Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Y’know, some of these climate games are getting kind of boring. I’m tired of people who are paid with my taxes hiding their data, results, and findings. Case in point, the “Community Earth System Model” of the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). They describe their model as:
The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth’s past, present, and future climate states.
Figure 1. The forcings and major flows in the CACM1.0 model. Source
OK, fine. This new CESM model is the successor to the CCSM3.0 climate model. People always tout the fact that the CESM code is open source, so you can investigate their results. I wanted to find out more about the CCSM3.0 model, in particular the forcings used in the AR4 simulations of the 20th century. What could go wrong?
Well, the first thing to go wrong is that you have to register to read their data. I don’t like that, but I can live with it. But then I find out that I can’t just register—I need to be approved by the good folks at UCAR to even view their holy climate results, we wouldn’t want just anyone reading them I guess …
About 95% of the UCAR funding comes from my taxes, and I need their approval to see their results??? C’mon, fools, this is not secret Al-Qaeda documents or the floor plan to Fort Knox, it’s just your stupid model results. Why are you making it hard to access?
Having no option, I applied to get access to the repository where they store the sacred results and forcings of the model runs. I figured OK, I can play their games. So I applied for the lowest level of access, read-only.
But this being climate science, today it got worse, viz:
- From: XXX <XXX@cgd.ucar.edu>
- Subject: Your request for access to the CESM repository was declined.
- Date: May 6, 2011 12:49:13 PM PDT
- Your request for access to the CESM repository was declined.You still have access to all public releases of CESM. Go to http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ for access to the public model releases.
- Title:
- First Name: Willis
- Middle initial:
- Last name: Eschenbach
- Account name: XXX
- My position: climate researcher
- Primary working group: Climate Change and Assessment
- Relevant working groups: Atmosphere Model:Climate Variability:
- Type of access: Level-1: Read-only
- Summary of work: Analyzing the relationship of forcing to output of cesm models
- List of CESM collaborators: None
- Start date: Now
- End date: 2 years after starting
- Submission date: 5/6/2011
- Acceptance status: Declined
- Password issued: no
- Remarks on status: please use released cesm1 code base
Oooooh, that angrified my blood mightily, and I waxed wroth. I am ashamed to say that I generally disturbed the peace of the neighborhood with my voluble speculations on the species and personal habits of their ancestors, and with my loud suggestions that the good folks of UCAR should perform anatomically improbable forms of sexual auto-congress …
And Judith Curry and other people wonder why the public doesn’t trust climate scientists, and why their message is so widely disbelieved? In general, the public rightly assumes that people who hide something … have something to hide. Bozo logic, I know, but strangely, people believe it.
I can’t tell you how tired I am of this petty, provincial, and anti-scientific ‘you have to say the secret password before I’ll show you my results’ point of view. I have linked to this post in my response to the charming UCAR fellow … we’ll see how it plays out. Yeah, I know I should have written to them to straighten it out before posting, and if this were my first rodeo I would have done that. At this point, I’ve been stuffed around by this kind of nonsense too many times, I’m tired of being Mr. Nice Guy.
And more to the point, there is absolutely no reason for them to restrict access in the first place. It is non-secret, non-sensitive public data paid for by public money, and the public should have full and unfettered access to read it any time, without preconditions.
w.
[UPDATED May 7, ’11] If anyone else would like to join in the hunt, what I am looking for are the numbers underlying the graphics shown on this page. Month-by-month global values for the forcing variables. I’d prefer if they were in GISS style, where all of the forcings are expressed in W/m2, but raw concentrations (e.g. ppmv) are fine too.
[UPDATED May 8, ’11] Well, the powers that be have decided to let me in, and I’ve found what I need. My thanks to Steven Mosher and Derecho64 for the assistance. I’ll post up the results in Excel form once I convert them (the ozone data alone is almost 2 GBytes).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis;
Ah, yes; you’ve just been subjected to a full-bore “strawman” defense/assault. It’s the standard gambit.
Gidday Willis – I have just had an FOI request refused downunder.
“Australian FOI law keeps secret the construction of New Zealand seven station temperature series”
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=950
“C’mon, fools, this is not secret Al-Qaeda documents or the floor plan to Fort Knox, it’s just your stupid model results. Why are you making it hard to access?”
