Friday
Sep032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Climate Code Foundation
Sep 3, 2010 Climate: other This looks interesting:
We are pleased to announce the creation of the Climate Code Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit organisation founded by David Jones, Nick Barnes, and Philippa Davey to promote public understanding of climate science. The Foundation will continue work on the Clear Climate Code project, and also related activities, encouraging climate scientists to improve and publish their software.
The Foundation intends to work with climate scientists, funding bodies, national and international organisations, and science publishers. We hope to establish climate science in the forefront of science software quality and transparency.
Reader Comments (79)
How is this project going to work ?
I can see 2 types of scenario:
Type 1
Coder A: Hey guys we haven't allowed for leap years.
Coder B: Whoops - we need to fix the date algorithm.
Type2
Coder C: We haven't got data for Yorkshire.
Coder D: We can average the data from Exeter and Aberdeen and infill.
Coder E: Yes - we'll use type X averaging.
Coder F: No - we need to use type Y averaging for time-based series.
Coder G: No it's crazy to make up data that does not exist.
Coder H: We can take a vote on this...
I must say I'm slightly bemused by the idea that CCF is "all smoke and mirrors". Why would anyone want to set up a foundation to encourage scientists to improve their code and make it public unless they, well, wanted scientists to improve their code and make it public? What do you think Nick et al are actually trying to acheive if not their stated aim?
I agree that CCF is not going to answer all our complaints, or address the questions of the appropriateness of the data or the adjustments to it, but nevertheless, as stated, their aims appear to represent a step forward and should be applauded.
I was inclined to sympathize with Bishop and Nick Barnes until I saw the quote where Nick uses the word "septic".
Seeing this affected me strongly. I want to go back to the basic science itself at this point, and not fluff around whether or not Pearce has a good grasp of the science, the "he says, she says" type of narrative:-
(1) Our climate has been warming, with 60-year fluctuations, since the middle of the 19th century (Little Ice Age end). By no conceivable stretch of the imagination can at least the early part of that be imputed to human input. And since the later part fits the same pattern as the earlier, natural cause is the first thought.
(2) Over the last 50 years or so, problems have arisen with the most fundamental suppliers of data, the weather stations, due to a number of reasons, in which the rising Urban Heat Island effect is perhaps the strongest; evidence from professionals (eg McKitrick) and capable amateurs (eg John Daly) suggest that the effects of the metadata on the basic data have not been properly allowed for, and constitute some 0.5 degrees apparent warming that has not happened. With this correction, the amount of warming is tiny, and appears, once again, to correlate to the Sun's changes.
(3) The steady rise in CO2 can be seen as the natural outgassing effect of the still-slowly-warming oceans, whose huge, inertia-laden input in global climate is easily overlooked. For CO2 gets largely washed out with every shower of rain, moreover it is plant food, and anything due to humans can easily be absorbed in the much larger plant CO2 turnover; only the mass of the oceans, together with Henry's Law, can actually hold steady the rising levels because of the weight of their input in maintaining equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and airborne CO2.
(4) The main GHG is water vapour; without quantifying the effect of that there is no point in starting on CO2; moreover the evidence suggests that as CO2 has risen, water vapour effects have more than balanced the CO2 change; moreover there is no experimental evidence that CO2 increases at current levels is capable of measurably increasing the GHG effect; the evidence suggests rather that its GHG effect has pretty well reached saturation.
(5) Lastly, there is a whole stack of well-discussed reasons why alarmism has usurped the place of considered scientific discussion, and drowned out all the above.
(6) Nothing of the above takes away from our need to be trustworthy stewards of the planet. It merely underlines the need for trustworthy science as a foundation, without which we cannot even start to build trustworthy stewardship. And for me, this means widening the remit of Scientific Method into a more holistic discipline that pays attention to inner "subjective" factors as well as outer evidence. This is not a "post-normal" replacement of Truth with Quality; it is a deepening of the practice of Scientific Method itself.
Woah. Reading the comments on this thread I'm glad I didn't go further with my own CRUTEM3 code reconstruction and turn it into a project of some kind. People here would have eviscerated me and probably claim that the fact that I once went through Exeter on the train 'links' me to the Met Office.
Frankly, Nick Barnes et al. are trying to do something concrete rather than whining in a forum. How about having the courtesy to look into what they are doing instead of shooting first and asking questions later?
webof belief Sep 4, 2010 at 6:54 AM
"..... which part of the "meat preparation" process are you specifically referring to? The analogy is just getting in the way at this point."
It is quite clear that I am referring to the actions performed by the butchers just prior to mincing.
"I understand that there are lots of legitimate concerns out there about the way GISTEMP adjusts the data. I'm not denying any of that."
