times. Before I came here actually. At first I was nice,
asking questions, then they decided that I was a crazed anti abortionist. ( they have google
on the brain and never considered the possiblities that A) I might share the name of a famous person
and B) I might hide behind his name for anonymity, a much deeper cover than the silly tamino
or eli rabbett have used) Gullibility seems to run rampant over there. As long as its peer
reviewed, they’ll swallow anything. “Give to to mikey, he’ll eat anything.”
So, after they pissed me off I went Moshpit on them and put burning bags of poop in my posts.
Even then they can’t resist stomping them out.

Philip_B

Is AGW clear? I think all we can say with certainty is that most locations at which temperatures are measured have shown some warming. Global warming implies there has been warming in pretty much all areas on Earth, which is certainly not the case. As to the cause, I find the absence of good evidence pointing at CO2 as the primary cause (of the observed warming) interesting to say the least. A case can be made for significant contributions from various sources, including, CO2, other GHGs, particles/sulphates, albedo, decadal climate oscillations, solar variation and probably others.

Then there is the use of the term AGW itself. Are we talking about CO2, all GHGs, albedo, particulates, sulphates, UHI? Some combination of these and other factors? To be honest, I find the term AGW to be pretty much synonomous with ‘warming of unknown cause’.

Joe Duck

Thanks for these diplomatic responses. The degree of hostility over there is alarming, and it sometimes even comes from the scientists.

I’m still “unsettled” by the fact that the science and advocacy and hostility seem to mix in ways that are likely to make many of the studies about GW misleading, peer reviewed or not.

Could you identify any posts in which I have taken a position that AGW is “more myth than science”?

I see nothing at RC to suggest even the scientists there have any interest whatsoever in the the 10% chance GW is not AGW (am I correct that IPCC suggests there is an approximate 10% chance GW is not AGW ?)

steven mosher

RE 13.

My first posts on RC were all about the SRES. No one seemed to grasp that the key driving paramater
Emmissions, was modelled with a boatload of error. There was all this attention to getting the physics
right, but the inputs to the physical models were varied by an order of magnitude. Population will be
between 5 billion and 15 billion. Further, the most important feedback loop is disconected. The loop
between climate change and economic change. That point is utterly lost on people. The other funny thing
is several sceanrios show that a hotter world is a wealthier world ( because they don’t feedback climate change
into the economic assumptions) and a cooler world is a poorer world. To be more precise, a wealther world
( per capital wealth) is a wamer world and a poorer world is cooler. It’s right there in the inputs
to their models. Assume a poor world, you get emmissions X, plug X in, you get a polarbear friendly future.
Assume a rich world, you get emmissions 2X, viva las vegas.

Steve McIntyre

#23. For making policy decisions, I don’t agree that 95% confidence is any magic figure. People make decisions all the time on judgment and, as I’ve said many times, I don’t fault policymakers for proceeding according to advice from learned institutions; I would do so myself in their shoes, even if in a personal capacity I had misgivings about how the sausage was made.

But as I;ve also said many times, the “big picture” is no excuse for carelessness about details by scientists. As any hockey coach will say, details matter. I think that policy-makers are entitled to engineering-quality reports from IPCC or responsible institutions and that the lack of a comprehensive and articulate engineering quality report outlining how you get 2.5 deg C from doubled CO2 in loving detail right from the infrared calculations – the way an engineer would do it – all calculations laid out in the engineering report – is something that should have been done long ago.

jae

Darn block quote tags; The first statement should be highlighted.

Dan White

Joe post 11:

Also, several comments here and even some of the main posts seem to imply AGW is more myth than science rather than saying AGW is clear, but presented wrapped in alarmism. Alarmism is clearly rampant in the AGW community, but to suggest that AGW is “unlikely”, rather than “likely” simply does not fit with the overwhelming number of studies suggesting there is AGW …

I have a background in chemical engineering, but no experience with climate issues. I mostly surf around reading as much of whatever I can that either supports or questions AGW. After a number of years, off and on, of doing this, it has become more and more clear that AGW theory is a mess. I think you’ll find that this website puts it all together in ways that are often devastating to studies purporting to “suggest” AGW. I think when Steve M. says, essentially, that even a stopped clock may be right, he is being generous. Of course you can’t rule out that AGW is occurring, but neither can you rule out that Pluto is made of liverwurst. (Never thought I’d get “Pluto” and “liverwurst” in the same sentence!)

I found a quote from Baltasar Gracian that seems to apply somewhat ironically to AGW theory:
One deceit needs many others, and so the whole house is built in the air and must soon come to the ground.

I think you are on the right track. Just keep looking for the “side” that is presenting real science.

MJW

I’m rather taken aback that Tim Hesterberg links to the Union of Concerned Scientists website from an official ASA site. In his official capacity, he should at least maintain a facade of objectivity. The UCS is not a scientific organization, it’s an advocacy group; and one of the primary positions it advocates is deep cuts in greenhouse gases to combat what it considers to be the undeniable fact of AGW. For example, the UCS is responsible for circulating the 1997 “Call to Action” petition calling for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Steve McIntyre

#31. John, you’ve completely twisted my comment. I didn’t say that perfect certainty is required for decision-making; in the prior sentence, I said exactly the opposite. People make decisions without perfect information all the time.

You observe that key factors like the feedback associated with cloud formation cannot be parametrized at present in the GCMs. That’s the sort of thing that would be clearly laid out in a proper engineering-level report. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do anything. But you’d at least have a very large chapter on cloud parameterizations and their impact on GCMs. Did you see anything like that in AR4? Just a few lines on the issue – the mentality is different. BTW, in 1979, nearly 30 years ago, the same issue -clouds – was then identified as a stumbling block. As Joni Mitchell said, We really don’t know clouds at all.

John F. Pittman

#31 The IPCC report wrt economics would disagree with you.http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement, and society will vary widely by location and scale. In the aggregate, however, net effects will tend to be more negative the larger the change in climate. **N [7.4, 7.6]Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas. They tend to have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. ** N [7.2, 7.4, 5.4]

Translation: Until the problem gets large, then it pays to become rich. Therefore, we (humanity) do have time to do it. Also, if you assume we (humanity) are going to increase “wealth” as the IPCC suggest, the time and money are “more likely” (stolen from IPCC) to be available.

But I like Steve’s approach, that science should be done correctly. Also, I find it hard to fault someone who wants to have the details.

John M, as the IPCC has stated,

The balance of positive and negative health impacts will vary from one location to another, and will alter over time as temperatures continue to rise. Critically important will be factors that directly shape the health of populations such as education, health care, public health prevention and infrastructure and economic development. *** N [8.3]

Economic development is critical. It also takes time. So I think the better point would be that while we are developing economically, we also continue developing the science. Both can and should be done simultaneously. If you assume that, what Steve is asking is what the IPCC and the scientific community should be asking.

One of the assumptions (a pretty good one based on past performance) is that China, India, and other nations will continue to develop. One of the “dirty little secrets” is that the loss of manufacturing in the US, EU, etc. has been replaced with more polluting manufacturing in developing countries. Not just aerosols, but actual CO2. On this blog and by googling “China emissions” one can get a feel of the failure that Kyoto has inspired.

steven mosher

32 &33.

The latest post on sensistivity at RC claims that know more about clouds will not
reduce the uncertainity in sensitivity.:

” For example, it is often assumed that the tail on the distribution of climate sensitivity is due to the large uncertainty in some feedbacks, particularly clouds. Roe and Baker make it very clear that this is not the case. (The tail in S results from the probability distribution of the feedback strengths, and unless those uncertainties are distributed very, very differently than the Gaussian distribution assumed by Roe and Baker, the tail will remain). Furthermore, they point out that “uncertainty” in the feedbacks need not mean “lack of knowledge” but may also reflect the complexity of the feedback processes themselves. That is to say, because the strength of the feedbacks are themselves variable, the true climate sensitivity (not just our ability to know what it is) is inherently uncertain.”

Some wicked weather version of heisenberg, kinda sorta.

In any case the argument goes thusly: This long tail will not go away, therefore, we need to be more
cautious. The science is in. The statistics are in. No more knowledge is necessary. No more uncertainty
can be removed, and since this long tail is looming and sensistivity might be as high as 11C per
doubling, well the C02 targets should be lower.

jae

I can see the final summary report on the meeting. “The majority of eminent Climate Statisticians concluded that there is a statistical consensus at the 95% confidence level.” LOL.

Scott-in-WA

Steve McIntyre: But as I;ve also said many times, the “big picture” is no excuse for carelessness about details by scientists. As any hockey coach will say, details matter. I think that policy-makers are entitled to engineering-quality reports from IPCC or responsible institutions and that the lack of a comprehensive and articulate engineering quality report outlining how you get 2.5 deg C from doubled CO2 in loving detail right from the infrared calculations – the way an engineer would do it – all calculations laid out in the engineering report – is something that should have been done long ago.

