It has been one of those days…first the GISS data train wreck in apparently reusing last months temperatures to make this months “hottest October ever” announcement, now we find that the director of The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) may not have the goods for the PhD he goes by. He’s about to become the president of the American Meteorological Society. Interesting times – Anthony
Reprinted from NRO’s Planet Gore
Dr. Pepper, Dr. J, Dr. Karl . . . [Chris Horner]
Well, this testimony, submitted to the House of Representatives is strange, what with “Dr. Tom Karl” – now the lead author of the U.S. government’s Climate Change Science Program assessment being prepared to support EPA regulation of carbon dioxide – having never earned an academic Ph.D.
That’s according to North Carolina State University, that is, which is the school from which I found a Karl resume claiming a Ph.D., earned “1977-78”. I first found this on a Johns Hopkins website but, after asking Karl’s employer NOAA to clarify where the “Dr.” title they serially tout was earned, that CV has been taken down (but not before I saved the file, of course). NOAA wouldn’t answer my question, but only sniffed that if I can point to them claiming Karl has a Ph.D. – as opposed to just promoting him as “Dr. Karl” apparently on the basis of a 2002 honorary doctorate of humane letters – I should tell them.
The thing is, I have just received documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing that Mr. Karl is indeed styled as “Dr. Karl” on the express basis of having earned that 1978 NCSU Ph.D., as a proposed “co-investigator” in an application for a million-dollar-plus federal grant. The grant was awarded. No word yet whether the U.S. mail was involved in the process.
I suppose it’s possible that Hopkins just made this up to get the grant, and wasn’t relying on anything Mr. Karl told them. And the same could be true of NOAA, which reviewed the grant application (as evidenced by a letter in the responsive documents), and then received $100,000 from the proceeds of the grant. Maybe they got together to prepare Mr. Karl’s House testimony without his input, too.
Given the apparent seriousness of these revelations, I’ve got some correspondence underway seeking clarification from Hopkins, NOAA, and Karl. But, this is a busy time, what with – have I mentioned this? – a book coming out today. More later.
I’m just not all impressed with Ph.D.’s, honorary or not. Been in the Ivory tower and spent 3 years in a teaching medical center. Some folks there would have been better off if the Ph.D. had traded places with the orderly.
Truly, it isn’t the hallmarks of authority here that is important, it is the failure of authority in climate science to adhere to a primary requisite of science, the willingness to question assumptions. The entire corps of true believers in the paradigm of CO2=AGW seem to be unable to re-examine basic assumptions and to prefer to sift the data and procedures until they imagine sense in their observations. What a madness of the crowd!
=======================================
Joel,
You may be right. As I said earlier, it has happened to me. I testify as an expert witness, have a decent list of peer reviewed publications in my field of expertise, and have even been a peer reviewer for two academic journals. So I’ve been addressed as “Dr.” a number of times, when in truth I don’t have a Ph.D.
But there also may be more to the story than just this. He’s actually claimed a Ph.D., not just the D.H.L. You see for yourself here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070207131147/http://www.jhu.edu/~climate/thomaska.htm
Note that this is the wayback machine. The original has been removed.
Re advanced degrees.
I am reminded of the comment of the great Chaucer scholar John Kitteredge, who was peerless, despite the fact that he had only a bachelor’s. When asked why he did not go through the formality of obtaining a Ph.D, he responded,
‘And who would compose the exam?’
Basil,
The wayback resume you posted demonstrates that this is not a “tempest in a teakettle”. It looks more like the perfect storm, notwithstanding Joel’s attempts to rehabilitate Mr. Karl.
Mike Bryant
John says:
Do you have a reference for the models omitting the sun?
Basil (see above@ur momisugly 8:31) has the goods!
Mr. Karl was also one of the thousands of scientists at the IPCC.
“Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
Lead Author 1995
Lead Author 1992
Lead Author 1990”
I wonder how many of the others have such credentials?
A search of Mr. Karl’s name on the NCSU website brought up this. Note the Mr. salutation:
http://www.ncsu.edu/about-nc-state/university-administration/board-of-trustees/honorary-degrees/degrees-conferred/karl.html
“Mr. Thomas Karl
Mr. Thomas Karl is director of the National Climatic Data Center, the world’s largest data center for climate data and information. He also manages the Climate Change Data and Detection Program Element for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Global Programs. Karl is best known for his work on climate change. He has authored about 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals and more than 200 technical reports. He is the editor of the Journal of Climate and associate editor for Climate Change. He has also been called on to brief the White House and Congress on climate variability and climate change. Karl is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union and has received numerous awards for his climate work. He did postgraduate work at NC State after receiving a master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a bachelor’s degree from Northern Illinois University. He lives with his wife, Dale Ann, in Asheville, NC.”
