Musings on Climategate

Un-freaking-believable! Phil Jones is teaching others how to archive data!!!!!

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on January 2, 2010

Found from a link at ClimateAudit.

Apparently, NOAA has included PHIL JONES in their Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG).

The man who “lost” the raw temperature data on which at least one–and I suspect all three–useless climate model was based is on a data archive workgroup for the US GOVERNMENT???????

You can’t make this stuff up.

In case NOAA realizes their error and removes the page, I’ve saved a screen print to my hard drive. Click to enlarge. Jones is at the bottom of the screen.

Michael Schlesinger is a poet

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on December 12, 2009

I’m not sure how I got this — the to line on the email is not me — but it appears that Mr. Schlesinger is a prose poet. I received this email this evening.

I have an insect friend – a lone wasp clinging to my refrigerator, 11
days into winter.

S/he/it seems sad and forlorn, and me also about her/him/it.

T’was there last night, when first I encountered my new friend.

T’was there this morning and early afternoon before I went to give the
final exam in my Climate & Climate Change course.

Is there now.

I have just smeared some honey beneath my new friend, not knowing
whether or not this would be food therefor.

It is!

But, s/he/it is doomed, as is an annual flowering plant.

So too am I, hopefully sometime later.

So too are all of us, eventually.

We need to take care of each other.

We need to take care of others who cannot take care of themselves, for
whatever reason.

We need to take care of our home planet, a singular and unique being
in our Solar System, and likely far beyond.

Fortunate we are to have her, Mother Earth.

Let’s keep her and all of us safe & well.

My little friend has been energized and is now actively consuming the
additional honey I have given her/him/it.

It does feel good to help a fellow Earthling.

Try it!

Not that a scientist can’t have metaphysical leanings, but I find it interesting how quasi-religious this email sounds.

More from Mr Schlesinger

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on December 9, 2009

Just received.

Thank you for your e-mail below.

I am a bit confused thereby.

Is the code you are plowing through one that is used to analyze the
temperature observations, or is it a general circulation model used to
simulate past, present and possible future climates?

Also, please explain what you mean by “the outright fraud committed in
the code”.

Lastly, your physicist friend is not correct about the relative role
of greenhouse gases and the sun.

I attach a paper wherein we analyzed the contribution by both and by
volcanoes.

Since our analysis in the above paper in 2000, the variations in the
output of the sun constructed from proxies, such as sunspots, for the
period before we started to observe the sun from space, 1978 to the
present, have been reduced by about a factor of 5.

If you wish I can send you Judith Lean’s paper on this.

We have now extended the analysis in our paper above to include about
10 more years of temperature observations, and the result is shown here:

You can see that the contribution to the observed warming by the sun
is quite small.

If you are interested, I can answer the question in the right-hand
slide.

Lastly, here I share with you an update of the graph that appeared in
Andy Revkin’s blog on 30 November:

You can find what I wrote there at: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/

I may be delayed in responding to any further e-mail messages from
you, as tomorrow is my last class in my Climate & Climate Change
course, with its final exam being this Friday. So, I will need to
grade this exam and my students’ term papers. But, thereafter I will
respond to any further e-mail messages you send me.

One final thought. I have 3 children aged 37, 35 and 17 years old.
And I have 6 grandchildren aged from 6 years to 1 year old. I too am
very concerned about their welfare, the welfare of their children, and
the welfare of all children everywhere, especially in Africa & south
Asia, which locations will be hit hardest by human-caused global-
warming/climate change. If you wish I can elaborate this. What is
not widely appreciated is that the climate change that we have caused
and are causing has a very long lifetime because Earth is 70% covered
by ocean which, unlike the land, can move vertically, thereby removing
heat from the surface and delaying the time required to re-equilibrate
the climate system. If you wish, I can expand on this further.