This week’s issue of Newsweek contains an interview with Rajendra Pachauri of IPCC. Fareed Zakaria asks him the question, “There are still people who say that the science on global warming is unclear. How do you react to that kind of talk?”

Pachauri responds, “Well, the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them. The twentieth century sea-level rise was about 17 centimeters. Our predictions for the end of this century are 18 to 59 centimeters. So even if we end up somewhere in the middle, we have a pretty serious crisis on our hands.”

“Well, the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them.”

Clearly, Pachauri is indicating with this statement that he views the science of AGW and its associated physics and mathematics as relatively simple (as such things go) and relatively straightforward. Just as clearly from the interview, otherwise saavy journalists such has Fareed Zakaria have bought that line as well.

So if this is indeed the case; i.e., the science of AGW and its associated physics and mathematics is relatively simple and is relatively straightforward, what point is there for spending lots of the government’s money on maintaining and enhancing the general circulation models(GCMs)?

Moreover, if Pachauri’s statement is both honest and accurate, then why should the “Point A to B” expository explanation for 2xC02 yields 2.5C be such a difficult thing to produce?

bender

Re #41
My consensus includes uncertainty (including the kind that stems from idiocy). The alarmists’ does not. Or, more accurately, their consensus includes only that uncertainty which is alarming. It’s a slanted view of uncertainty that ensures that it cuts only one way: in favour of the “precautionary” principle.

bender

Re #43
Yes. Except that (1) I’m not interested in commenting on policy, and (2) I wanted to make a backhand reference to the Wegman equation:
wrong methods + right answer = bad science

Our grade school math teachers always made us “show our work”. (In part for our own good, so that we could get half-marks!) Why don’t climate scientists follow this practice? (It’s good for you!) When it comes to the statistics of GCM modeling and tuning it looks like they are being evasive. This is a problem as attribution (the A in AGW) is fundamentally a modeling exercise.

Curt

From this week’s Economist, an article on finance that seems appropriate to bring up here:

The peril for markets when computers miscalculate

WHEN markets wobbled in August, almost all the media attention was focused on the credit crunch and the links to American mortgage loans. But at exactly the same time, another crisis was occurring at the core of the stockmarket.

This crisis stemmed from the obscure world of quantitative, or quant-based, finance, which uses computer models to find attractive stocks and to identify overpriced shares. Suddenly, in August, the models went wrong.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026288

steven mosher

RE 47.

Exactly! the problem is they define a model that has an very long time constant. simply
apply input and wait 30 years to see the result from that Forcing. In the meantime, which is
roughlt 40% of your life, you may see effects that are contrary to the expected output of the
control but just wait, in 30 years you’ll see that the control was right. The system has three
things going against it: a long time constant, a really sensisitivity control parameter (C02 doubling)
and a NOISY AS HELL feedback signal.

Say hello to the ground, pilot hansen. Oh he won’t be alive when the plane Clobbers the earth
or departs.

bender

Re #49
This is why I would love to know what transpired at the ASA workshop on statistical climatology – whether indeed “consensus” was reached. From a science perspective, market analysts who really know their stuff have a lot to offer the stochastic world of global ecosystem ecology.

*From a policy perspective, playing Russian (Indochinese?) roulette with the global economy today seems almost as frightening as a hypothetical Jurassic-warm earth a hundred years from now. In fact, the two are, to some degree, linked. For example, what will the Sierra Club do for funding when the western economy implodes? Appeal to the indochinese?! Of course, the “precautionary principle” advises that they should only cross that bridge when they get there. Some foresight! Some caution!

[*My attempt at Sadlovian irony.]

steven mosher

All those in favor of the CLT raise your hand!
Opposed?

ok next topic

All those who believe in calculating verification r2 statistics raise your hand!
Those who believe it’s a ‘foolish and incorrect thing’

MJW

Regarding the Newsweek article mentioned in comment 40:

Fareed Zakaria: “There are still people who say that the science on global warming is unclear. How do you react to that kind of talk?”

Rajendra Pachauri: “Well, the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them. The twentieth century sea-level rise was about 17 centimeters. Our predictions for the end of this century are 18 to 59 centimeters. So even if we end up somewhere in the middle, we have a pretty serious crisis on our hands”

Here’s what the IPCC says about the change in sea level over the last century:

* The IPCC expresses high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. During the 20th century, sea level rose at an average rate of 4.8 to 8.8 inches per century (1.2-2.2 mm/year).
* Tide gauges show little or no acceleration during the 20th century.
* Satellite measurements estimate that sea level has been rising at a rate of 9 to 15 inches per century (2.4-3.8 mm/yr) since 1993, more than 50% faster than the rate that tide gauges estimate over the last century.

So the only method that can be used over the entire period, tidal gauges, shows the current rate is the same as the rate at the begining of the 20th century. A glance at the graphs shows just how steady the rate of change has been. Surely Pachauri knows this, and surely he realizes the rise at the beginning of the period can’t be ascribed to AGW, yet he presents the change in sea level as if it were a high-school level proof of AGW.

John M.

Scott-in-WA says:
October 28th, 2007 at 10:09 am

Moreover, if Pachauri’s statement is both honest and accurate, then why should the “Point A to B” expository explanation for 2xC02 yields 2.5C be such a difficult thing to produce?

It certainly isn’t accurate so the second part is a moot point. How easy do you think it would be to calculate something like changes in the planet’s albedo over time with changing temperature? If people are looking for a clear exposition I personally think the limit to what is realistically doable at the moment is what happens simply on the basis of IR spectroscopy etc if CO2 is doubled and all feedbacks are ignored.

jae

2. If you choose to ignore the feedbacks, you ignore the moist convection – the one process that could easily, seriously limit warming.

Heat of vaporization, moist convection, clouds—the net effect of these processes is to “rob” some of the energy obtained from increased radiation. With an increase in radiaiton (solar or otherwise), you would get incrementally more heat gain in the deserts than in humid areas, due to the greater water-caused losses in humid areas. It is very clear to me that water feedbacks do NOT amplify increases in radiation, contrary to what is assumed in the AGW models.

MJW

Scott-in-WA (comment 55):

My reading of Pachauri’s response is that there are two separate topics within it, one concerning the basic physics of AGW, and another concerning purported physical evidence of the effects of AGW. I will speculate that Newsweek edited Pachauri’s actual response to save space, thus unintentionally leaving us with the impression that there is just one topic in his response.

Whichever topic Pachauri was addressing, the basic physics of AGW or the physical evidence of its effects, his reply is a non sequiter. The change in sea level has nothing to do with the physics of AGW, and isn’t evidence for AGW, as I pointed out in my previous comment. What it is, is another “it’s obvious to any rationally thinking person” dig at skeptics (the “the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them” part) combined with a little “We’re all going to die!” alarmism (the “we have a pretty serious crisis on our hands” part).

(I hope I’m non getting to far off topic by replying, but it seems to me that Pachauri’s comments and the ASA meeting to which one of the major players wasn’t invited reflect a common problem: the use of a political approach to a scientific question. In politics, it’s generally expected that the opponents will try to outmaneuver each other by exaggerating favorable evidence and ignoring unfavorable evidence. It’s all part of the game. Science has generally expected a higher standard of debate. But many climate scientists seem to have decided that the the goal of Saving the Planet justifies using whatever means are necessary to persuade the public to join the cause.)

John M.

bender says:
October 29th, 2007 at 8:27 am

1. This is sufficient to establish the plausibility of the hypothesis, no more.
2. If you choose to ignore the feedbacks, you ignore the moist convection – the one process that could easily, seriously limit warming.

Half a model is not a model.

Sadly predictable that someone on here would post something like that. I think people should try to move beyond a rigidly tribalist alarmist vs. skeptic sort of mentality on this issue and try to do a bit of free thinking for themselves instead of just accepting either the RealClimate or ClimateAudit viewpoint in an unquestioning manner. Both sides appear to me to be way too emotionally invested to be capable of looking at things in the sort of rational, calm and emotionally detached manner normally expected in science.

All I was pointing out is that if you want a clear exposition, that is as far as you can sensibly expect to go right now because after that it gets extremely complicated. Beyond that I am completely open minded as to what effect the various feedbacks could have as that clearly is an area that is still not well understood.

My gut instinct on this, for what it’s worth, is that there must have been some kind of strong negative feedback on the geological timescale that stopped runaway temperature increases when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today and that increased albedo due to greater cloud formation is the obvious candidate. I therefore don’t tend to lose too much sleep over AGW as I find the more extreme alarmism over it somewhat far-fetched but if I were a prime minister or a president I probably wouldn’t stake my place in the history books on a gut instinct like that when irreversible changes are underway on a global scale. Better to be safe than sorry are words to live by.

bender

John M,
If CA is so “sadly predictable” and you are so insightful, then why don’t you make a few sad predictions for the readership? The only thing sad that I see is (1) your tendency to miss the point, and (2) your persistent whining about how divided the world is. I confidently predict we will see more of the same from you in the future.