Good, thank you.
"But perhaps you can tell us more specifically which of the documented adjustments you don't agree with."
I do not have an opinion one way or the other on the "documented adjustments". They are adjustments declared by the authority concerned and thats an end to it.
However, having time on my hands, I have read over recent years several stories in blogs which are interested in looking at the suspected problems with the butchers' activities just prior to mincing. Some of the activities described would, in the business world, get you dismissed and in some cases you would have finished up helping the police with their enquiries.
I have not seen any rebuttal by the accused authorities of the charges made, so either they do not care on the grounds that the useless newspapers are not going to report the accusation if it is true or, if the accusation is false, they have decided to ignore it on the grounds that it would be a waste of time and money to make a rebuttal in a blog.
However, the activities described in these blogs would never become "documented" for obvious reasons. Therefore your final sentence is irrelevant.
"The Climate Code Foundation goal is to promote public understanding of climate science,
by increasing the visibility and clarity of the software used in climate science, and by encouraging climate scientists to do the same;
by encouraging good software development and management practices among climate scientists;
by encouraging the publication of climate science software as open source."
These are all good sensible aims and it comes across as a slight dig against 'climate scientists' saying they can't do their job properly, seeing how IT is the vast majority of their work.
GISTEMP isn't a very good starting point as that is a data collection, data management and reproducability problem and not anything to do with the code. As long as the data and method (code) were in the published paper people wouldn't care about the quality of the code particularly. Fortran is perfectly readable with maths based programs, it is having the data scattered across hundreds of separate differently formatted files that is the issue and hopefully the CCF can fix.
What I would really like to see prioritised, as the CCF seem to have the skills to do it, is the proper documentation of the parameterisations used in GCM's. In particular how CO2 and other greenhouse gases are parameterised and the effect on clouds and water vapour. The warming scenarios and almost wholly dependent on just this one thing and understanding the positive feedbacks the models come back with would allow people to judge whether the model is doing the correct thing.
Lucy Skywalker
Thank you. That was one of the most concise and erudite summaries of the cental sceptical position I have ever read.
I would like to add that sharing code is a great objective for researchers to aim for. This is a good history of modelling that also shows how competitive it is.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
It explains the history, uncertainties and parameterisations quite well. Not quite sure how it got to 'Its worse than we thought' right at the end though.
So far all of Nick's reconstructions make recent temperatures warmer. They all put the blade back in the Hockey Stick, through some very curious selective judgements.
Nick:
Is he for real? This simply insults the intelligence.
"The IPCC doesn’t have a direct influence on the working practices of
the thousands of researchers who contribute work to its reports."
-Climate Code Foundation Blog, statement to IAC
The author of this statement, probably does not understand two things.
1) No researchers contribute work to the IPCC reports.
2) It is better for the IPCC not to have any influence whatsoever, on the researchers.
If it is desired that code be made available for public consumption, the journals can be requested to make it available. Why should the IPCC get involved in this?
Lucy Skywalker
I totally agree with Pharos.
Your Grace
Nick Barnes has decided never to post here again because some of us doubt and question his motives. However he appears to be comfortable posting on RC. He can not therefore have experienced having his comments deleted by Gavin nor does he seem to mind when he sees others having their posts deleted.
He also makes some statements in his IAC submission that ring alarm bells for me:
"We aim to increase public confidence in results by publishing and
clarifying the software which produces those results. That process
will certainly uncover and correct errors. These corrections are
essential to the goal. We don't want the public to trust incorrect
results; any incorrect results should be visibly corrected, so that
the public may trust them."
How different is this from the alledged desire of some recent "reviews" to make the science more transparent and available. Like those surveys CCF wants to deal with only the process.
"The CRU emails, and the other documents published with them, in their
discussion of software, do not show any evidence of any manipulation
or suppression of data. They appear to be entirely in keeping with
normal software practice in science."
Sceptic is the word that should describe our response to everything NOT proven.
When you look at Nick Barnes comments on other blogs you realise that CCF is a fraud.
He describes those who doubt CAGW as "septics", a corruption that is specifically used by alarmists to denigrate.
I am nonplussed about the fracas that has erupted here around “the CCF code issue”. To my simple mind the code is “the cart”, can we please have a foundation “to promote public understanding of climate science” by attending to “the horse” - the data!
How about a universal agreement on station network, location, inclusion, exclusion and standard equipment, also standard procedures for the collection, storage and real time publication of the RAW data?
Once this is established the “global temperature product manufacturers” can play with it to their hearts content and vie with each other to produce the best “product”. Product manufacturers should not be data collectors, they should not be allowed to chose what they do or do not include in their "product".
The code means nothing until we understand, comprehend and agree on the RAW data.