But for now I must return to preparing for my last class tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Prof. Schlesinger

Admitting the Mess: CRU and the Money Game

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on December 6, 2009

This is interesting. Apparently the Met office, Newcastle University and UAE recognized before 1/2/2007 that their data is a disaster and applied for money from DEPRA to attempt to make sense of it. They also claim they’ll put it all on the web. The file is depra.pdf.

Dealing with the possible consequences of climate change depends on understanding predictions and taking action to mitigate against predicted changes, to adapt, or both. Deciding whether to take action will require weighing up risks and benefits and evaluating alternative strategies. Decision makers will range from individuals, through local government, to national governments and intergovernmental negotiators, and in the public sector alone, cover a gamut of professions from engineers and educators to policy makers and scientists.

Making policy requires access to knowledge, not just the underlying information and data. While data leads to information and knowledge, the steps from data to knowledge in the climate prediction arena can involve handling tens of terabytes of data (in information terms: roughly equivalent to several copies of the British Library’s entire holdings), as well as significant knowledge of the tools (models) used to create the simulations, and a background in both environmental sciences and sophisticated statistics. Managing the underlying data itself is a problem, once data volumes become large enough, hardware and software problems that are rare with small data volumes become common enough that mitigation strategies against failure within the data archive itself are necessary. Holding high volume complex data over time introduces new problems involving format migration and semantic interoperability. Software must also be produced to visualise and extract data (that might be input to other tools such as flood predictions), before producing policy relevant advice.

Defra has funded, and continues to fund, projects which produce climate prediction data, scenarios and advice for the UK climate impacts community. This work is one part of that continuum of research activity, covering the reliable storage of climate data and predictions, and the interfaces to that data to make it usefully available to the impacts community, who themselves provide policy relevant advice. Data will be extracted from the archives of the Met Office Hadley Centre (MOHC) and made available by the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC), a national repository for storing digital environmental data for the long term (BADC expertise and additional funding via the National Centre for Atmospheric Science will also ensure that the data will be held for posterity). The result of this phase of the work will be prototype systems coupling interfaces to the data archives developed together by the BADC and Newcastle University (both world leaders in developing web-based interfaces to complex geophysical data). The University of East Anglia and the MOHC will provide expert advice. The eventual goal will be to provide data access to both experts in the climate impacts community and the general public via these interfaces but such deployment will be expected in a future phase of Defra supported activity. The first phase, covered by this proposal, will take eighteen months. The second phase (not covered here), would improve the prototype and then provide and support public access and should begin near month twelve of this project, and continue for at least two years. The project will be carried out in close partnership with the Defra funded UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) and will contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Data Distribution Centre (DDC). Although there will be three significant components to the work (known as the Data Delivery Package [DDP], the Climate Impacts LINK Project, and the DDC), this activity will eventually (during phase two) create a joined-up resource that serves the whole community, from research scientist to town planner.

The project takes a significant leap forward from its predecessors, exposing cutting edge science involving complex probabilistic datasets and exploiting a Weather Generator (developed in another Defra project) to produce sample time series of weather conditions at specific UK locations in the future. We will also exploit new metadata standards developed both within this project and others with which the project participants are involved. The underlying archives will provide tens of terabytes in reliable network attached storage with multiple gigabit bandwidth to the wider Internet. The data interfaces will be state-of-the art, and, where appropriate, exploit the latest standards-compliant metadata structures and interfaces to make the best use of both technology and experience in other communities. An active climate scientist who is also an expert on data systems will provide UK representation on the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support (TGICA). To avoid duplication of effort between the components, the entire activity will be supported by a common management infrastructure and technical service layer which will dovetail with existing complex data and information systems at the BADC.

Although this project proposal outlines developments to deliver a system fit for deployment in a phased follow-on project, some aspects of the project, namely LINK and IPCC-DDC components, will include operationally deployed services during this prototype development phase.

