Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
James Hansen has taken time off between being arrested to produce another in the list of his publications. It’s called “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications“. This one is listed as “submitted” …
Normally these days I prefer to only deal with scientific papers, which of course leaves activist pleadings like Hansen’s stuff off the list. But in this case I’ll make an exception. Here’s my sole reason for bringing this up. Hansen’s paper says the following (emphasis mine):
The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).
I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest. Since the observations were not of the expected range, rather than figure out why the results might be wrong, they just twisted the dials to “reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models.”
And curiously, the “imbalance suggested by climate models”, of some 0.85 W/m2, was actually from Hansen’s previous paper. That earlier paper of his, by coincidence called “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications“, gave that 0.85 W/m2 figure as a result from Hansen’s own GISS climate model … but all this incestuous back-slapping is probably just another coincidence.
Of course, you know what all this means. Soon, the modelers will be claiming that the CERES satellite results verify that the GISS and other climate models are accurately duplicating observations …
You can see why Hansen’s “science” gets left off my list of things to read.
w.
PS—Upon further research I find that according to Loeb et al., 2009, they didn’t just tweak the dials on the CERES observations to get the answer they wanted, as I had foolishly stated above.
No, they didn’t do that at all. Instead, they used…
an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system.
I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that it wasn’t just twisting dials, they actually used an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust their Procrustean Bed …
UPDATE: Some commenters have noted that my article implies that Hansen used those CERES satellite results in the study in question. Hansen did not use them, stating correctly that the uncertainties were too great for his purposes. —w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is indeed curious that when the observational data doesn’t match the model, the observations must be wrong. “Cause we all know the models are NEVER wrong.
Hansen does stuff like that all the time. It is my understanding, and correct me please if it is not the case, that GISTEMP where it is missing data for large portions of the surface of the Earth (particularly places like the Arctic) simply plugs in the values from the models. So we get a GISS map that comes into closer agreement with the models because the temperatures the models produce for certain areas are simply plugged into GISTEMP
The real problem is that his first choice of experiment, measuring the total ocean heat content, did not yield the warming he predicted. in reality, the Argo buoy network to measure heat content is a great scientific experiment. Dr. Hansen made a prediction of how much heat would build in the oceans, they deployed a well dispersed system of buoys to accurately measure the top 700 meters of depth in the oceans covering 70% of the globe and since you are looking at heat rather than just temperature, it integrates over long time spans so you get pretty accurate results. The problem is the very good measurements from a very good experiment is off by an order of magnitude. Does Dr. Hansen’s book examine the discrepancies in the total ocean heat content? Relying on satellites that can measure the earths albedo to a best 1% to obtain a measure of an energy imbalance that is likely less than 0.1% will never lead to any meaningful conclusions.
“…resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.” -The Borg
Ah, the cultivation of insider code words and vocabulary. How good can you make, “We fudged it to suit our preferences” sound?
Or alternatively, James, oh James:
“I should warn you that your fly buttons are undone and your mind is hanging out” Wilbur Smith
Yeah well I had to (yet again) look up something in Willis’ post to understand what it means.
A veritable education booth in the Climate Expo full of charlatans selling their wares.
And I thank Willis (and Anthony) for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes
Check out the the name of the arresting officer on that picture.
The raw data doesn’t agree with the sacred models, so we’ll just adjust the data. Gee, where have we heard of that happeneing before, I wonder.
Another eye-roller moment. Time for the good stuff … a good stiff shot of whiskey to soothe those bouncy eyes.
Classic.
Using model data to adjust satellite data to match model data.
Tadaah! Proven!
Willis, thanks and I understand your point very well. As i understand it, energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. Thus in energy, terms the earth energy budget, must be in balance all the time.. So where does the “imbalance” come from that he bases his “paper” on?
1 REM Objective Constrainment Algorithm
2 REM Copyright Climate Science
10 Load “data”
20 Load “model”
30 If model =/= data then data=model
40 Print “Data agrees with model.”
50 end
“I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest.” In this you are as wrong as Hansen. Hansen’s writings and the quoted statement is not science in the first place. It may make reference to empirical data, science and engineering but it is not science. You are therefore incorrect it is not climate or any other kind of science. It is misinformation, it is foolishness, it is ideology and it a host of things science is not one of them. As a scientist myself I object to anyone using the name of my profession in vain.
That said thanks for sharing since I probably would not have progressed beyond his first paragraph.
The source of my above comment is various discussions concerning GISS “extrapolating” estimated temperatures where it has no data and at least one posting I read, can’t remember which blog but it might have been CA some time ago, that said the estimate came from Hansen’s models.
I don’t know which is the most incredible: that he would fiddle the data to match his model or that he has the gall to say that’s what he did.
Heh. I just realized Hanson is being arrested by “Officer Green” in the above photo.
I wonder if I can get Hanson to do my taxes – and will the taxation department believe them?
“Yes sir, by this algorithm, I can show that my income was not $150K for the year – it was only $15K, which is inline with the financial model that I made last year. So my taxes will only be $1500 instead of $35000”.
@Graeme
“adjusted” taxes often don’t pass IRS peer review, Hansenization is not recommended
“COME ON!” <—Arrested Development lingo.
jiggered past participle, past tense of jig·ger
Verb:
Rearrange or tamper with: “jiggering with the controls was a mistake”. An objective constrainment algorithm.
an objective constrainment algorithm
The above sounded very familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
Whac-A-Mole . . . (has) five holes in its top and a large, soft, black mallet. Each hole contains a single plastic mole and the machinery necessary to move it up and down. Once the game starts, the moles will begin to pop up from their holes at random. The object of the game is to force the individual moles back into their holes by hitting them directly on the head with the mallet, . . .
It is so obvious I won’t bother translating.
@Dennis Nikols, Willis is being sarcastic
Wilis, does Hansen’s concept of missing heat include the difference between the Trenberth’s radiation window of 26 w/m2 ie 66 w/m2 (as admiited in an email to Dr Noor Van Andel) and 40w/m2 in his papers K&T 1997 and T F K 2009?
Isn’t this what science is all about? Fitting the data to the curve?
/sarc
It’s amazing how many people read “Hansen” and see “Hanson”.
@Jeff Alberts – yes I’ve noticed that as well, gave up correcting Hanson > Hansen – just too many – Anthony