Also see this:
http://www.ncsu.edu/BulletinOnline/12_02/honoraries.htm
Joel, do *you* have a model (one used by the IPCC) that *includes* the Sun? I’ve not seen one, although they may exist. Surely proving the existence of such (all you need do is find one example) is easier than proving it does not exist, given the number of models and their (relative) complexity.
I, though, am still stunned by >95% probability claims without supporting significance test results. I build Structural Equation Models (some with over 200 variables) and would *never* claim >95% without producing the test statistic.
So, to mis-quote Monty Python, in regards to the sun’s effect in the models and the probability, I say, “Produce the fromage, forthwith!”
Can this web site incorporate as a non-accredited university?
Then we can all award each other doctorates! Two years of reading this
web site at least once a week will be the course of study.
I already have 2.5 degrees, but a doctorate would be nice too.
We may not hand out PhDs, but you can always get your own pope card:
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/popecard.html
All hail Eris!
Shall I ever wish out loud
To be called Doctor of cloud?
=====================
And wouldst thou spare thyself the pain
Whilst ye be rendered under rein?
OT:
To: F Rasmin at 15:39.
It’s when I hear the kind of sentiments you express, I’m reminded of exactly why I like you Aussies so much. Goodonya, mate.
John the Pom 🙂
“I, though, am still stunned by >95% probability claims without supporting significance test results. I build Structural Equation Models (some with over 200 variables) and would *never* claim >95% without producing the test statistic.”
This is where my jaw drops, as well. The IPCC throws around these probablilty figures without any mathematical basis for them. For example, in the Summary for Policymakers, they assert, based on a poll of contributing authors, an assessment of a 95% or greater likelihood that most of the observed warming is due to human GHGs. This poll asked the authors to use their “expert judgment” in arriving at these probabilities.
I’m a Cornhusker fan. Ask me what I think the likelihood is that they win their next game and I may say something like 85%. No one, however, would think that this figure is the result of any calulation, let alone a “scientific procedure.” It’s literally nothing more than an expression of my subjective opinion on the matter. Opinion is, by definition, not science. If the critical question regarding global warming has to be answered by an opinion poll, then that says everything you need to know about the state of the science behind global warming.
Moreover, the term “expert judgment” is a misnomer with respect to climate scientists. Expertise has to demonstrated objectively. Imagine a trial where a person is proffered as a handwriting expert, but has never actually demonstrated a practical ability to distinguish one person’s writing from another’s. It doesn’t matter how much the person has studied, or how often the person has asserted the ability, what matters is wherther the person has, in prior instances, shown a proven track record of accuraately distinguishing one person’s writing from another’s, and how that compares to the record of an average person.
I would ask the same thing of the IPPC contributors. Show some past track record of correctly attributing climate fluctuations to specific causal influences. Show that particular techniques of climate reconstructions have been demonstrated to correctly estimate past annual temperatures within specified tolerances. Of course, to ask the question is to answer it. Since there is no way to objectively verify any of this, the assertion that we should rely on the “expertise” of the scientists that advocate the global warming position is an assertion that we should believe in nothing more than a guess.
Bwa ha ha ha ha.
[REPLY – What’s up, Doc?]
“”Purakanui (19:23:57) :
There have been at least two high profile cases in New Zealand in which senior public servants have claimed fictional PhDs; “”
So Purak; what of the Maori MPs? Are they not alone with the National Party, sufficient to form a government, without the Greens.
I only just found out that I could have voted in that election; so I guess I will be ready for the next one; if the Yanks won’t have me.
And I do hope that some sanity prevails in Kiwiland, because your agriforestry more than compensates for the domestic livestock flatulence issue; so NZ really has a negative carbon footprint, if they were allowed to claim it (so does the USA for the same reason).
But good luck to you all Purak.
As my high school motto says; Kia Tamatane !
JorgXMcKie says:
All climate models include the sun and it is silly to believe that they don’t. Without the sun providing incoming radiation, there would be no (or at least much less) outgoing radiation to provide the greenhouse effect. What some people might be trying to say is that the IPCC models do not vary the solar forcing over the next hundred years when they ramp up the greenhouse gas forcing. This is presumably true but since we don’t know how to predict future variations in solar forcing and since recent history suggests that the the magnitude of the radiative forcing from any such variations is expected to be much smaller than the magnitude of the radiative forcing due to rising greenhouse gases, there is good reason not to include any variations in solar forcing in the projections.