[snip]

This project will provide a prototype system capable of delivering ground-breaking climate change scenarios to the public and policy makers via the web. This will enable interaction with probabilistic climate datasets in a manner that the user can pose a useful question and receive a response that is both informative and retains the uncertainty inherent in climate change predictions. In the follow-up project the deployed system will allow decision-makers and industry to plan their strategies in response to indicative predictions of future climate.

The integration of the DDP with a Weather Generator model will demonstrate how such tools can be employed to add value to climate model output. It will also provide users with access to high temporal resolution data not previously available.

The LINK component (and DDP in the follow-on project) will deliver considerable usage of Defra-funded climate research outputs (UKCIP predict that potentially more than 1000 users will wish to access the DDP system). The users will make use of the data in a variety of ways including: informing policy, making strategic decisions, aiding research, exploring possible climate scenarios and understanding climate models. The IPCC-DDC element will allow climate researchers greater access to data by incorporating existing and new datasets into the BADC’s existing infrastructure.

The following reports will chart progress of the project and provide a commentary of the outputs:

– Quarterly reports, summary Financial Year reports, Annual reports, Final reports to Defra.
– Periodic reports to the TGICA.

Note that the LINK archive will also be of benefit in upcoming IPCC asessment activities (for example, it is expected that the next assessment report will use a distributed archive).

16. Staff effort
(a) Please list the names and grades/job titles of staff and their input to the project together with their unit costs e.g. daily charge-out rates (note 13)

BADC (CCLRC):
Dr B Lawrence (Project Lead) Band 2 – 108 days at £750/day
Mr A Stephens (Technical Lead) Band 4 – 258 days at £511/day
Dr K Marsh (LINK Manager) Band 4 – 300 days at £511/day
Ms S Latham (Project Manager) Band 4 – 43 days at £511/day

Met Office Hadley Centre:
Science Support Role – 312 days at £356/day
Technical Development Role – 86 days at £356/day

Newcastle University:
Mr G Hobona – 323 days at £355/day
Mr P James – 22 days at £399/day
Technical Asst – 32 days at £103/day

University of East Anglia:
Professor P Jones – 2 days at £344/day
Dr C Harpham – 105 days at £166/day

18. Please give below the address to which payments should be made.

Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton
Oxfordshire
OX11 0QX

Declaration (to be completed by a duly authorised signatory of the proposer’s organisation)

Mr Tony Wells
Head of Sales Contracts
Tony.Wells@rl.ac.uk

CRUtape™ Letters and “Post-Normal Science”

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on December 6, 2009

While browsing through the FOIA2009.zip files, I ran across the term “post-normal science” in a Word document called HOT_proposal.doc. Having never heard of it, I ran a google on it and came across the following:

Post-Normal Science
Lead Authors: Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science

“In the sorts of issue-driven science relating to the protection of health and the environment, typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. The traditional distinction between ‘hard’, objective scientific facts and ‘soft’, subjective value-judgements is now inverted. All too often, we must make hard policy decisions where our only scientific inputs are irremediably soft. The requirement for the “sound science” that is frequently invoked as necessary for rational policy decisions may affectively conceal value-loadings that determine research conclusions and policy recommendations. In these new circumstances, invoking ‘truth’ as the goal of science is a distraction, or even a diversion from real tasks. A more relevant and robust guiding principle is quality, understood as a contextual property of scientific information.

A picture of reality that reduces complex phenomena to their simple, atomic elements can make effective use of a scientific methodology designed for controlled experimentation, abstract theory building and full quantification. But that is not best suited for the tasks of science-related policy today. The traditional ‘normal’ scientific mind-set fosters expectations of regularity, simplicity and certainty in the phenomena and in our interventions. But these can inhibit the growth of our understanding of the new problems and of appropriate methods for their solution.“

To summarize—or reiterate for those whose jaws are still bouncing off the keyboard—the point of “post-normal” science is to forego standard scientific methodology (data collection, results replication, etc.) and move on to more “holistic” methods of determining fact from fiction. Rather than those pesky steps of the scientific method, post-normal science claims to integrate the natural world with “social systems” to create:

“. . ..the appropriate methodology for integrating with complex natural and social systems.