John M.

I was referring more to the regulars on here. Is it going too far to say there is a prevailing group think in these discussion threads? Maybe, but it’s not too far off that, in my opinion. My two main criticisms would be that you don’t put what you are doing in the wider context clearly enough and this allows some people on here to arrive at the conclusion that the whole basis for believing in AGW revolves around Mann and his hockey stick when in fact Mann’s data are not in the least bit pivotal in that regard and that the whole recurring theme that engineers have something to offer on this that scientists don’t is to be polite about it a tad misleading. I think it is a bit of a stretch to extrapolate from the fact that a few climate scientists are doing their statistics very badly to the broader conclusion that engineers know better and the whole peer review process is irretrievably flawed. I don’t think many scientists would make sweeping conclusions about engineering based on stuff like the original Tacoma Narrows Road or Tay Rail Bridges or more recently the new terminal at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris because they know that like most scientists most engineers do a good job. I suspect Mann’s hockey stick is maybe going to be remembered in much the same sort of light as Piltdown Man and that you will belatedly be seen in much the same sort of light as Franz Weidenreich is now but in big picture terms just like the theory of evolution, AGW may well have plenty of staying power despite that.

brian

I realize that many readers vent, but I personally try to refrain from this, I do not endorse every comment by every poster as I’ve made clear on many occasions and try to discourage venting.

SteveMc…you are being incredibly smart to stay out of most of the back-and-forth jabbing (although most of it is not so much back-and-forth as it is just back, or forth), especially when it gets a little heated. You deserve credit for staying above the fray. But, I think what JohnM might be getting at is the overarching tone of a lot of the commenters. It’s essentially anti-climate science. That’s fine…people can say whatever they want on the internet. You know that the amount of climate science that is being audited here is a very small slice…that’s what audits do, right? They go after those they believe to be fraudulent. Steven Mosher, in a thread some weeks ago, said you had “a nose for fraud”. So, you’re finding bad science and exposing it. That’s fine. Go for it…I don’t object to that at all. The result is, however, that the loyalist commenters jump on each detail as representative of all of climate science. Comments along the lines of “This is yet another example of why climate scientists are _____” and fill in the blank with all sorts of words. You don’t need to engage at that point…you can stay out of it and move on to the next detail. And, actual climate scientists may be less and less likely to engage with your honest inquiries because of what goes on in the threads. At that point some of the commenters can have fun complaining that the scientists aren’t being open. It’s a very interesting dynamic. I’m not complaining at all…I like reading this blog very much.

welikerocks

JohnM, and brian, I respectfully disagree with these comments, and I hope SteveM will allow my vent:

“when in fact Mann’s data are not in the least bit pivotal in that regard and that the whole recurring theme”

(Ah the myth of the “other evidences” again!)

And:

“You know that the amount of climate science that is being audited here is a very small slice”

Not true. Especially when these papers are all teleconnected! 😉

and this last bit…
“actual climate scientists may be less and less likely to engage with your honest inquiries because of what goes on in the threads.”

My husband is an earth scientist, he loves reading this blog. And REAL Scientists LOVE to talk about their work, and LOVE to discuss it, even the problems, and the errors are you kidding? HONEST scientists want this and ask for this, and certainly nobody is twisting any body’s arm to participate here either, and from my experience, its the “visiting scientists” who are not very engaging and or even nice, and make really broad statements, and even talk in riddles, when asked a good valid question. I would contend that there is no other place on the planet anybody is looking at data as well and as fair as CA tries to do. AND after YEARS and even Congressional hearings, and NAS reports, there are still unanswered questions, and boggled interpretations presented to the public, further distorting the state of the climate, and the science. I will also contend that these “real climate scientists” who get the limelight and get the awards for their politicians, and the references in IPCC reports will make up ANY excuse not to discuss and/or debate their work in any detail with anybody not convinced their “data” is compelling proof of anything alarming or unusual going on. And when these scientist meet an equal (such as my husband) who does not have the same view of the climate or the data, they revert to name calling and political cat fights, and they edit, censor and ban them on the blogs they run. RealClimate et al censored SteveM for example.

I will also contend that individuals who make comments such as yours are not reading the blog as long as some of the rest of have. So, don’t take my statements as too harsh here.

Craig Loehle

Re: impact of this blog: I get ideas from the discussions that are reaching publication next month (yes, I’ll let you know) and others that have been submitted.

Re: precautionary principle and long tails. Have you ever met a germ phobic obsessive compulsive person? Their life is severely constrained. I knew a guy with OC germ phobia and he spent hours in the shower and damaged his skin with too much soap, would not get closer than 10 feet to people, etc. Severely ill, but quite precautionary.

MrPete

As one who has deep appreciation for both, I encourage considering the mirror statements:
* Engineers have something to offer that scientists don’t
* Scientists have something to offer that engineers don’t
I would have a hard time falsifying either one. I’ve learned great appreciation for a multidisciplinary perspective.
Put into horribly overgeneralized terms: scientists are better at careful, analytical observation; engineers are better at careful, analytical implementation.
One could take that to mean that “analyzing” AGW has nothing to do with engineering. Yet “implementing” the observation and analysis mechanisms is an engineering function.
Isn’t it all intertwined?

Sam Urbinto

I therefore don’t tend to lose too much sleep over AGW as I find the more extreme alarmism over it somewhat far-fetched but if I were a prime minister or a president I probably wouldn’t stake my place in the history books on a gut instinct like that when irreversible changes are underway on a global scale.

So far, in most cases, the people in charge are more like the first part of your sentence. As far as I can tell, there simply hasn’t been a compelling enough case made. A lot of the things we discuss here (evasiveness, not archiving data, refusing to release source code) are probably pretty obvious to the policy makers, also. I think here we’re just saying it out loud and discussing it (sometimes with wry humor and sarcasm that you’re perhaps misunderstanding).

Some climate scientists that show up here make an attempt to explain themselves (and we are not for the most part questioning anything other than their demonstrated behavior) are asked pointed questions they are not willing to answer (which is why not a lot of them show up). What I often see is that they evade and obfuscate their answers (or simply ask more questions) and are uncooperative. Eventually they see that a number of us here are not going to accept business as usual. Then they leave, with things as they were in the first place.

I hope that clears up some of it.

Dave Dardinger

BTW, while it might be better to raise this issue in the unthreaded “thread” it also seems to fit here given the way the discussion is coming.

Is it possible to have a discussion thread on “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg? I’m just finishing reading it (well the main portion of it; I haven’t looked at the footnotes, etc. except to not that Steve M isn’t listed though Roger Pielke is). For anyone who hasn’t looked at it yet, it’s pretty much in line with both his previous book and, say, what Steve might preach on the subject. Bjorn accepts AGW and the IPCC (he’s not what would be called a conservative in the US). But he rather demolishes the “we must do something now” line of argument of the warmers, showing that in every area where action is demanded to reduce CO2, there are more effective remedys which don’t cost anywhere near as much as Kyoto; either the current regime or proposed add-ons. Further these are mostly more effective by an order of magnitude or more. IOW, while we as a society may want to do something about say Malaria or hurricane protection, it’s much cheaper to do so directly than via CO2 abatement.

I think such findings / arguments are the best anodyne for the precautionary principle.

Stu Miller

RE 73

My background is aerospace. I can guarantee that aerospace engineers called upon to model anything will be big on software verification and validation. That is, does the software work as it was designed, and does it produce an answer of sufficient accuracy when presented with a suitable test case. I believe that the work of CA illustrates that both of these steps are rare in the climate science field.

bender

I am just wondering how … the implementation of such a large-scale project would work

-Bottom-up (academic CV padding, individualistic publish or perish) does not appear to serve society well.
-Top-down consensus-based command-and-control (govt, RC) is intolerant of scientific uncertainty and open debate.

The only alternative that I can see is lateral connectivity among dedicated, qualified volunteers, presumably spread across sectors and connected via internet. The work would be 100% open (open data, open source code, open debate; i.e. democratic) and there would be no attempting to monopolize credit for an idea. Sounds to me like the CA model that Steve M and John A already advocate. The only question would be how to fuel/fund the thing. And that would not be that hard to figure out.

brian

bender says:

The work would be 100% open (open data, open source code, open debate; i.e. democratic) and there would be no attempting to monopolize credit for an idea.

That’s fine…I think that model could work well for doing the analysis…when it comes to summarizing for what to do, or what not to do, regarding policy…who summarizes that? It can be very difficult (but not impossible) to distill the “essence” of large, multidisciplinary studies through these open, democratic means. At some point, it comes down to a committee of some sort to decide. The too many cooks in the kitchen problem. Thanks.

bender

Re #84
There would not be one authoritative summary. There would be a variety of summaries (wikis) from which elected officials would be free to choose.

brian

bender#86:

There would not be one authoritative summary. There would be a variety of summaries (wikis) from which elected officials would be free to choose.