I have visions of Mr. T from the A-Team. Rather funny, given the seriousness of the matter. My bet is that they have a defense order against Willis in particular, but hey, what do I know.
I should probably mind my own business but it sure seems like Steve Mosher has been in a real snit lately… and it’s rather annoying.
Willis says:
> No. I’m not looking for that at all. I’m looking for forcing data for AR4 that
> corresponds with the CMIP data for the CCSM3 20th century hindcast. I found a
> location for it somewhere in the CESM maze, but when I applied for it, you saw what I
> got.
1) Your application does not state that you are looking for the AR4 data. If you had, the UCAR folks probably would have let you know that the repository to which you were seeking access does not contain that data.
2) The AR4 data is old. It was originally distributed in tar files, maybe someone still has it laying around but you would have to find someone who is still using CCSM3. I’m pretty sure it is not used as input data for the CESM1 (the CESM input data is available via svn).
3) It is still unclear why you were looking for development code. While the scientists and software engineers are working hard putting new physics into the model, the code is not yet in a state where it can be subjected to the stringent testing it must undergo before it is released to the climate-research community (and yes, to the public, it all happens at the same time).
Ob. Disclaimer: I do not work for UCAR and am not a climate researcher. I am an interested citizen (like yourself) and have taken the time to learn the facts about what is going on there.
Willis
“Oh, go away with your ridiculous assumptions. I was trying to get access to the forcing data for CCSM3. What is it with you guys? Take a breath and let me answer before peddling your Lemmingcycle over the cliff …”
That’s not what you requested in your request form. Ar4 forcing data is not tied to a particular model. Also you asked for access to CESM source CODE repository which is why I ASKED MY QUESTION. do you want code or data. TWO DIFFERENT REPOSITORIES . It says as much on the page you link to.
Willis here is what you wrote”
“Y’know, some of these climate games are getting kind of boring. I’m tired of people who are paid with my taxes hiding their data, results, and findings. Case in point, the “Community Earth System Model” of the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). They describe their model as:
The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth’s past, present, and future climate states.”
The link you provided takes you to a page discussing CESM
For CESM there is a public version. Version 1.0
Your request says you are looking for CESM. Not CCSM3.0
They tell you to use the public version. the RELEASED CODE.
Also, you want the input data, which they point to at the bottom of the page YOU LINKED TO. some MAZE
I accessed that in seconds.
Now, lets look some more at your request.
Start here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/
Is this the form you filled out
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Software/secp/repo_access_form.shtml
Thats the form to the DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Input data is in a different subversion repository. That’s a very common approach to keeping code and data separate.
Basically. You talked about the new model and wanting access to the AR4 forcing data. You requested access to the DEV CODE and they pointed you to the public release code. Had you followed their instructions you would have been given a password to the released code AND the data subversion tree. Different trees, same access password. had they given you access to the DEV tree, you’d still be at a loss, because it looks like they keep code and input data in different repositories. standard operating proceedure for many folks.
Access to the Dev tree? You’re not a developer. You wanted data and you asked for development code. Giving non developers access to dev code is not a good practice, typically because they create support nightmares and dev code is just that. Things IN PROGRESS.
if You wanted ar4 forcings for CCSM.
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/home.htm
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/browseCollections.htm
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/viewProject.htm?projectId=0be61a23-2177-402d-86e3-d61e403a97a8
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/viewDataset.htm?datasetId=dfb96cfb-c91d-11df-9d5f-00c0f03d5b7c
http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/browse/viewDataset.htm?datasetId=1c781d8e-c91e-11df-9d5f-00c0f03d5b7c
https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/ac/guest/secure/sso.htm
So, use your openid or register.
Or you can find the ar4 forcings at other locations.
But your request wasnt exactly clear. I’d use the Ar5 forcings, they go good with crow.
Willis:
Fact 1: UCAR has announced the existence of CCSM3.0.
Fact 2: Some folks not working for UCAR have been granted permission
to view CCSM3.0.
Fact 3: At least one person (you) has been denied viewing permission.
You may have to go through the National Science Foundation (NSF) with
a FOI request to see the unseeable:
http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp
Since the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is a
creature of the NSF and federal funding, they should be subject to the
Freedom of Information Act. If not, go the long way around through
NSF for the grant applications, codes, and results to date.
