Comments on: Ammann’s April Fool’s Joke

By: Data Archiving for Trouet-Esper « Climate Audit

Data Archiving for Trouet-Esper « Climate Audit — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:09:19 +0000

[...] 2, 2009 with an SI that did not include any data. Discussion began here on April 3 in the comments here and later that day I posted on it here observing: Unfortunately, the authors failed to provide any [...]

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:34:35 +0000

Y’know how we’ve seen split-second timing from time to time. I’m wondering if there’s another curious example here. Here ‘s what I’m wondering.

I corresponded with Bruce Bauer of NOAA WDCP (who does a fine job and whose efforts I support at every opportunity) about the Esper data set. On April 7 at 7 pm, he notified me that he had received the Esper data set, but it wasn’t publicly posted yet. I think that I checked on April 8 and it wasn’t there, but I’m only about 75% sure of this. On April 10, while I was away for a long weekend, he emailed me to say that the data (such as it was i.e. , in my terms, the least possible archive) was online. When I checked this morning, the directory shows an online date of April 7. So it looks like there is a bit of a lag time between the directory data and the date of actual availability to the public.

When I wrote on Ammann’s April Fool’s joke on April 2, I wasn’t aware of the April 1-dated first instalment of the PR Challenge at NOAA (still unreferenced BTW at the PR Challenge website). As it happens, the actual contribution is itself an April Fool’s Joke, but, had it been more substantial, I suspect that I might have heard some blowback on being unaware of the April 1-dated NOAA data set.

Based on the evidence from the Trouet data set, it looks like an April 1-dated directory may not have been publicly available on April 2, not that much turns on this other than my own sense of personal diligence.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:10:02 +0000

Re: bender (#66),

John Baltutis: “Model results trump all.”

PF: “Right.”

bender: “Wrong.”

Where does meaning come from in science, if not from theory?

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:17:03 +0000

Re: John Baltutis (#61), Of course, if the data does not match model results, it must be massaged, homogenized and tortured until it does.

By: bender

bender — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:20:32 +0000

Re: Pat Frank (#64),

"Model results trump all."
Right.

Wrong.

By: curious

curious — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:14:05 +0000

Re: Raven (#31), Raven – thanks for the link. I just read Ch4 of this and it makes some good points (including issues with satellite records – p95). It seems to be arguing for better treatment of data and the need for a systematic/multidisciplinary approach. Motivation seems to be to give “decision makers” reliable info. for policy formulation. The report has been around since Dec08 so apologies if this is old/known material – I did a CA search and found ref. to a predecessor report v1-1 on another thread.

This thread seems ok though – if I’ve understood correctly I think there might be a chance of NOAA hitting the tip jar as they seem to be recommending doing some of what CA does …

Report here:

“Reanalysis and Attribution: Understanding How and Why Recent Climate Has Varied and Changed”

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-3/sap1-3-final-all.pdf

Press release here:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-3/final-report/sap1-3-press-release.pdf

Highlights brochure here:

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-3/sap1-3-brochure.pdf

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:12:41 +0000

Re: John Baltutis (#61), "Model results trump all." Right. And models can't get both temperature and rainfall correct; tune to one, the other deviates, all the while while Carl Wunsch observes that the ocean models in AOGCMs don't converge. But why worry about GCM non-convergence when the results 'look reasonable'? Meanwhile the climate sages gravitate on about impending catastrophe and science reporters wring their hands in public.

By: bender

bender — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:00:20 +0000

How exactly did Proxy Surrogate Ranking (PSR) become Proxy Surrogate Reconstruction (PSR)? Is this another pea under the thimble?

By: bender

bender — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:55:05 +0000

I’ve posted two longish comments and have had them both crash. Sigh.
.
It is fair to crticize the PR challenge insofar as teams are challenged to match their so-called proxies to something that could be mostly noise. Yes, that objective seems a bit weird on the surface. But the part that is encouraging is that they are using open methodologies that will be directly comparable because the target is known. What will come of this is a more robust set of criteria on which to judge reconstruction skill. To suppose that the goal here is to “reconstruct” GCM runs would be to miss the point. No team is interested in emulating noise. But the community needs transparent methods and comparative analyses. Hence the challenge to the community.
.
Moreover, note the double-blind structure of the experiment: the guys doing the GCM runs are completely independent of the teams doing the “recons”. There is no room for cherry-picking or handwaving when it comes to matching the GCM runs. Unlike past climate the GCM runs are known.
.
Sure, a bunch of warmie dumb-dumbs are going to take these “recons” and suggest they are credible when of course they are not. But that hasn’t happened yet.
.
Looking forward to Steve M’s new thread on the matter.

By: John Baltutis

John Baltutis — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:09:19 +0000

Re: Edouard (#58), Not at all. You understand correctly. Model results trump all. So, based on those, we have to generate a storyline that fits the model results, irrespective of what the data (if there are any) that show otherwise.