In principle, and idealistically, this would be the goal…I am totally on board with that. I am a big fan of the ideal of collective knowledge. At the same time, I think most of us are aware of some of the limitations of a wiki model when it comes to subjects requiring expertise. It seems for something so important and far-reaching, there would have to be some level, even minimal, of QC and anti-vandalism or anti-obfuscation. Thanks for your comments…apologize if this thread went off-topic.

bender

Re #88

there would have to be some level, even minimal, of QC

Agreed. That’s neither impossible nor incompatible with the model I outlined. In fact, nothing says “quality” quite so much as a narrow confidence interval, robustly estimated.

MrPete

I believe one other element is important in addition to an open process toward discovering valid scientific evidences.

In light of the extensive mishandling of scientific process, what do you think about documenting lessons learned about invalid data, methods and analysis?

Seems to me that would provide a body of material for responding to those who keep wanting to misuse the process for their own ends.

Konrad Fischer

@Scott: I agree! It’s real big business also for engineers to make the house owners poor by all the wrong building measures named ‘energy saving’ and battle against CO2 emission roundabout the AWG-hype. Besides the owners and their families get sick by mold, mildew and damp in the insulated and hermetically aur tightened rooms. A new business field for the building branche. Well done by selfish ethics of some (the most?) of us.

My own experience since years: it’s a hard way to be not with the ecological uploaded mainstream of foamy and fibre isolation, which let pass thru the heat in very short time as we measured in the “Lichtenfels experiment”:

You can see the temperature increase on the other site of 4 cm insulation boards after 10 min radiation with a red light bulb. From above mineral wool, polystyrene, cellular glass, solid brick, wood fibre, gypsum card board, solid pine wood.

So the sceptical point of view must remain also in the case of the engineers. Your NASA-example was great and I suppose easy enough to understand for everyone here!

Konrad Fischer

John M.

Steve McIntyre says:
October 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am

I’ve had experience in my life with engineers and believe that they bring a very useful perspective to matters. Engineering feasibility studies look different than little academic articles or academic literature reviews (like IPCC reports). If you have the opportunity to look at an engineering feasibility study for a mine or a refinery or something like that, you’ll immediately understand. Most academics don’t even know what such documents look like. If there’s a process involved, the engineering study will have included testing of the process at a pilot plant. This would not be “original” in the sense of an academic journal but is important in design.

You appear to have a very narrow view of what most scientists get up to, which overlooks the fact that science graduates are actually much more likely to wind up doing industrial R&D than they are to have a career in academia and that even in the academic setting funding is often provided by industrial companies with respect to specific practical applications for the research carried out rather than by government agencies for fundamental research. You also appear to be unaware of the fact that many academics in the field of science are more motivated by seeking and obtaining industrial patents than they are by the academic literature as the former is where the really big money is. On this blog you tend to fixate on the small area of dendrochronology/dendroclimatology where that is clearly not the case given that tree ring research is not exactly cutting edge in high technology terms and then extrapolate the problems that you discern to be happening in that one small and until recently highly obscure branch of science to the field of computer modeling where there is clearly usually a much stronger overlap with and contact with industry by using the label “climate scientists” to make it appear that the two areas automatically share a lot in common in their methodologies. That to be polite about it is a tad misleading.

Steve McIntyre

#96. I’m pretty careful about extrapolating and, in my posts, I try to distinguish what I’ve investigated from topics that I lack personal knowledge.

I can’t look at everything that’s done by thousands of scientists. From my experience with the proxy field, I can say from first hand experience that the disclosure by authors and due diligence by journal reviewers and IPCC reviewers falls incomparably short of what would be done in an engineering study. I have not studied climate models in corresponding detail – largely because my own time and energy is finite. While I have not examined due diligence processes for publication of climate models, my impression is that the sociology is similar: publication of short papers in academic journals – and that external due diligence is accordingly very limited.

That many scientists go on to industrial careers is completely irrelevant to that issue, as is your observation that other scientists have their eye on making money. I’m not saying that people who take science courses are no good or bad people – merely that engineers do something different than scientists, and, in my opinion, something that would be useful in the present circumstances.

We’ve recently had an opportunity to sample James Hansen’s code and algorithms in connection with the relatively simple calculation of average temperatures. In addition to being the proprietor of an important temperature estimate, HAnsen is in charge of one of the leading climate models. I doubt that any readers who’ve examined Hansen’s temperature coding will emerge re-assured that the coding of his climate model is in good hands. I don’t have the time or energy to wade through Hansen’s climate model, but someone independent should be properly funded to do so, with Hansen’s funders requiring him to cooperate. I certainly can’t extrapolate from our sample of his code to the conclusion that he has been doing exemplary work in his climate models. Nor, to my knowledge, can you.

Steve McIntyre

The basis for belief in AGW as a serious problem is very much based on modeling what would happen in future if CO2 levels were to be doubled and not on what happened in the past with tree rings and thermometers

As an IPCC reviewer, I took the position that, if the paleoclimate story was not relevant to the main issues, then it should be deleted from the AR4 altogether, other than a short continuity note saying that there were considerable uncertainties in this area but that resolving these uncertainties was not pertinent to the major issues.

My own interest in paleoclimate arguments was prompted because of their heavy use by the Canadian government – the warmest year in a thousand years etc and the then prominent use of the HS, see picture of John Houghton at the AR3 press conference. There are interesting statistical and scientific issues in connection with proxy issues, which interest me and about which I am now knowledgeable. I didn’t pick this area because it looked like a weak link, but because it was what was brought to our attention.

I think that it would be very salutory for IPCC to focus its exposition on what’s important. Prior to the scoping of AR4, I wrote to one of the organizers suggesting a detailed exposition of the IR physics and the various feedbacks – so that an interested person like myself could be brought up to date with current thinking on the salient matters. THey chose otherwise. Now when I ask for expositions, I’ve been referred back to things like Plass 1956 as the most useful exposition (honestly!). Don’t blame me for IPCC’s failure to provide a proper exposition of the main issues.

welikerocks

#99: “not on what happened in the past”

This makes no sense to me. You could not even know what the climate of this planet is like and if it is capable of changing without the geological record and the paleo-anything scientific research (botany, biology, geology, oceanography, palaeontology you name it branch…) -let alone claim a global change in temperature on Earth in fractions of C over present day teeny tiny timescales is a serious problem caused by human C02 output.

Paleo-science(s) gave birth to climate science. Some present day “climate scientists” would do well to remember this and get the facts (data) straightened out before they make their dire predictions for the future that rain over our lives on a daily basis. I heard a newscaster say to their audience not too long ago reporting on Al Gore and the award he got: “It is warmer then it has ever been in the history of the world!”

Reconstructing the past environments of the Earth correctly and understanding them correctly, -teaching- them correctly, -knowing- them correctly is the only way one can predict the future environment correctly and to make the right choices.

Steve McIntyre

As a final comment before I return to lurk mode for a bit even though you didn’t select the paleoclimate angle because it was a “weak link” you should maybe bear in mind that the effect of what you are doing is inevitably going to be pretty identical to what it would have been if you did given the way you have decided, as is your right obviously, not to take a clear stance on the stronger portion of AGW research.

John M, I’ve said that the models need to be looked at it in detail in baby steps, but that this is beyond my time and resources. It would be a big job. It’s possible that such a review by non-fellow travelers e.g. aerospace modelers (with climate scientists required to cooperate) would endorse the models and methods. In which case you’d have some proper third party due diligence that some one concerned about groupthink could rely on, just as investors rely on auditors’ reports.

If there is any exposition of what you regard as the “stronger portion of AGW research” that you can identify as being what you believe to be a strong and definitive exposition, I’d be happy to take a look at it. Finding such an exposition, which is not merely a report on GCM results, is not as easy as one thinks – at least one could locate MBH. If it’s merely a report on GCM results, then I’m not prepared to wade into it at this time. As I’ve mentioned before, I think that the most salient arguments could be presented without GCMs and that it would be healthy to do so. I’ll try to spend a little time on Stephen Schwartz article which tries to explain things without GCMs, but it may be a couple of months before I post about it.

steven mosher

RE 105.
JohnM have looked at ModelE code? I mean actually looked at the code? Not merely read papers about
it but trudged throught it?

What struck me as a former software engineer was the total lack of understanding the scientists
had in writing, maintaining, and documenting code. There is no requirements document, no spec,
no test plan, no test suite, no test results, no documentation to speak of, no standard coding
practice, no style guide. No IV&V. Even though Nasa requires it. Contrast this with the appraoch
taken by MIT. They teamed experts together form the various disciplines, science and engineering.
I can walk into their GCM and see the discipline of software engineering at work.

When you don’t have that discipline, as evidence in GISSTEMP a multi language piece of dreck, you
get simple errors like the “Y2K” error. You may think the answers of ModelE are correct. IV&V
would be a good check. But there is no IV&V. so you are left with taking their word.

brian

SteveMc says:

I’ve said that the models need to be looked at it in detail in baby steps, but that this is beyond my time and resources. It would be a big job. It’s possible that such a review by non-fellow travelers e.g. aerospace modelers (with climate scientists required to cooperate) would endorse the models and methods. In which case you’d have some proper third party due diligence that some one concerned about groupthink could rely on, just as investors rely on auditors’ reports.

