Posted on 11/21/2009 6:41:34 PM PST by dila813
File called trend_profiles_dogs_dinner.png in the hacked files shows a chart that looks identical in format but with a completely different result than the one on display that is showing heating in the Tropical tropospheric trend.
The one in the hacked files shows Global Cooling Trends and not a warming trend.
In fact, the chart in the hacked files can't be found and based on the date of the file you have to wonder if the one at Real Climate is a complete fabrication or the one in the hacked files is.
The date on the file is 1/10/2008 and the one published is 10/12/2008.
Global warming will erase your hard drive. Not the data, but your actual hard drive! Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play.
It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.
Global warming will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of Global warming, it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
Global warming will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methanphedime in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower.
Listen to me. Global warming does not exist.
It cannot do anything to you. But I can. I am sending this message to everyone in the world. Tell your friends, tell your family. If anyone else bothers me with fearmongering concerning Global warming, I will turn hating them into a religion. I will do things to them that would make a horsehead in your bed look like Easter Sunday brunch.
I agree with your assessment of the data. My point was that it seems to me that they didn’t fudge the data, they just presented it in a way that makes it look better than what it really is. That’s not outright fraud, but is misleading. It’s unfortunately done all the time in publications.
I found a related email that explains this chart in much more detail
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=844&filename=1199994210.txt
as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This
has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular,
but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for
where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to
use it. To do this I’ve taken every single scrap of info I have in my
possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have
considered the common period of 1979-2004. So, assuming you are all
sitting comfortably:
Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler.
See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling
factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to
HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if
we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or
not depending upon one’s pre-conceived notion as to whether the models
are correct.
Red is HadAT2 dataset.
black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all
tropical stations with a 81-2000 climatology)
Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from
Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world
assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here
and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit.
Bright green is RATPAC
Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here
and not me so any final version I’d want to get the raw gridded data and
do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided
as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at
height) difference:
Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment
estimates)
Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2
Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3
Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4
I am also in possession of Steve’s submitted IUK dataset and will be
adding this trend line shortly.
I’ll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left.
My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that
this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer
et al. Figure 3.B.
I’ll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for
it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for
Leo’s to be used. Whatever people prefer.
Looks to me like Thorne’s “cheat” was faking the 2nd std dev gray shading on the models. That’s ok, just sloppy and falsely labeled in the legend. What’s more important is how the radiosonde observations were adjusted, those details don’t appear to be in that email.
These charts ought to be a game changer. In a sane world they would be.
The charts compare actual data measurements (from sondes, satellites, etc.) to the various climate computer models.
They don’t match at all. The computer models, taken collectively, predict warming over time. But in real time, the models are in very poor agreement with one another, with some tracking actual field data fairly well, and others being way off on the high side. When their data is averaged they predict warming where it is not observed. The models err more than two standard deviations on the high side of real data.
This means that using the models to predict future climate temperature is not possible. Not only are the models wrong, and very wrong at that; but the differences between actual measurements and computer models are so great that any predictions made from the models are not distinguishable from background noise (both from the physical data measurements and the variation in predictive temperature increase).
It means the computer models being used to predict global warming do not match actual temperatures and cannot be calibrated to planetary climate dynamics. If you cannot calibrate a computer model to real data, it is worthless and any data generated from it is garbage.
If this information gets out it should ruin the reputations of hundreds of scientists that are using the models to affect government policies (or secure grant funds). Not just embarrass them, ruin them.
It means that the climate models being touted by Gore and the multitude of warmists are not the least bit accurate, and in fact are extremely misleading.
This should be a game changer. It is that important. IPCC and the governments and NGOs responsible for this need to be dealt with severely.
BM
From past reading, for there to be human induced global warming, the models have to be in the gray area, but their not.
This would tend to tell me, currently the models and observations don’t match theoretical predictions for human induced global warming and are in fact way off and not even in the ball park.
I am not a expert, but I have a statistics background and these charts look bad, real bad.
I am hoping that someone with more of a climate skeptic can pop in and confirm it.
I am real suspicious.
Is this what the hacker wanted us to see? The chart shows a tWhat?
Discussing ONE CHART?
Out of DOZENS of model runs at any given time - and this is the point of contention ... this isn't much IMO ...
Are you new to GCMs (General Circulation Models and modelling)?