Let’s get the horse back in front of the cart.
The question of whether Nick is rude about sceptics is different to the one of whether CCF is a commendable exercise. He may think we are fools/malevolent/dishonest or whatever, but the fact remains that getting scientists to write good code and then publish it is a good thing.
I'm under no illusions - Nick thinks we are all wrong. He may well think our intentions are not good either - some of his language suggests so. But he can be offensive and suspicious of our motives and still do things that both sides can agree are good and useful. His intention may be to shoot down one of our central complaints - if code is well written and published we can no longer cast doubt on the conclusions on the basis that it is poorly written and/or secret. I say, "fine".
When you think about it, Nick has gone out on something of a limb. If there are problems with the methodologies used, they will be much easier to find with well written, public code. The fact that he is willing to support openness therefore suggests to me that his is a good-faith effort. This is how openness can build trust. It's the way forward.
I can see it now... the data is available on a public server, the code is open source and available to analyse, the results back the pre-formed conclusion, it's worse than we thought!
Green Sand - Sep 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM
Exactly.
But who would do the individual tasks?
Task (a) universal agreement on station network, location, inclusion, exclusion and standard equipment - Royal Air Force meteorologists?
Task (b) standard procedures for the collection, storage and real time publication of the RAW data - Royal Navy meteorologists?
Task (c) set up a secure base where tasks (a) and (b) can be housed - SAS HQ Hereford?
Good night.
@pete
Well if that were indeed to be the conclusion., then so be it.
Like many, I do not have a pre-conceived view about whether AGW as a hypothesis is right or wrong. My lack of faith in it is based on the sheer scientific ineptitude that its proponents display. And their arrogant 'de haut en bas' approach to anybody who dares to criticise their abilities and work (which gets right up my nose).
But if the science were to be done properly (and this initiative seems to present a step in the right direction) and the hypothesis shown to be correct, then we would need to deal with that situation when it arises.
But I'm not holding my breath.
How to win friends and influence people... this will really get them queuing to contribute...
From Nick Barnes...
"Secret conspiracies
Roger Helmer MEP and Godfrey Bloom MEP made almost identical submissions to the science and technology select committee inquiry about the CRU emails. The submissions were full of the usual blogosphere borderline libelous nonsense about "hide the decline" and about the Hockey Stick: the kind of stuff which is common currency among the ignorant, the stupid, and the gullible.
What I want to know is: did one of them write this and share it with the other, or did they both receive it from a third party?"
Seems someone else is not averse to finding hidden motives in the actions of others...
Signed one by one of the Ignorant, the Stupid and the Gullible.
Brownedoff Sep 4, 2010 at 10:12 AM
If your complaint is more about the GHCN raw data itself and the way it's collected (and I agree that there are many concerns there as well), then I think this is a somewhat different issue from what is being discussed here. Clearly if the raw data is garbage then any output from GISTEMP will be garbage, too. I won't disagree with that. But ultimately, a program like GISTEMP (or CRUTEM, etc.) is needed to make sense of the raw data and any effort to improve that part of the process should be welcome. Improvements to the collection of raw data can and should take place in parallel.
If anyone cares (proabably not), my own opinion is that GISTEMP does seem to produce inflated temperatures. I'm only starting to educate myself about these issue now, but the climate models say that the average global lower tropospheric temperature anomalies are supposed to be 1.2x higher than the global surface temperature anomalies. However, that doesn't really seem to be the case. See the simple graph I plotted here a while back: http://webofbelief.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/temperatures-of-the-lower-troposphere-models-vs-observations/ . It appears that the predicted and actual temperatures are not totally in agreement, so either the surface temperatures or the satellite temperatures are not quite right. I'm trying to learn more about this but I believe climate scientists argue that the difference is not statistically significant, though I think there is some argument about that, especially in the tropics where the troposphere is supposed to be about 1.5x hotter.
- Dave
Here is a nobler, and less fawning, objective than that of the CCF: 'Understanding and communicating the limitations of climate science. Mostly.'
This is from a site, new to me, called 'Digging in the Clay'.
Here is a post on efforts to capture temperature changes: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
They seem to be finding interesting stuff, e,g,
'The first 10 (Set 1) of Tony’s target stations, which at this point I should say seemed to be a randomly chosen set, were:
Brazil – Curitiba (1885 to 2009) Cooling 1955 to 2009
Canada – Edmonton (1881-2009) Cooling from 1886 to 2009
Chile – Puerto Montt (1951-2009) Cooling from 1955
China – Jiuquan (1934-2009) Cooling all years
Russia – Kandalaska (1913-2009) Cooling 1933-2009
Iceland – Haell (1931-2009) Cooling all years
India – Amritsar (1948-2009) Cooling all years
Morocco – Casablanca (1925-2009) Cooling all years
Adelaide – Australia (1881-2008) Cooling all years
Abilene, Texas – USA (1886-2009) Cooling 1933-2009#
What can CCF say about this and the code used for temperature adjustments by more officlal bodies, such as the UK Met Office and associated offshoots such as the Hadley Centre?