I keep hearing this…i’m just one guy, I can’t do it all, etc. Understandable. I am very much in agreement. But, in my comments and some responses above (#79-95ish), I’m very interested in hearing what the CA community thinks is the next step in figuring this all out. Not the next step, idealistically, but what do we actually do next? If the work SteveMc is doing is the ideal model (as many commenters have said many times), and he can’t do it alone (understandable), how does this model get implemented for doing more audits? If I am to believe that the majority of the CA community is truly in this to figure it all out, what do we now do? I hear a lot of talk about advocating this and that. How do we make it happen?

Steve Mc above says we’d need “some proper third party due diligence” … who is the third party? Bender, above, talks about an open wiki model…could a completely open community be relied upon for such important reviews? Perhaps. I think the CA community could offer a lot in this regard. You all could affect some real progess, no? I’m just wondering what you all think about this. Thanks.

Steve: My thought was that it would be a very big job and take a lot of time. However that’s not going to happen. Whether it’s worth nibbling at in a wiki is worth thinking about. My inclination for a wiki model would be to pick one famous model, divide it into parts and set up threads and sub-threads for analysis of the parts.

John F. Pittman

I would politely disagree with #105

I was only suggesting that you should maybe be more careful to make sure that people who post in the discussion threads on here are actually aware that there is a lot more to AGW than the paleoclimate angle you primarily focus on if you want to avoid the perception that you are cherry picking by only going after the “weak link”.

I see little or no evidence to AGW than the paleoclimate angle. A quick survey of “other” evidence such as ice fields, start date of flowering, altitude/lattitude upwards mobility, etc. all have as a basis of saying that it is Antropogenic in nature and not just another cycle in natural variation depend on the paleoclimate angel. The only ones I know that don’t are the models. The others, if you read carefully, will have other periods in the geologic record where the temperatures or measured phenomena were greater than present. It always comes back to either it is the warmest in better than a millenia, or the change is the greatest in a millenia. Either way their arguments for A or for us needing to “do” something come back to the paleoclimate angle.

brian

SteveMc says:

My inclination for a wiki model would be to pick one famous model, divide it into parts and set up threads and sub-threads for analysis of the parts.

Thanks for your response. I’m not expert in web development, but I wonder how that could be set up. It would be neat to see it…I enjoy the posts and the substantive comments here. A site that had solely the “meat” and minimized the mocking and ridiculing of everybody’s favorite villain climate scientists would be really cool (I realize many of you have fun with that, but a lot of us have to try and sift through it to find good info). A different setup might keep it from devolving into warring camps and we’d be able to focus on the data (which, you, yourself, do pretty well). Thanks.

brian

JohnPittman says:

It does not do anybody any good to fuss at SteveM

I’m not fussing…read my comments, i’m complimenting his efforts.

There is nothing ideal about doing the investigation right, it serves the best use of human resources.

I understand. I agree.
I’m curious about people’s thoughts on courses of action, that’s all.

I believe the point that Steve and others have been making is that it should have BEEN required…

Again…I understand. This has been made blindingly clear to me numerous times on this blog. I’m simply curious what people think about courses of action given the situation we are in now. That’s all. I’m not attacking anybody or any method here…my tone should not be perceived as combative. If what CA is doing now is the course of action, then that’s what I’m wondering about. Thanks.

John F. Pittman

#114 One of the real problems is that the usual/preferred sequence for human endevor has been hijacked. In particular, where there should be a clear well written validated and verified body of works, climate change has enetered the political domain. There is an asumption made sometimes by a person that one can accompliosh something meaningful wrt the considered object. In the political field that option is more limited. One of the courses of action that Steve has and I have done, is to work with or request actions by government agencies. Search this site and I think you will conclude that such an approach has had little effect, except that it seems there are some in Washington, DC, in particular, who are taking the objections and findings of persons such as Steve seriously. I would suggest the political aspect, but as someone trained in political aspects I would caution such use. The rule is that politicians scurry to what is hot, and want to be on the side where the most votes lie. Understandable, coaches scurry for new offenses or defenses for the same reasons, they want to win/saty employed. The real disservice has been pointed out by SteveM before, such as this constant use of BCP, PC of BCP, failure to release data/code by publicly funded institutions/agencies. The short version: this is the direction of activity I would take. Get those in Congress who depend on the information being correct and verified/validated to become active. The input of CA and its readers would be how inappropriate that the climate change information is not in an open format, subject to validation/verification.

Dave Dardinger

re: #115 Rocks,

Have you looked at how big this site is? There are 2280+ main pages, each of which would probably average 2-4 printed pages that’s 6,000+ pages i.e. 10+ books. Then there are 154,000+ replies each averaging say 1/3 page or 50,000 pages; i.e. 100 books. Even if you set up a climate skeptics book of the month club you’d never catch up to the present. Maybe book of the week would work, but I expect the present growth exceeds even that. Indeed, the past couple of weeks I’ve gotten behind in reading all the current messages and I may never be able again to say I’ve read everything on this site.

I would like to see someone write a book about Steve and CA, but he’s got first rights, IMO but I don’t know that he has time.

Sam Urbinto

make sure that people who post in the discussion threads on here are actually aware that there is a lot more to AGW than the paleoclimate angle

Regardless if it all leads back to paleoclimate or not, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten the impression here that anyone thinks that’s all there is, or that Steve isn’t making that clear.

the real answer is that they really don’t know what is going on with some of the key feedbacks right now

And yet we so often see that things are stated with some to a great deal of certainty when the “real” answer is “we don’t know”. I have no problem with guessing as long as it’s presented well enough to know it is. I don’t see why we need multi-year 34,000 page reports involving thousands of people to not say it!

Anna Lang

Steve McIntyre:

I suggest a thread where forthcoming professional meetings/workshops on topics or sessions devoted to climate related issues could be posted in a timely manner. Attendees could then follow-up with summaries of sessions. Perhaps the availability of such a thread would encourage notifications about meetings and workshops, such as the one you missed, and information about them could be disseminated more widely.

John M.

jae says:
October 31st, 2007 at 10:14 am

Yes. So should we be formulating economy-shattering policy on the results of these models? That’s what’s happening.

You do actually realize that the changes underway won’t wait until mankind has all the physics that are involved fully figured out don’t you? If irreversible change to the atmosphere is underway ,the onus, surely, is actually on the people responsible to prove it won’t cause any irreparable harm if current practices are to continue? Think you are being a tad alarmist, anyway. Measures like a switch away from fossil fuels to nuclear power for electricity generation especially in emerging economies like China and India and a gradual move by Americans to more fuel efficient cars and a greater use of public transportation would not have to be “economy-shattering” and given the finite nature of fossil fuel reserves would probably be beneficial, anyway.

Will J. Richardson

Re: John M., post 124.

No, no, no. You posit “irreversible change to the atmosphere is underway”. No one is under an obligation to prove the negative that an assumed “irreversible change to the atmosphere is underway”, “won’t cause any irreparable harm”, another assumption. First if must be proved that an “irreversible change to the atmosphere is underway”, AND that it will cause “irreparable harm”. Then and only then are remedial steps indicated.

This is the precautionary principle taken to extremes.

Scott-in-WA

John M: You do actually realize that the changes underway won’t wait until mankind has all the physics that are involved fully figured out don’t you? If irreversible change to the atmosphere is underway, the onus, surely, is actually on the people responsible to prove it won’t cause any irreparable harm if current practices are to continue?

It is a well-understood principle of argument that the burden of proof rests with the positive. We ignore this principle at great peril to the integrity of both science and society.

In its 4.5 billion year history, the earth has passed through a number of climatic cycles involving significant changes in both temperatures and in levels of C02 concentration. By any standard of rational thought, the burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists to demonstrate that the rise in temperature over the last fifty to one-hundred years is outside the boundaries of natural variability.

As someone who works in nuclear and who has been involved in government nuclear projects such as the civilian nuclear waste repository program, I can tell you that if the kind of data quality standards, disciplined data collection methods, data management procedures, and information analysis requirements that apply to the repository program were to be applied just as stringently to climate science programs, most of the work done so far on government-funded climate science projects would have to be tossed out.

The reason that today’s existing body of government-sponsored climate science data and climate science analysis isn’t tossed out is that no market for high quality climate science data and for high quality climate analysis products yet exists—in the same sense that a market now exists for reliable safety analysis data within the nuclear repository program, a market which is driven (of course) by the public’s general desire not to have a nuclear waste dump placed in their own back yards.

AGW alarmism has not yet reached a stage where it is generating substantial and well-recognized burdens on the average Joe and Jane who ultimately pay the bills. A market for high quality climate science products will not emerge until the public feels substantial pain from anti carbon measures, at which point greater scrutiny just might be applied to those who are demanding the associated personal and economic sacrifices.

