A collection of fudge from The Team, sweet!
ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – Email 636
Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything.
[Hat tip: M. Hulme]
In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the ‘derivation’ of the GSIC formula) — but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.
Email 5054, Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007
I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a ‘fudge factor’ along with the poorer modelling for winter.
Email 1461, Milind Kandlikar, 2004
With GCMs the issue is different. Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics. For example, understanding of clouds or aerosols is far from complete – so (ideally) researchers build the “best” model they can within the constraints of physical understanding and computational capacity. Then they tweak parameters to provide a good approximation to observations. It is this context that all the talk about “detuning” is confusing. How does one speak of “detuning” using the same physical models as before? A “detuned” model merely uses a different set of parameters that match observations – it not hard to find multiple combinations of parameters that give the similar model outputs (in complex models with many parameters/degrees of freedom) So how useful is a detuned model that uses old physics? Why is this being seen as some sort of a breakthrough?
We had to remove the reference to “700 years in France” as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.
Email 723, Elaine Barrow, UEA, 1997
Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures…
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
h/t to Tom Nelson
Maybe it isn’t fudge, but a social issue. Robert Bradley writes:
Here is my favorite quotation:
“[Model results] could also be sociological: getting the socially acceptable answer.”– Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), June 20, 1998.
See “Gerald North on Climate Modeling Revisited (re Climategate 2.0)”: http://www.masterresource.org/2011/11/gerald-north-on-climate-modeling-revisited-re-climategate-2-0/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Instead of “Ben & Jerry’s”, the label on the ice cream container should say “Jones & Mann”.
That is the problem with crap math like statistics. You can say whatever you want and then somehow, that makes it real. Statistics is like saying: a plus or minus some + b plus or minus some = an exact c. It ain’t there. Close enough for BS math.
It’s amazing to see UN scientists at work.
Don’t forget the GISS office in Manhattan:
http://lkayjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/benandjerrys.jpg
Ben & Jerry mark their product so that you know it is fudge. The same cannot be said for the team where it is less than tasteful.
How about if we feed them some epoxy fudge? It should make them more truthful.
I find fudge vexatious
When will these “scientists” admit that their work and the GCMs are best guess approximations (SWAG) to backmatch observations and have practically zero predictive value. If multiple variable/coefficient combination variations can yield the same hind cast, what makes them think:
They know the correct variable/coefficient combination?
That the coefficients aren’t also variables in response to internal & external system factors?
Their models have any predictive values?
This isn’t science, it guesswork, pure and quite simple.
Bill Yarber
A damning endictment as to the efficacy of models. The underlying physics of the system is not sufficiently known or understood to enable a useful model to be writtem. We are just left with GIGO
These people are fanatics. Dangerous ideologues propping up sociological beliefs with false data.
This outrages my scientific sensibilities. We knew they were doing such things, or suspected from the math and data, as it was pretty obvious; but seeing them outright planning and conniving… This perversion of science, their positions, and the trust we placed in them…
It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong–what matters is what they DID was wrong, deceitful, and utterly unscientific. The ends never justify the means.
Or, to put it in a quote I very much like:
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.”
-Christopher Dawson
Ben And Jerry’s is perfect as they do promote progressive values and support the global warming fraud.
So far I have asked several politicians up here in Canada if they support hide-the-decline science as valid work for imposing Carbon taxes.
Crickets never chirped so loud.
David Larsen says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:11 am
That is the problem with crap math like statistics.
I disagree that statistics qualifies as “crap math”. However, it is a problem with crap math like first principles modelling for which the first principles are incapable of providing the “correct” answer. That’s when copious amounts of fudge factors get stirred into the mixture.
When it comes to climate science isn’t “simple global formula” an oxymoron?
“model that uses old physics” I knew that “new math” was invented for schools a decade or few ago but I don’t remember the memo about “new physics” replacing “old physics”, although in the case of these charlatans it is more likely new psychics replacing old physics.
Lies, damn lies and climate science.
Sheesh. No wonder I can’t find a single freaking word from these emails in the pro-AGW literature!
That is the most discusting mail so far, me thinks. So it is the “Fast Track Team”?
We’ll call it “Climate Sudoku”. Just plug in random numbers till all the boxes are filled and check to see if the soloution fits the previous puzzles, ignore the ones that don’t fit at all and average the ones that sort of do. With this “data” you can predict all future sudoku puzzles.
Their biggest fudge factor of all is the assumption
that there is any diagnostic utility in a spatial average
of well-messaged max/min air-temp readings.
After all, their big bugaboo here is that Earth’s IR radiation into space
will be smothered by those eeville Satanic Gasses.
In fact, Earth’s IR emission spectrum varies greatly
both temporally and spatially,
as well as directionally,
but most important of all
is that it is a NON-equilibrium phenomenon,
so that IR radiation does not thermodynamically act
via its spectral integral,
let alone its spatial or temporal integral.
Rather, each wavelength at each direction and at each altitude
interacts separately with each atmospheric constituent
in a totally local and immediate manner, molecule by molecule.
Physically, a mathematical integral of heat flows
requires teleconnections for there to be any spatial integration
or requires accumulators such as the oceans for temporal.
Most long-term trends are regional rather than global
(unless you’re talking continent-scale glaciers)
In acknowledgement of these elementary radiation-facts,
these self-anointed climate cognoscenti
could at least utilize the average of the absolute temps to the fourth power,
especially considering it would be higher than the linear average.
.
DirkH;
Seems to me the phrase “UN scientists” has become an oxymoron.
oldseadog,
Maybe that should be un-scientists.
It looks like fudge, but smells like…
Is it just me? I could really do with some fudge right now.
Damnit, I like fudge. I move we use “weasel” instead.
Not even the ferret-fixated could find those chicken-coop-robbing mustelid vermin appealing.
I wonder if Mr. Hulm had a chance to check out JC’s recent post on personality types and how they relate to climate science and communications – http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/27/climate-scientists-are-different-from-the-general-public/ My guess (with a 66% probability in my SWAG) is that he would come out as an ENFJ. A brief summary of this personality type http://www.davidmarkley.com/personality/enfj.htm noted a concern about manipulation- “ENFJs are the benevolent ‘pedagogues’ of humanity. They have tremendous charisma by which many are drawn into their nurturant tutelage and/or grand schemes. Many ENFJs have tremendous power to manipulate others with their phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship. But it’s usually not meant as manipulation — ENFJs generally believe in their dreams, and see themselves as helpers and enablers, which they usually are.”
An couple of Eric Hoffer- The True Believer- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer quotes come to mind after contemplating the most recent posts at WUWT-
“Part Three: United Action and Self-Sacrifice
Failure in the management of practical affairs seems to be a qualification for success in the management of public affairs.
The real “haves” are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real “have nots” are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor.”