While you’re at it, ask NSF for the parameters in place, and a
description of the process use to establish the granting of
permission to view the NCAR model/material. Ask for the
appeal procedure in place for denial of permission cases.
You’d really make their week by asking in a separate
request for a list of those individuals already authorized to read the
material under the UCAR limited viewing procedure.
CP Gundelfinger says:
May 6, 2011 at 8:00 pm
The application was online, so how do you know exactly what I put into it? It was the dialog that came up when I tried to access the CCSM3.0 forcing data. And your fantasies about what the UCAR folks “probably” would do in some hypothetical situation is a joke. Do you really deal in that kind of baseless speculation in your daily life?
I have not been able to find the forcing data anywhere. The output of the CCSM3 model is stored in the CMIP files, but not the forcing data. Do you know where it is?
Regarding whether it is “old”, it is no older than the CMIP data giving the results, those are the most recent results available, and the results were used in the most recent IPCC report … is there some kind of “use by” date I’m not aware of ?
It is still unclear why you think I was looking for development code. Nor is it clear why you think it should be kept secret.
Right, and you also claim to know what was on my online application, and you claim to know that I was looking for development code. You seem to believe that “old” forcings are somehow useless. And you don’t think people should see development code because … well, because the scientists are working hard putting “new physics into the model”.
You’ll excuse me if I don’t give your opinion on any of those questions, or your claim to know “the facts about what is going on [at UCAR]”, much weight.
w.
Warwick Hughes says:
May 6, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Hey, Warwick, why am I not surprised? If I ran the NIWA I wouldn’t give you data, you might try to find something wrong with it.
(For those unfamiliar with the name, Warwick Hughes is the man who asked Phil Jones for his data, only to be refused on the basis that Warwick might try to find fault with it … an act that led to my filing the first FOI on Jones and the CRU. Funny how things work out.)
All the best, keep up the good fight,
w.
The indispensable Shub Niggurath has summarized the problem:
James of the West says:
May 6, 2011 at 6:15 pm
James, keep up with the story. Mosh’s explanation is 110% wrong. His claims have nothing to do with my request, it’s just his fantasy (and now yours, I guess).
The valuable lesson you could learn here is to do your homework before uncapping your electronic pen and making an international fool of yourself.
Finally, if you are the kind of man who would apologize to UCAR on the basis of what Mosh said, and before UCAR even responds … well, not much I can say about that except I’m not that kind of guy. Me, I’ll wait for the UCAR reply, and make my decision then—sorry for not taking your suggestion, guess I’m just not cut out to be a pre-emptive apologist.
w.
see Warwick Hughes (above)
Where gyptis444 recommended applying for a job ….
Dear Sir,
I am inquiring about the possibility of employment at the University.
I was recently sacked from my previous job for conspiring to distort company figures. Before that I was fired for gross incompetence and for losing critical corporate data; and before that for attempting to corrupt audits by getting my mates assigned to the role, and for attempting to cover-up my dishonesty by criminally inciting others to delete incriminating files and emails.
I was thinking maybe something in your Climate Research Unit, but I’m concerned I
may be over-qualified.
I also have two convictions for fraud. Is this enough?
Please advise soonest.
Yours Sincerely,
Add a PS about being good at concealing things and you might get a highly paid position, and be recommended to the IPCC.
There seems to be no clear standardised policy for access to public work product. NOAA for example were only too happy to give me (a UK resident!) access, so indeed were your NSA. Without forging academic credentials the UK MO was out of bounds though – go figure.
I see Warwick has been here before me; here’s a comment I’ve just left on Jo Nova’s blog
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/on-climate-change-the-wrong-choice-kills-people-either-way/#comments
check out Australian FOI law keeps secret the construction of New Zealand seven station temperature series
(hiding behind peer review)
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=950&cpage=1#comment-30900
for those of you who believe in transparency by Govt funded organisations please check out Warwick’s post and make a comment
NIWA is also hiding behind ‘peer review’ check out the link on Warwick’s post
and Jo, this is worth a post on its own
how can two entities each paid by the public purse hide behind ‘peer review’ which is a process of self regulation by a profession preliminary to being published as a scientific article worthy of publication
and you will see the same problem at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/top-secret-noforn-restricted-acc
Top Secret NOFORN Restricted Access Climate Model Results
Posted on May 6, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Y’know, some of these climate games are getting kind of boring. I’m tired of people who are paid with my taxes hiding their data, results, and findings. Case in point, the “Community Earth System Model” of the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
I urge Aussies and NZealanders to visit Warwick’s blog (he has links to the NZ situation) and leave a comment
is this the preliminary to nothing is transparent in Government entities
In the Dark Ages, the Bible was only written in Latin and Greek. Only scholars could understand the meaning and the schools were run by the Church. The Congregation (you & me) were too stupid and uneducated to be allowed to know what was going on but we had to be kept in awe of the Word Of God so that our tithes were paid regularly.