In the meantime, if prominent members of the climate science community have any sense of integrity at all, they will recognize that serious problems exist with how the science is being pursued and will move proactively to deal with those problems well before the heat of adverse public opinion begins to focus upon them.

brian

ScottinWA says:

In its 4.5 billion year history, the earth has passed through a number of climatic cycles involving significant changes in both temperatures and in levels of C02 concentration. …the burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists to demonstrate that the rise in temperature over the last fifty to one-hundred years is outside the boundaries of natural variability.

While I agree generally about where the burden of proof lay, I totally disagree that it must be compared to boundaries over the 4.5 Gyr history of the Earth! Firstly, do you really want to start talking about Archean climate? Secondly, and much more importantly, it’s not about what the planet can handle, it’s about impacts on the biosphere and habitability. In other words, even if the variability is “inside the bounds” of natural variability, species have been adversely affected in Earth history as a result of that natural variability. So, if you’re going to start bringing up changes in Earth history, you must include the effects those changes had on the biosphere. Just my two cents.

Steve McIntyre

#131. My point didn’t have software engineers in mind. I was actually thinking more of the sorts of feasibility studies done by big engineering firms.

John M, why don’t you try to get hold of an engineering study done by one of the big engineering firms – a big study costing millions of dollars – and then read a paper in Nature and then see if you still want to say that there isn’t a different in approach.

jeez

I don’t think anyone here has said that scientists in general are incapable of writing quality rigorous code or using procedures which ensure accountability. I think what is being said is that a particular group of scientists could benefit from the outside help of some engineers. For you to generalize it as all scientists vs. all engineers argument is specious, or how is it always stated on both sides of the AGW debate…a strawman.

MarkW

I don’t see how any could say that CA looks down on scientists in general.

There is a widespread and well earned disdain towards certain scientists, but not all.

Tom C

#137

Steve, I know exactly what you are trying to describe. It is something I never would have guessed when I was in grad school. Students pick up the conceit of academia: that the really rigorous work occurs there and that everything in industry is done “only for the money” and, therefore, somehow less credible. The truth is the opposite. It is the financial stakes that demand the rigor in industry.

The issue is not one of scientists vs. engineers. It is technical people with no accountability vs. technical people with accountability.

Steve: That’s not really the contrast that I’m trying to make. I’m trying to distinguish between a study that has cost millions of dollars, that has 5 volumes, and where each calculation is supported within the body of the study – which is what an engineering study looks like – to a 3 page extended abstract that is a typical Nature article. IPCC AR4 also has production costs in the millions but is only a literature review.

steven mosher

RE 131.

One final point. You claim things have changed in recent decades. Witness GISSTEMP. Someone
came into code written over the the past 20 years and grafted in routines written in Python.
So, 80% of the code is F90 and 20% Python. Clearly this is someone with a recent eduction.
( in fact, you can tell where he worked before coming to Nasa, since there are only a couple places
that use Python for climate study ) so, rather than learn Fortran, or convert the whole thing
to Python, he made a quick an dirty job of it. Expedient, but not so good on the maintainability.

“things” may have changed elsewhere, and you grant that a good thing, so you would grant it would be
a good thing in the case of ModelE and Gisstemp. Thanks for proving the point.

brian

It’s not a scientist vs engineer thing although some commenters interpret my remarks that way.

I realize that…my remark was more towards the jib-jabbing between commenters, not really what you have said specifically.

Regarding funding of a big engineering-study-like initiative for our current problems, Steve Mc says:

This is the sort of thing that should be properly funded by government agencies – with a proper budget which would be millions of dollars. Perhaps you should write to your congressman – you never know.

I’m not sure what I would write…it seems those with expertise in such a study (and there are numerous commenters on this blog who talk about having that experience) should work more agressively to push these recommendations. And perhaps many of them are, I don’t know. Do you think a single government could (or should) handle a project with such a broad scope? Bender, above, discussed an open-wiki model for getting the work done, but if you are saying it’ll take millions of dollars, would that work? I’m just trying to get a sense of what people think about where to go from here. Thanks for your comments.

Steve: It wouldn’t cost anything very much to set up a wiki on models and it’s probably not a bad idea in the absence of anything else. It’s just that I’m doubtful that it’s the right vehicle for something like this. The math and data are an order-of-magnitude or two orders more involved than the proxy material – and that’s complicated enough. But I’ll mull it over. I’m already overextended in terms of my time though.

brian

I’m already overextended in terms of my time though.

Understandable…I guess it comes down to priorities, and if the current blog-and-comments model is considered the most efficient way to truly affect change. Thanks.

Steve McIntyre

One more time, I was thinking more about what mining engineering firms do, as opposed to
software engineers and has little or nothing to do with Steve Mosher’s points (which I don’t necessarily disagree with – just that the point is being misconstrued totally.)

steven mosher

RE 147. It’s played out, agreed.

srp

I was involved in some organization strategy research at a small biotech firm where the problem-solving culture differences between scientists (in this case biochemists) and engineers (in this case mechanical engineers and manufacturing process folks) became manifest. The lab scientists were very good at improvisation of apparatus and getting things to work quickly with just enough reliability to get useful data. They were not so good at regularizing, documenting, and verifying what they did so that it would work every time in a machine that customers could use. Elementary things like verifying the quality of chemical inputs from vendors were neglected. In addition, scientists tended to have a model of authority based on expertise–if I got the experiment to run, and I tell you that you need the temperature of reagent X to be thus-and-so, you’re supposed to believe me–because nobody else has the hands-on tacit knowledge that I do. Requests for data sharing and justification of such claims were read as assaults on one’s expertise.

The engineers generally wanted to share data and attack problems in groups, even when they didn’t understand the biochemical aspects of the problem very well. They had protocols for verifying and controlling processes that were essential for creating marketable scientific instruments, but that also made it impossible for them to develop unreliable but persuasive demonstration prototypes within reasonable cost/time limits. The engineers, who were responsible for making artifacts that would work within a specified reliability/performance envelope, tended not to believe the assertions about process variables by science experts when those assertions were not accompanied by data.

While these differences in problem-solving cultures between the scientists and engineers were not the focus of our analysis, they were very interesting. Studies across fields lead to similar conclusions: Scientists are trained to make discoveries before other people, so getting something to work as quickly as possilbe, even if performance is erratic, is the way to go. Excessive elegance and documentation are deadweight. Their audience is other researchers who will decide whether or not to incorporate their work into their own research. Engineers, on the other hand, are responsible for making things work over and over in well-specified ways, including maintenance and decommissioning. For them, knowing how and why everything behaves, with lots of data from empirical tests, is a necessity.

I see climate models as lying in between these domains. As a strictly academic enterprise, where the risk of errors is borne primarily by scientific peers who build on one’s work, the science culture is most appropriate. As a policy tool, where “clients” will be basing multi-billion dollar policy choices on the results, the engineering mindset may be more necessary.

Neil Fisher

Steven Mosher said:

Which is why in every project one must at some stage shoot the engineers.

As someone who has provided engineering support to scientists, I can assure you it cuts both ways! 😉

Still, I learn quickly, so it only took me one experience to learn that I shouldn’t offer up a range of solutions, or ask technical questions – it was much more efficient and far less frustrating to get them to explain what they wanted, then go away and research it myself to come up with a specification that exceeded what they said they wanted by a large margin. Yes, a *large* margin, because they *always* wanted a bit more. 😉

Scott-in-WA

Having done both mining engineering and software engineering at various points in my career, about fifteen years of each in the mineral industry or in nuclear materials production, I can tell you that the product engineering lifecycle is the product engineering lifecycle regardless of its context. With some variations depending upon the particular product, you have:

Requirements
Concept
Design
Development & Testing
Construction
Initial Production Rollout & Deployment
Production and/or Operation
Retirement

Within this lifecycle you have subsidary supporting processes such as project and financial controls, configuration management, information technology, supply chain, quality assurance, and so on. Whether the product is engineered software or an engineered manufacturing plant, the process is conceptually very similar. Otherwise it wouldn’t be “engineered.”

John M.

Jeremy Friesen says:
November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm

My original point, however, was just that your use of the term computer “Science” and its use in classifying the stream/industry based on such a title is barely credible…there are other criteria to use in defining something rather than the faculty in which that discipline resides.

In Canada, where Steve McIntyre is based, professional engineer associations have actually sued companies like Microsoft and even a university computer science department to try to stop the IT industry from using the title “engineer”. I provided a url about that controversy above. It goes a bit deeper than what faculty the department that teaches this stuff is usually part of in other words.

I personally think that scientists with a background primarily in subjects like physics and applied mathematics, who have a significant level of formal university level training in computer science, would have the skills set to get the job done on modeling future climate without any problem at all and that the notions that people seem to have on here about scientists and engineers are actually a bit of a red herring.