So, you do a totally different sort of modeling and your are “stunned” that they don’t do things exactly the way you do?!? Climate models are not statistical models and so the things that you desire don’t have any meaning. However, it is worth noting that there is some Bayesian modeling done to determine climate sensitivity using climate models to reproduce various empirical climate data (like the temperature drop from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and various paleoclimate events) and in that case, they do produce probability distribution functions for the various possible values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. See, for example, this paper by James Annan: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
Joel Shore,
Please provide evidence from IPCC AR4 that the Level of Scientific Understanding for solar is anything above Low.
Thank you.
“Climate models are not statistical models”
This is correct. Climate models are comprised of systems of coupled, highly non-linear partial differential equations which attempt to model the atmosphere, chemistry, ocean circulation, ice, radiation, precipitation, and a myriad of related processes. They are solved numerically by discretizing the differential equations in an adhoc fashion and marching these equations forward in time. Of course, there is very little proof that such “systems” are well-posed mathematically or that the codes themselves are actually solving the differential equations they purport to be solving in a consistent and stable fashion, since no proofs exist for proving the stability of the time-marching algorithms, and, more important, many code authors will not release many important details of their methodologies (some do, but not all e.g. GISS Model E). And, if a climate code blows up numerically, they simply apply “fixers” and “smoothers” to “correct” the solutions so that the solutions are in line with whatever the code user wants. And, with suitable adjustments and corrections, and lots of trial and error, they can ** hindcast ** the climate extremely well…
‘… if a climate code blows up numerically, they simply apply “fixers” and “smoothers” to “correct” the solutions so that the solutions are in line with whatever the code user wants.’
This is reminiscent of the increasingly complex systems of ‘epicycles’ that were tacked on to the apparent orbits of the planets in order to ‘save the appearances’ for the geocentric model in the face of contradictory data.
Speaking of 95% probability…
Thanx, Basil, for that Wayback Machine archive on “Dr.” Karl, who lists the following information on his personal website:
Education:
Northern Illinois Univ., DeKalb, IL B.S. 1969-73
Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI M.S. 1973-74
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC PhD. 1977-78
[emphasis added]
Time to replace Mr. Karl with someone honest — and someone who holds a real doctorate.
[Joel Shore: “Admittedly, adding the term “honorary”, as was the case in the other two examples, may avoid confusion…”
Note that Karl lists his fictitious PhD specifically under “Education,” exactly the same way he lists his M.S. and B.S. At least we know the B.S. part is true.]
DR says:
That is indeed the level of scientific understanding that is given for solar forcing in AR4, presumably reflecting the fact that there is a factor of 5 difference between the bottom and top ends of the range for the estimated forcing. However, it is important to note that even if the top end is correct, the radiative forcing is still an order of magnitude down from the sort of forcings we will be experiencing due to greenhouse gases. (A more important source of uncertainty in estimating the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] from 20th century temperature record is the uncertainty in the forcing due to aerosols. This is why looking at other events tends to provide tighter bounds the the ECS than the 20th century temperature record does.)
Frank K. says:
As to you first statement, if we limited computational models to those things for which the mathematicians have rigorously proved the problem is well-posed, stable, etc., most of our scientific knowledge would be gone. As a practical matter, it is understood that there is chaos in the system, i.e., that there is high sensitivity to the initial conditions. However, it is also shown that when the models are run in an ensemble fashion with perturbed initial conditions, while the exact bumps and wiggles (i.e., the weather and short term climate fluctuations) will be different in each realization, they all do tend to produce the same general change in climate to the greenhouse gas forcing.
As to your last comment, it is true that the models need to be tuned in some way so that in the absence of any forcings, they are in radiative balance, i.e., the radiation in equals that out. This is not surprising and similar issues exist in a broad realm of different scientific areas. In fact, in quantum field theory (QFT), one has to subtract quantities that are diverging to infinity in order to get finite quantities that correspond to physical properties like the mass of an electron! I well imagine that if QFT had as politically controversial implications as climate science, we would have whole websites such as this one devoted to “QFT skeptics”! Science is hard and, despite the contrived examples you tend to learn about in introductory science courses, very little can be done mathematically rigorously or without approximations.
And finally, it is worth re-emphasizing that the projections from climate models are not the only reason we have to believe our current estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity in response to a radiative forcing. There are also various “natural experiments” that have been carried out over the history of the earth. For example, there are the ice age – interglacial cycles, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo, etc.
Also, the climate models are not “black boxes” where all you get out is some prediction of future temperatures. There are various pieces you can test, such as whether the water vapor feedback, a major positive feedback mechanism) is behaving as expected. (The conclusion in the peer-reviewed literature is that it is. Some people here, plotting data that they don’t really understand that is freely available on the web but known to have problems, have arrived at a different conclusion. However, to my knowledge they haven’t even tried to present these results in the peer-reviewed literature…likely because they would never past muster.)