After the first common language versions of the Bible were printed, they were still kept secure by the Church and were commonly padlocked.
See where I’m going?
Steven Mosher, you give a host of sites to follow. Unfortunately, what you recommend is just what I had tried before. I got a message then (and still get it) that says:
I don’t have one of those, and not a clue where to get one.
Looking further on the page, I find:
So clearly, I’m not authorized to read it, and it has a little gold lock symol by the link to emphasize that. Now … why lock it, Steven. WHY LOCK IT? Why is there a little gold lock on it at all? That’s the question you keep tapdancing around …
I assume that when you finish by saying:
it is in response to that … and I don’t have an “openid”.
So that’s what I tried to do, just what you suggest … register. In other words, I had already followed the links you gave me and gotten nowhere.
I still can’t get to any of the links you offered, they are as useless as the ones you gave me before. If you know where the damn AR4 forcing information is, then out with it, because to date your links have been less than productive.
Finally, no matter what my reason, why should I not have read-only access to their secrets? The reason you gave (“Giving non developers access to dev code is not a good practice, typically because they create support nightmares and dev code is just that. Things IN PROGRESS.”) is meaningless if I want read-only access, as I applied for …
I don’t understand. Why are you defending their not letting people READ what UCAR is doing? How is that a problem in any universe?
w.
PS—Let me invite you to fold your “crow” and compress it until it passes the Schwartzchild radius, and then place it gently in your fundamental orifice. Nothing that you or UCAR has done so far has delivered the goods. So far, my friend, you are only smoke and mirrors.
3×2 says:
May 7, 2011 at 1:56 am
.
Yeah, that’s more of the garbage I’m talking about. You can see why I’m frustrated.
w.
a strike of genius chart. You should peer review publish it :))
it does lack some arrows from climate industry to activist scientists and NGO-s though and 2 unfcc to ngos and scientists, and a big fat one from climate industry to UN. Would make the scheme a bit messy but more accurate
There’s a cure for much of this: stop giving them tax money.
We need a political party in this country with one and only one platform plank “To pass Laws that revoke Laws in the reverse order to which they were passed and going back to January 1, 1800” (Hey! It’s better than another Civil War ain’t it?;-)
PS: There’s almost always, usually, sometimes, a little, or a lot of some truth in humorous quips such as the above. Think about it! What do you do when you’re driving around and get lost? Most gals stop and ask for directions. Most guys just keep driving around in circles until they need some gas and then ask for directions. Well guys, the gas tank is almost empty and we’ve been driving around in circles for far too long. January 1, 1800, just seemed like a good, simple place to start over, otherwise it’s not significant in any way. OK! OK! How about January 1, 1900?
Out, out, damned spot!
======
Willis, you ask “BTW, do you know what a Bi-Stable Ferromagnetic Switching device (Bi-mag) is?”
About 1976 I flew from Sydney to LA with an electronic engineer mate, to the back door of a large factory where a boss let us in to watch a lady with magnifiers take out all of the up, down and diagonal wires, replace the broken core and re-assemble. IIRC it was a 256 core piece. Took about 3 hours. That’s how valuable memory was. Then we all went out and got drunk – except for the lady, whose work depended on hands with no shake. It looks like you have met some people whose hands are reluctant to shake yours.
Just shut up and pay your taxes.
Headpost by Willis E.: “I wanted to find out more about the CCSM3.0 model, in particular the forcings used in the AR4 simulations of the 20th century.”
Comment by Steve Mosher: “you want forcing data? for Ar5?
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/index.htm#Download”
@Steve Mosher — Why do you believe that the forcings data at PIK for an AR5 run is identical to the forcings for the specific AR4 related run at UCAR that Willis want to look at ?