I read the NSF investigative report, the NSF summary report, Wegman’s Barton committee report.

I take the above, in lieu of chapter and verse, to be false by design.

“anna v. (22:09:00) If the globe’s climate regulating mechanism is a gigantic analog computer processing all the inputs, can it be modeled successfully on a smaller scale?”

I do not know. It seems that an analogue computer might do the job. Analogue computers are computers that use electric ( resistances, inductors and capacitors) elements in a net simulating coupled differential equations, and were invented in parallel with digital computers back then. They are orders of magnitude faster than decimal computers in solving differential equations ( look it up). In the beginnings, I met them in the 1960s, they were a strong part of research, but then the all purpose utility of the digital won out.

I do not know whether any research is going on still, what with chaos and complexity problems.

anna v. (22:09:00) If the globe’s climate regulating mechanism is a gigantic analog computer processing all the inputs, can it be modeled successfully on a smaller scale?
==========================

1) The bands around each “projection” are not error bands. They are estimates of bands for what errors should be according to the feelings of the modeler. This is written in black and white in the AR4 report. If true errors are used the “projections” will be all over the temperature space. Have a go at this toy model from Junkscience.com
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html .
If you change the albedo by 3% the temperature changes by 1 degree. Can anybody insist that the albedo is known to 3% 1 sigma error?

2) And more importantly, what I have said several times here, is that the GCMs are using linear approximations of the putative solutions of the many coupled differential equations that control the thermodynamic engine that is the climate/weather.

Linear approximations work up to a point. The GCM models when used for weather predictions show us up to what point they do work: some days, i.e. an N number of time steps through the code. When these programs are transformed into climate models, i.e. more linear approximations (averages) the effect does not disappear. It changes scale, but still there will be an N1 number of steps after which the non linearity of the true solutions will appear in force.

Even if all the differential equations that apply have been taken into account, (which is not true) still linear approximations will inevitably fail.

—

The simplest point of clarification though comes from the errors. It is inconceivable that the true errors are not plotted for the “projections” so that the hoi polloi can see what nonsense is being pushed down their throats at the expense of trillions and million of lives.

The AR4 waffles on the errors:
Let me repeat the direct quote from the AR literature, from chapter 8 that is supposed to evaluate the models:

” 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability from the AR:
“The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.””

We should insist on seeing true errors on the “projections”. That is where statisticians with their hands on a model can come in strong.

The toy climate model above is frightening, in that it shows on what flimsy foundations the world is asked to destroy its economies ( though it seems we are on the way of doing that without the help of GCMs).

“The models are just that…Models of reality.”

Good, then all you need to do is cite the independent V&V performed on any of the models you claim represent reality.

You also repeatedly bring up Douglass. This has been discussed ad nauseum at CA. As you apparently get your information exclusively from the smear merchants at RC, it may behoove you to glean from more reputable sources.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3062
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3062
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/08/why-multiple-climate-model-agreement-is-not-that-exciting

RC (including Tamino and their other sycophants) does what tabloid rags do best; besmirch the character and integrity of individuals, in this case respected scientists. Just as they did with Douglass, they did with Spencer, Christy, Pielke, Nir Shaviv and countless others. The funny part is when RC is proven wrong, they don’t concede. Shall we find some examples?

Observations trump theory, every time. Long speeches and diatribes do not detract from that.

Kim,
You can’t be serous about Tamino working with Spencer? Tamino has no interest in truth; he is an antagonist extraordinaire and uses the same tactics as certain political factions, that being stirring the mud so the water is always murky, but at the same time claim his views are correct. He tortures statistics until it is unrecognizable. Now he says the data isn’t precise enough, but will spend considerable time defending Hansen’s shenanigans.

It is a tough nut to crack. It may be too complex for human understanding, yet.
===================================

And to extend that, if you’re confident in your conclusions and methods, you’d be happy to have anyone examine your data.

Well, by that standard, Mann must be since his latest paper has the data and programs available freely on the web. Over at ClimateAudit, they seem to be having a field day looking at although so far they seem to be generating a lot more heat than light.

I doubt there is any “law” involved. The fact of the matter is, McIntyre is a qualified peer reviewer. The IPCC saw fit to use him as an expert reviewer, so why does Mann see him as an amateur funded by oil companies?

First of all, because it tries to be very open, the IPCC more-or-less allows anyone to become an “expert reviewer” who wants to. (Technically, you may have to be nominated by a government or an organization…but surely someone like McIntyre can find an organization skeptical of AGW who would be happy to nominate him.) Second of all, intellectual property rights are a matter of law. And, the NSF was very clear on what Mann’s obligations were to McIntyre or anyone else in the letter that they sent to McIntyre.

Dennis Sharp:

Joel, you are so obviously committed to AGW, it has become for you a marriage for better or for worse. You have now become irrelevant, and in my case-ignored.

Do what you want. Sure, we all have our biases and I won’t deny that I have mine. But, perhaps you might examine your own biases and commitments too. And, I try hard to call them as I see them…and in this thread when Gavin Schmidt said something that I thought was incorrect (or at least partially so), I said so. I also have not dismissed Spencer’s work out-of-hand but I also don’t think Spencer’s short response to Tamino’s critique constitutes anything like a complete rebuttal.

As fas as Spencer’s data goes–I think you are stretching suggesting his data is wrong and the models are correct—-only in climate science does this type of joke happen.

First of all, you are phrasing this in a way that makes it sound like the data supports one thing and the models another (and partly it may be because you are mixing things up with the simultaneous discussion we are having in regards to the tropical tropospheric trends…which isn’t really related except quite tangentially). In fact, what I would say is that I believe that Spencer’s data analysis is likely wrong. And, the data analysis of many others, who have obtained estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data in various ways, such as Hansen’s method of looking at the last glacial maximum, are likely correct. Yes, these latter climate sensitivity estimates are also supported by the current sensitivity estimates from climate models…but this is not the only or even primary evidence for what the climate sensitivity is.

As for the second part of your comment, could you back this up by telling me what fields of physical science you have worked actively in to compare to?

Geoff Larsen says:

I believe Spencer is saying that the assumption that the observed cloud variability that was believed by some scientists to be the result of feedback , ignored the possibility that some, not fully understood or accepted phenomena, was partly responsible and this lead to the adoption of a climate sensitivity that is too high.

I understand what Spencer is arguing. The problem here is that there are two only tangentially-related discussions going on at the same time: one concerning Spencer’s work and one regarding the existence or non-existence of amplification of temperature fluctuations and trends as one goes up in the tropical troposphere. My point (making a vague connection between these two different discussions) is that even if Spencer is right about what he is talking about here, I don’t see how any sort of correction to the physical processes of the type that Spencer is talking about can solve the issue regarding the magnification of temperature fluctuations in the troposphere because he is talking about processes that operate on timescales shorter than timescales where the data show the magnification is in fact working in the way that the models predict. (To be fair, Spencer has not to my knowledge tried to claim that this work addresses the tropospheric amplification issue, but some people like kim seem to be implying that it could and I am just saying that I don’t see how it could.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/ip/1210.html

NASA’s ability to protect intellectual property is affected by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [5 U.S.C. § 552]. The FOIA permits any person the right of access to Federal agency records unless specifically exempted by the Act. Proprietary documents containing private sector trade secrets and commercial or financial information, generated outside the Government, but in the control of NASA, are exempt from disclosure by FOIA exemption 4. Information disclosing inventions and information that is part of a patent application may be withheld under FOIA exemption 3.