Hilda Kelly
Thank you for that quote. I cannot let that smear on Roger Helmer MEP pass. I am reluctant to embark on politics on this forum but I have met Roger when I attended one of his 'counter-consensual climate change conferences' within the EU headquarters: a satisfactorily apt venue. The one I attended was a day before Climategate broke, last November. Many international climate heavyweights were there, but unfortunately Svensmark had to pull out due to sickness. Helmer's chairmanship was exemplorary.He has been a courageous and stalwart defender of our countries and our peoples hard won freedoms in the EU in these dark ages of effective political disenfranchisment we find ourselves in today, despite scant support from his party. I trust him. How many politicians can you honestly list for that? Granted he is not an expert climate scientist. But he can spot wrongs from rights like no other.
Your Grace
"But he can be offensive and suspicious of our motives and still do things that both sides can agree are good and useful. "
I think you got the "offensive" bit totally right.
One or two people on this forum took issue with Mr Barnes over his message but not one persone was offensive.
It is in human DNA to be suspicious/sceptical
Beware Greeks bearing gifts. Virgil
Foes' gifts are no gifts: profit bring they none. Sophocles
Anyman who calls me ignorant, stupid and gullible is not likely to be mt friend.
Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors, but today, we kneel only to Truth.
- Kahlil Gibran
"the ignorant, the stupid, and the gullible."...
Say I was writing a book. A book that had original thinking. A book that challenged the so-called "consensus". A book that had taken many hours so far to write. A book I believe would make an impact.
Then say there was an organisation called the Climate Book Foundation (CBF) whose professed aim was to help authors improve the quality of their work. Yet the people behind the CBF had called those who challenge the "consensus" as "the ignorant, the stupid, and the gullible."
Would I let them anywhere near my drafts?
I know many who followed this blog post thought I was being overly critical, and perhaps to some extent "totally off the plantation" with my views.
My comments were perhaps too generous. I ascribed poor judgement to most actions. The website is a paragon of virtue. The participation on this blog wanted to show a reasonableness, followed by being the victim. Yet away from those two forums they display contempt.
That in simple terms is being "two faced". I respect our current resident CAGW proponent ZedDeadBed more, because she (or he) does not display two faces. She is what she is and stays within the boundaries of acceptable language.
Rather than live in some fantasy world, I have been living in the real world of business IT for many years. I looked at these people's online universe and even ignoring their stated links to Real Climate (I did not invent those extracts), it had the whiff of the same "smug masters of the universe" mindset.
I have been a Linux/Open Source supporter/user since 1998, often being ridiculed by the "consensus". I have had "Bob Ward type" rants from "Microsoft people" who could not envisage anything other than the Microsoft way. You get to have feel whether a project has authenticity or not. This CCF has the feel of Microsoft circa 2000 starting an Open project stating "trust us".
I could create a website serving a "yoof hoody" translation of the Sermon of the Mount, it does not make be Jesus Christ (expletive deleted.)
Both faces have been brought out into the open here, not just the one they wanted to present.
I would never say to anyway never contribute to this. This was never about sniping. It was about making sure that what is on the tin matches the contents.
This was never about the code, the data or even the expertise. This was about the people. Now you know who you are dealing with. Make you own choice.
@ Latimer: "Well if that were indeed to be the conclusion., then so be it."
That will be the "take away" for the public, trumpeted by the AGW media machine.
But it will be based on the data presented, and their lies the issue.
"But if the science were to be done properly"
Clearly there is a need to start with the raw data, and transparent methodology for the adjustments as a minimum, as other have pointed out up thread. Although this project may purport quality and transparency, until the data issues are addressed, it will be a "quality", "transparent" lipstick on a pig.
There are a number of UK people who comment here (and elsewhere) who have decades of software experience that is relevant to the the core mission of the CCF. Some of them are even listed as signatories to CCC's Comment to the InterAcademy Council Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing. So it is a relief to discover that one of the three CCF principals, a parks administrator, is just "learning Python" and finding it fun.
Brilliant post by Lucky Skywalker, thank you.
But as for Nick Barnes I am with BH, Atomic and others, and inclined to be more positive and give him the benefit of the doubt.
So I drew this cartoon...http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/nick_barnes.jpg
We hope to establish climate science in the forefront of science software quality and transparency.
Not if the UEA fortran routines are any indication, pal.