Here’s an example of an IPCC technical report that is supposed to provide introduction to computer modeling that quotes a range of 1.5 to 4.5 K for the temperature increase with CO2 doubling:-

Click to access techpap2.pdf

Worth noting that the lower end predictions fall close to the “What’s the big deal then?” sort of level, but the media of course always latch onto the higher end of the range and make sure to work all the dire predictions Greenpeace dream up on that basis into their stories. It’s reasonably candid about what the problems are (such as the effects of cloud formation), and the informed reader, in my opinion, should be left in no doubt that a clear exposition providing a single value for the temperature increase isn’t actually feasible at this point.

steven mosher

“I personally think that scientists with a background primarily in subjects like physics and applied mathematics,
who have a significant level of formal university level training in computer science,
would have the skills set to get the job done on modeling future climate without any problem at all”

If frogs had wings, they wouldnt bump their ass when they jump:

Using the CVS as an alternaive form of email:

“This is an attempt to merge the changes accumulated on modelE-patches
into the development branch. The branch modelE-patches was tagged
with modelE1_merge0609 and all changes beween modelE1_merge0322 and
modelE1_merge0609 were added to development branch.
Two files were not updated: DIAG.f and ICEDYN.f . They had too many
conflicts which I didn’t know how to resolve. Can somebody more
familiar with the code please update them? Gavin?

In general there were a lot of conflicts which I had to resolve so
I’m asking everybody to look at his/her code to make sure that
their changes made ok to the developers branch.”

In particular, could somebody check that calls to updBCd were
placed correctly in RAD_DRV.f? Reto?

After conversion to dynamically allocated arrays in some parts of the model
the arrays which were not initialized are now really not initialized, i.e.
in “static” model all non-initialized arrays were filled with zeros by
compiler, while now they can be just random numbers.
This is a quick and dirty fix to get rid of floating point exceptions.
All arrays which caused the problem (were completely or partially non-
initializd) are initialized to zero at the moment of allocation.
Somebody more familiar with those arrays should check if this is ok
or if they should be initialized to something else.

And they said it couldn’t be done…..

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, roll up to see, the one, the only, set of
conservation diagnostics for AM and KE that actually add up!

Gasp at the comparison of the internal dynamics diagnostics with the
integrated change!

Thrill when they are exactly the same (for AM) or close (KE)!

Swoon at the individual accounting of SDRAG, the UV Filter and the
Gravity wave drag!

Yes, all this can be yours! Update today!

As per discussions with TRACERS people, removing SUBROUTINE GET_PREC_FACTOR
from TRACERS_DRV.f. In practice this treats the interaction of tracer with
precipitation BELOW_CLOUD the same as elsewhere. I think we all agreed this
made physical sense, and representatives from gas, aerosol, and dust tracer
groups agreed we should change it. Quick tests with gas tracers showed I think
about a 5% annual difference in resulting wet dep. Very little percentage-wise
difference in sulfur aerosols, I think. But this commit does change results.

I am removing the calls in CLOUDS.f, CLOUDS2.f, and CLOUDS2_E1.f.
Replacing with FPRT = FPR everywhere. I.e. we decided to change it in the
slushy (E1) version as well, as this is kinda a bug. Let me know if you have
questions/concerns about it.

Files CLOUDS2_E1.f, CLOUDS2.f. Fixed mistake due to which mass of gas
tracers became negative when washout in clouds wasn’t switched off,
i.e. when #define NO_WASHOUT_IN_CLOUDS wasn’t set in rundeck. The bug
was introduced by me on 2007/04/09 (rev. 1.13 of CLOUDS2_E1.f and
rev. 2.93 of CLOUDS2.f). Sorry about that. The mass of gas tracers
became negative, since the wrong tracer mass was used to calculate
thwash in subroutine get_wash_factor. thwash is always 0 for other
tracers than gas tracers. Thus, other tracers were fine.

Put back some recent changes that were unintentionally removed.

The previous update moved some sections of the code in CLOUDS2.f that also
included some tracer sections – those sections were not tested; tracer
specialists should please make sure that all is fine.

**********************************************************

Larry

Oh, and as far as good programming making models work? Yeah. And I got a whole inventory of bridges for sale. To make models work, you have to understand the science in quantitative detail. We ain’t there. And we can’t see there from here, either.

Larry

Who pays for it? Ever heard of the IPCC? What’s their budget?

This kind of “we don’t have enough money to get it right, but we can sink trillions into remedies” talk is like listening to Mann and company whining about how difficult it is to grab a few tree cores. They have plenty of funds to do their original work, but suddenly become poor when quality issues surface. If you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all.

I’m not buying that there’s no money available, when there’s been over 20 billion spend on climate research over that past two decades. There’s just not money to come to the “wrong” conclusion.

Sam Urbinto

To make models work, you have to understand the science in quantitative detail. We ain’t there. And we can’t see there from here, either.

I agree totally, and this is the heart of the discussion. Decoupling substance x and saying it does y because some model says so and then saying you’re 90% sure it does that, yeah, right. While decoupling things and sets of things may give you some ideas, and some insight into the system as a whole, it doesn’t prove anything.

Which is why when I’m looking at the IPCC, I tend to agree with some of the points overall, but often, even if I agree (or tentativly agree) I’ll have issues with the details, the conclusions or the implementation. While it’s obvious that changing the land and burning fuel impacts weather patterns in many and various ways, and thus impacts climate, the conclusions of what causes it and how everything interacts is not well understood. But this uncertainty is always downplayed or obfuscated or both, and only the hype is reported. They’re pretty good at their goal (as I understand it, just my opinion), it seems on the surface, but I don’t think the policy makers are buying it for the most part.

It’s ludicrous that the SPM is written by activists and diplomats months before the technical report body comes out.

What do you expect from a political organization motivated by an agenda?

Unfortunately, one can go only so far with ideas. At some stage the big bucks are often needed to ram home the exercise.

And people expect Steve to do more? He’s already providing significant work time to making useful information available, if they want something more, they’re perfectly welcome to spend their time and money too. I guess some people just like making fun of things and whining than actually doing something productive.

We’ll see how it goes as time goes by, what gets done with the info being created and the questions being asked.

brian

And people expect Steve to do more?

I’m not sure who that is addressed to, but just so it’s clear – I don’t expect SteveMc to do more…it’s clear that he is doing a lot of work. My comments on this thread, as I’ve said numerous times, are simply to see what people’s ideas are regarding moving forward. Ideas. Thoughts. Suggestion. Speculations. I apologize if my asking this is perceived as a criticism of the work.

I, myself, am not an expert in many of the details, so I’m trying to build an overall picture of what could be done next. I would like to see progress and think some of the approaches talked about here are part of that. I am, by no means, saying its solely up to CA or SteveMc to do all the work. I guess I haven’t made this clear enough so I apologize.

Way above, bender started talking about an open-wiki model and SteveMc nicely addressed some of my questions. There are some interesting things to discuss, I think. If this is out of line, then just tell me to get lost and I will.

Sam Urbinto

Brian, re, “I’m not sure who that is addressed to…”

Most of my comments are not directed at anyone, and the above was one of them. It was just a generic statement/observation. One of the questioning techniques is to ask open ended questions and then shut up. This lets others think about things and perhaps better explain their position. (A great many discussions are people talking about different things, or not understanding somebody else’s basis for a conclusion or basis for an opinion.) Another thing it does is propel the conversation along, or to clarify a viewpoint or the jist of what is being said. Or perhaps to have somebody out themselves as being locked in to an extreme (and/or unbending) position. So I often just throw things to the wall and see what sticks. When I have a specific comment for a specific person, I usually either blockquote it or address them by name.

You’ve been seeking clarification, which is great. You ask questions that show what train of thought you have, and then that can be expounded upon or corrected. In this case, I think the question really has no answer, other than, what can be done is being done, for the most part. More action will require larger organizations and more funding, and part of it all is educating people. I think this is the push needed to help get to where this subject needs to be.

brian

MrPete…thanks for the response…yes, Tipping Point is a good read, I agree.

Firstly, I’d really like to see the end-member portrayal (alarmist vs. denialist) subside. I think a lot of complex issues tend to gravitate towards that state (w/ the help of a media/blogosphere looking to sensationalize) even when there is much more overlap and commonality among people than it appears. But, I guess this is a general problem in human nature.

Secondly, I do think blogs/wiki are a step in the right direction towards solving big problems…i.e., participation instead of just listening/trusting…but, maybe it’s still a little young. There’s still a lot of idiotic banter and unconstructive mocking out there. We’ll see.

on another note…Trevor says:

Steve McIntyre and many contributors at this site have made a major contribution in revealing certain problems with key elements of the AGW thesis…

I think what would tremendously help regarding getting even more people to notice what CA has done, is for someone (I realize SteveMc is busy…but someone) to write a short document that outlines the problems that have been revealed. Something succinct and to the point. Like an executive summary. SteveMc keeps bringing up the analogy of big engineering studies…do they not have some sort of summary up front? I’ve inquired about this before and was told to read the all the posts on the website (some told me a little nicer than others). To help get past the ‘tipping point’ of greater public awareness of CA’s contributions will require a document like this. The website and archives are all there as the “meat” for reference.