[snip]

When a problem is recognised as post-normal, even the routine research exercises take on a new character, for the value-loadings and uncertainties are no longer managed automatically or unselfconsciously. As they may be critical to the quality of the product in the policy context, they are the object of critical scrutiny by researchers themselves as well as by the peers, ordinary and extended. Thus ‘normal science’ itself becomes ‘post-normal’, and is thereby liberated from the fetters of its traditional unreflective, dogmatic style.

[snip]

The facts that are taught from the textbooks used in training institutions are still necessary, but they are no longer sufficient. Contrary to the impression that the textbooks convey, in practice most problems have more than one plausible answer, and many have no well-defined scientific answer at all.”

And what to replace all those facts with? “Quality,” a term for which I can find no definition that fits this insane construct. The closest I came was the following from http://www.ijtr.org/Vol%201%20No1/4.%20Pereira_Funtowicz_IJTR_Article_Vol1_no1.pdf .

“As stated earlier, transdisciplinary practise arose as a response to the increasing complexity of scientific knowledge production, and the need to re-establish an active dialogue among a plurality of disciplines and forms of knowledge (Nicolescu 1999). This requirement now extends beyond the inter-operability of methods and techniques coming from different scientific disciplines; it is in fact a quest for quality, not (just) excellence in scientific terms, or (just) reliable knowledge but robustness also in societal terms (Gibbons 1999). The aim of knowledge quality assurance by extended peer review is precisely to open processes and products of policy relevant science to those who can legitimately verify its relevance, fitness for purpose and applicability in societal contexts, contributing with “extended insights and knowledge”.

Transdisciplinary practice and extended peer review face common challenges such as, for example, resistances and closure of institutional or established practice in research and policy, different conceptual and operational framings, knowledge representations and mediation (Guimarães Pereira & Funtowicz 2005). Both require processes of knowledge representation and mediation as the means to actually reconcile different types of knowledge, enhance the quality of policy processes.

[snip]

TIDDD like tools are interfaces of mediation between policy spheres and other sectors of the society. This mediation is done with the help of experts, but what comes out of the GOUVERNe process is that a new class of expert is emerging, experts in creating contexts for co-production of knowledge, experts in mediation of different types of knowledge, perspectives and values, and eventually experts in making scattered nonorganised pieces of relevant knowledge intelligible to the organised and sometimes poorly flexible institutions: in a sense transdisciplinary experts.

Trans-disciplinarity practice and extended quality assurance processes are about conviviality of different knowledges. It is hoped that tools like TIDDD can help to create the spaces where co-production and integrations take place. The GOUVERNe TIDDD are in fact a transdisciplinary platforms.

Finally, transdisciplinary research entails more than “just” acknowledgement of different perspectives, it requires “language” harmonisation and social, cultural and political contextualisation. Transdisciplinary work requires more than “just” articulation of disciplinary work; it requires institutions, cultures, histories to be reflected in the methodological approaches adopted to address a specific problematique, since contextual uniquenesses do show on the ways people interpret events and respond to those and also on the relationships that can be established with the research community.

The work on TIDDD was financed by the European Commission under the GOUVERNe project (EC project # EVK1-1999-00032).

Based upon the search results, this “post-normal” scheme was created specifically for the environmental governance movement. Open your favorite search engine, key “post-normal science” +define quality into the box and browse the results.

And the Dr. Frankenstein behind this monster is none other than the EU. What have you old worlders done?

Apparently, someone at Hadley is rather enamored of this approach. From the HOT_proposal file:

“Climate change scientists are unable to define what would be an acceptable level and time-frame for global concentrations of greenhouse gases to be stabilised. This is because the evaluation of climate change risks is essentially a political issue. Moreover, scientific uncertainties make it very difficult to assess the likelihood of possible climate change events and thus to quantify the risks of climate change. In short, the climate change issue is characterised as an unstructured problem where both the values at stake as well as the science is uncertain and subject of debate.