It isn’t one model run, read before you post
This is all models lined up against actual observed temperature trends.
This is all models lined up against actual observed temperature trends.And EACH run is 'parameterized' differently USUALLY to keep the model from burning up the earth or turning it into an ice cube.
The models don't mean squat.
My eyes glaze over after several minutes of reviewing these 'model' run outputs ...
I say again: Is this your first exposure to GCMs and their output(s)?
The latest incarnation of the GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models is now available. Called ModelE, it is a complete rewrite of Model II' physics, combined with greater flexibility and more options. These include better representations of the stratosphere, tracer components and various ocean models.Courtesy of NASA GISS (Dr. James Hansen et al):
Continue reading, you are catching up.
This has nothing to do with model runs, this is actually a summary of multiple models against actual observations.
Yes, I know what you are talking about, that isn’t what this is.
This isn’t one model, this is a test to see how all the models are matching actual observations.
> 1) I think it is important to have a Figure 4. We need to provide information on structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of profiles of atmospheric temperature change. Douglass et al. did not accurately portray the full range of structural uncertainties.
2) I do not want our submission to detract from other publications dealing with recent progress in the development of sonde-based atmospheric temperature datasets. I am aware of at least four such publications which are "in the pipeline".
3) So here is my suggestion for a compromise.
If Leo is agreeable, I would like to show results from his three RAOBCORE versions (v1.2, v1.3, and v1.4) in Figure 4. I'd also like to include results from the RATPAC and HadAT datasets used by Douglass et al. This allows us to illustrate that Douglass et al. were highly selective in their choice of radiosonde data. They had access to results from all three versions of RAOBCORE, but chose to show results from v1.2 only - the version that provided the best support for their "models are inconsistent with observations" argument.
I suggest that we do NOT show the most recent radiosonde results from the Hadley Centre (described in the Titchner et al. paper) or from Steve Sherwood's group. This leaves more scope for a subsequent paper along the lines suggested by Leo, which would synthesize the results from the very latest sonde- and satellite-based temperature datasets, and compare these results with model-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change. I think that someone from the sonde community should take the lead on such a paper.
4) As Melissa has pointed out, Douglass et al. may argue that v1.2 was published at the time they wrote their paper, while v1.3 and v1.4 were unpublished (but submitted). I'm sure this is how Douglass et al. will actually respond. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Douglass et al. should have at least mentioned the existence of the v1.3 and v1.4 results
My take on 1.3 and 1.4 is they are a simplistic attempt by Leopold Haimberger to adjust the RAOB data to make it more useful for climate studies (if you know what I mean). If you want Steve M's skeptical take on that adjustment, just google for "Leopold in the Sky with Diamonds" and click on cache since Steve M's site is very slow right now.
This has nothing to do with model runs, this is actually a summary of multiple models against actual observations.Now you aren't making any sense ...
In a world where the 'model output' is anything one wants it to be, there isn't really any real 'there' there.
I would point you to a resource where 'model' outputs are compared with actuals, and that includes James Hansen's model outputs from 1988 with four or five scenarios as he saw it at the time, but I don't think you are interested (or really understand what you're looking at???), but that resource is swamped at the moment.
Have a good rest of the evening.
Oh, Palmer, you know what you are talking about, thank you!
You should talk to palmer, he knows whats up.
I think you are lost
It’s very complicated politically. See my last post and Steve McIntyre’s post including the comments. Essentially the RAOBs were adjusted to match the models (with plausible deniability) by Haimberger. Those adjusted versions were used in the Santer paper and trumpeted on the RC website (figure appears above). Then Haimberger’s reanalysis was repudiated. But too late! The warmers had moved on and the bogus chart with 1.3 and 1.4 is still there today.
You should talk to palmer, he knows whats up.Right.I think you are lost
Next time you see a GCM say 'hi' for me.
Next time you see J. Hansen's 1988 'model runs' compared woth +20 yrs of actuals think of me (and Hansen). Thank us both for our effort - his work and my attempt at pointing it out to you.
AS I SAID, the primary resource I would point to is OVERLOADED, but nooooo ... you want to take it further.
I would say this is your FIRST foray into this field, and you can't believe others could possubly have done so before you, and certainly without your permission.
Well, sorry for that, pilgrim ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.