Sam Urbinto

You could write a summary, yes? 🙂

There’s maybe 10 points, just be a numbered list probably.

Something like (just to throw this together):

0. Editorial bias at various publications, often coupled with a failure to enforce the rules.
1. Data not being archived to replicate.
2. Lack of cooperation by major players (who are mostly administrators or political types).
3. Proxies of questionable value excessivly used.
4. The lie of the “high quality network,” rather than the supposed adjustments making it supposedly high quality truth.
5. The lack of standardized software and/or clearly defined adjustments.
6. Data sources inconsistent with each other and/or other indicators.
7. A lack of agreement (or a lack of understanding) of the basis of conclusions.
8. Opinions provided as fact.
9. Faulty logic and/or reasoning used in reaching the conclusions.
10. Egotistical attitudes, where experts needed to bring together the multidisciplinary subject are disdained because they are not climate scientists. (Emotion substituting for logic?)

I don’t know, just kinda stuff like that.

And yes, that is a general problem with human nature; when discussing a subject that is almost all opinion, people tend to take sides and go to extremes. Often, they are unwilling (or unable) to consider somebody else’s viewpoint, they are unwilling (or unable) to compromise, or they are more interested in defending their turf or keeping their place in the clique than a rational dialog (or some would say, the truth).

John F. Pittman

Brian

I’m not sure who that is addressed to, but just so it’s clear – I don’t expect SteveMc to do more…it’s clear that he is doing a lot of work. My comments on this thread, as I’ve said numerous times, are simply to see what people’s ideas are regarding moving forward. Ideas. Thoughts. Suggestion. Speculations. I apologize if my asking this is perceived as a criticism of the work.

I believe (my opinion), that most on the blog have concluded we are moving forward.

do they not have some sort of summary up front?

All of the formal reports I wrote, or contributed to, had executive summaries. Often, I send emails with an executive summary. Yes, I am an engineer.

To help get past the ‘tipping point’ of greater public awareness of CA’s contributions will require a document like this.

In a chaotic system such as public opinion, I don’t think I would claim that such a document is necessary. It may be needed, but I would be hesitant to claim such. An example of this chaotic nature is the Jena 6 of Louisana. All that may be needed is that Steve ans others continue to work as they have.

brian

PeterTillman says:

Maybe you should give it a shot yourself?

I got a PhD to finish writing…blogging and reading blogs is my “free time” (i.e., procrastination). A person, like me, who is not well-versed in the details within this blog (of which there is a lot), would have to study the archives as well as trying to keep up with nearly daily posts to ever have a chance of correctly summarizing the conclusions within. Tackling that project would be substantial. I have neither the technical expertise nor the writing experience for such a thing. I try and keep up…but, in the end I’m just a regular person trying to wrap my head around these problems.

John M.

Larry says:
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am

Oh, and as far as good programming making models work? Yeah. And I got a whole inventory of bridges for sale. To make models work, you have to understand the science in quantitative detail We ain’t there. And we can’t see there from here, either

That’s why I said that the skills set necessary requires people trained in subjects like physics and applied mathematics with a solid background in programming and trust me on this people with that sort of training behind them have a much better grasp of statistics than that displayed in the dendrochronology work that is often highlighted on here. I also pointed out above that it isn’t actually possible to come up with a definitive answer to the global mean temperature change after CO2 doubling only a wide range of values that it is likely to fall within and would agree that getting to the point where a precise value can be calculated with any kind of accuracy is a very long way off. Are you trying to have an argument just for the sake of it? 🙂

Beyond that I can see where Geoff Sherrington is coming from with what he writes above. Maybe something to consider would be how easy would it be for dendrochronologists to obtain funding if they were not able to use global warming to make their previously somewhat obscure branch of science appear to be highly relevant in that regard and were unable to grab the limelight that probably really should be pointing at the climate modelers? If I could condense what I have been saying to one sentence it would be that they maybe don’t deserve to be taken quite so seriously when AGW is under discussion. Think an executive summary detailing exactly what the issues are in that regard would be a useful addition on here along the lines of a FAQ file.

brian

PeterTillman says:

There’s actually more than enough meat at CA to support a nice, short pop-sci book

I guess when I said a short summary, I was thinking more about a document summarizing the main conclusions of the work. Sam and Craig’s lists above are a great start for people like me who are trying to get a sense of the significance of the work and discussion here (thanks).
I know many CA’ers often talk about the limitations of short, academic papers, but, if written well, they can convey the “essence” of very complex problems in less than 10 pages. The criticism I see here is not so much about the papers themselves, but that they aren’t backed up by a comprehensive data repository (or that access to such a repository is lacking). There’s a lot of discussion on this blog about how things should be done…CA, or CA-affiliated experts, have an opportunity to make this happen, no?

After such a document, then a pop-sci book might be an interesting read 🙂

John F. Pittman

The SO&P project was designed with the rationale that a combination of modelling and
observation based research represents the most productive route towards understanding
climate variability and, more specifically for placing the twentieth and twenty-first century
climates in the context of previous centuries. To achieve this aim, significantly improved,
regionally-resolved palaeoclimate reconstructions needed to be developed and externallyforced
climate simulations for the last five centuries had to be undertaken. These new sources
of information could then be combined to quantitatively analyse the capability of the latest
General Circulation Models (GCMs) to simulate climate changes over past centuries, to
explore the nature of simulated and observed responses to historical natural forcing, and to
quantify the uncertainty associated with the detection and attribution of climate change
signals on hemispheric and regional spatial scales due to anthropogenic forcing.

We must be getting somewhere. They have admitted that they can only predict past the LIA with any skill. They have tried to hijack SteveMc, RogerPielke, and still avoid the IPCC/Wegman dissonance, repudiated stevesadlow, Watts, etc and company, while claiming to provide NEW SOURCES!!!

von Storch H and Zorita E (2005) Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal
components, and spurious significance”

by guess who?? Follow the links and watch the Team dodge shot after shot!! But they did this YEARS ago. Nothing new here!

Well, I could not find new source data except for “models”. The “new” part is the same old same old with a tip of the hat to regional differences (as long as they agree with prior conclusions). Please remember this report is FINAL (unless the TEAM choses to dodge yet again). LOL. I agree with Steven Mosher, this belongs in the Mosh Pit. Except for the models…There may be something there, Someone with model expertise needs to look at the citations.

John F. Pittman

I would caution you to consider that they limited it to LIA and after. From what I have read here, one must be very careful about assumptions when the Team limits itself to post LIA. However, please note that they quote von Storch to deflect criticism, a very telling point I have found.

PJ

Think I do know what I am talking about actually having had to deal with 1970s FORTRAN code written by scientists of your generation. The way you make out that only “engineers” can write code properly is a bit bizarre. Computer programming is usually taught by Computer Science departments which form part of the Faculty of Science on most university campuses.

My degrees are in Computer Science. I have a BSEE and MS in Comp Sci., technically, but at my undergrad University, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering was one department, the EECS Dept. For my PhD, a top CS University, the departments were separate but the CS Dept was (and is) in the College of Engineering. Most Computer Science grads will go into field-related jobs that have the title “Software Engineer”.

I agree that there are many people who can write software well who don’t have the degree or title and might be ‘non-engineers’. However, if they do end up doing software programming ‘right’, in a robust and verifiable way, it will be properly called Software Engineering, no matter who does it.

trevor

Bender,

The American Statistical Association (ASA), the nation’s preeminent professional statistical society, today announced it will sponsor a two-day climate change workshop featuring 20–25 leading statisticians and atmospheric scientists. The event, sponsored by the ASA’s Science and Public Affairs Advisory Committee (SPA) and the ASA Section on Statistics and the Environment (ENVR), will take place October 26-27 at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. David Marker, SPA chair, and Mary Christman, ENVR chair, will facilitate the workshop.

I did a search and found the ASA website here: http://www.amstat.org

Their general contact e:mail is: asainfo@amstat.org

Also, they disclose the contact details of officers here: http://www.amstat.org/sections/info/index.cfm?fuseaction=Sections

There are 24 sections. The most pertinent seems to be “Section on Statistics and the Environment”. In that section I found:

Chair: Christman, Mary C; University of Florida, Department of Statistics; Phone: (352) 392-1946; e:mail mcxman@ufl.edu

Staff Liaison: Clark, Monica D; American Statistical Association; Phone: (703) 684-1221; e:mail monica@amstat.org

In the Section on Survey Research Methods I found:

Program Chair-Elect: Marker, David A; Westat; Phone: (301) 251-4398; e:mail davidmarker@westat.com

In going through the lists I also found the contact details for Edward Wegman.

If these people can’t help, I am sure that they can put you on to somebody who can.

bender

Good show, trevor.