This type of post-normal science problem requires a methodological framework within which scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders can enter into a dialogue to assess what level of ‘danger’ (in terms of possible impacts) could be attached to different levels of climate change, what could be the implications of false policy responses (policies being either too loose or too stringent), and hence, what long-term concentration levels (or alternative policy indicators) may be considered acceptable and non acceptable, and on what grounds (criteria/values).”

The properties/details screen for HOT_proposal.doc lists “ineke” as the author, with 11/28/02 @ 11:54 am as the document creation date.

The point of the proposal?

The purpose of the HOT project is to help better articulate and operationalise the ultimate objective as stated in Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention in specific terms on the basis of a science based policy dialogue. Issues to be addressed include the impacts upon stakeholders of various levels of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations; costs and opportunities for mitigation/adaptation in different regions given national circumstances, the implications of climate change and mitigation/adaptation for sustainable development; and approaches to decision making for article 2 of the UNFCCC.

The project aims to:

• link the debate on medium-term (post 2012) climate policy targets to long-term perspectives on effective and fair climate change impact control and sustainable development;

• facilitate a scientifically well-informed dialogue amongst climate change policy stakeholders about the options for defining what would constitute dangerous interference with the climate system; as covered by Article 2 of the FCCC;

• improve insights in differences of perspectives and common ground for building policy action; and

• provide insights into options for fair and effective post-Kyoto global climate change regimes for mitigation, impacts and adaptation.

The objectives of this Phase 1 proposal are:

• To identify the possible participants in such a dialogue and to secure their commitment to the project;

• To come to a common problem definition, dialogue agenda and methodology that will allow for effective and fair participation of all participants in the dialogue on Article 2.

• To prepare a detailed project proposal for the dialogue phase, and

• To generate support amongst the policy and funding community for such a dialogue.

And who will be involved in this supposed dialogue? From the word document:

Government/NGO/Industry rep/Scientists
Asia 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 (+ 4)
Africa 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)
Lat Am 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)
OECD/EIT4 ( +8) 4 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4) 2 ( + 4)
N.B. The numbers outside parenthesis indicate the participants selected for the international dialogue. The numbers inside the parenthesis indicate the participants that also participate in the regional dialogues.

A whopping 36 people to supposedly represent all of us who aren’t the least interested in bowing to “post-normal” science.

The proposal author cites Funtowicz thrice, so deniability is not an option.

I still haven’t been able to determine whether this proposal ever went anywhere. I wasn’t able to find it in the spreadsheets included in the .zip file but that’s hardly conclusive.

One may reasonably conclude, however, that CRU isn’t too terribly concerned with that “old” science based upon their criminally slipshod code, and their invocation of “post-normal” science gives them the perfect platform from which to launch the hostile takeover of the free world using euphemisms that would make Orwell blush. Stakeholders? Please.

If anyone knows whether this proposal was accepted I’d love to know where, when and by whom.

They’re calling each other liars!

Posted in Uncategorized by emelks on November 29, 2009

Browsing through the released emails, I ran across this in 1024334440.txt. The internecine warfare is fairly nasty if you look through that file.

From: Ed Cook To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400

Hi Keith,

Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.

Ed

I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)

Keith

— ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152

Splitting hard science from politics

Posted in AGW Political, AGW Rhetorical, Uncategorized by emelks on November 27, 2009

I’ve been following the climategate news from Steve McIntyre’s mirror site, http://camirror.wordpress.com/. After downloading and digesting some of the documents in the leaked .zip file I started to post pieces I found relevant to Steve’s blog, but Steve is focused on the hard science aspect of the leak whereas I’m more interested–and more qualified–to opine on other aspects of the file.

Rather than litter Steve’s blog with my discoveries, I’ve decided to post them here for anyone interested.