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.
One needs to draw a distinction between accessing the code (which is what your intro sounded like it wanted to do) and accessing simulation output – they are two different things. I for one would likewise not want just anyone accessing experiment output until a) I had a chance to verify that they are not garbage due to some finger trouble on my part ( and there will be some output that falls into that category), and b) that I had a chance to analyze the output for which I put the effort in. Then I would open up access to the output data. I think you’ll find this is normal in science.
I think you’re just being paranoid.
“RTFM” – Steve, please don’t make customer support your career choice…
I’ve been poking around the CESM source code and documentation, and it confirms my belief that NCAR knows how to properly program in FORTRAN (with lots of comments!) and document what they do – which in STARK contrast to the junk at NASA GISS…
Willis,
I am sorry you took my comment personally and let your temper cloud your judgement once again – this time berating me as an “International Fool”.
You wrote the article titled “Top Secret NOFORN Restricted Access Climate Model Results” and publised it on the most popular science blog in the world before UCAR has provided any explanation for the rejection of your valid request to you and you admitted as much yourself within the article.
regardless of Steve being wrong about the nature of your request the lesson I spoke of for you is – waiting for that full explanation before assuming its a conspiracy and making public accusations. For UCAR I felt the lesson was to properly explain their decisions when denying a request. I made the comment that Steve Mosher at least tried to explain why he thought the request was rejected, unlike UCAR. Explanation like that from UCAR might have meant you were able to resolve the issue right then and there but sadly their rejection gave almost no explanation. Maybe they will turn out to be players for the Team but I think the timing at this stage is a little early to go public until you understand what went wrong at their end.
You seem to take my observation personally, which is a shame. Do you think UCAR ,like Steve, may have actually misunderstood what you requested access to?
I wish you luck in your quest for the data and look forward to your analysis.
re: Desert Yote @ur momisugly 3:13 pm
I’ll see your Bi-Stable Ferromagnetic Switching device, and raise you a mercury delay line. (aah, memories..)
My computer keeps freezing every time I try to submit a comment here — one more try…
The CCSM3 hindcast runs were forced with the Large & Yeager 2004 “CORE” forcing dataset, which can be freely downloaded (no password etc) from
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/mom4/CORE.html
http://data1.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/mom4/CORE/CIAF_1p0.html
You want the interannual (not normal year) forcing, and the corrected version. Is this what you are looking for?
Willis:
I believe I have received access to the data you are looking for by following Mosher’s last link:
https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/ac/guest/secure/sso.htm
It took about 20 secs to register, and in. I am not sure which set you need, but CCSM3.0 and forcings are clearly labeled in the sub directories.
James of the West aka The International Fool says:
May 7, 2011 at 7:14 am
I don’t assume it’s a conspiracy. Please show me one place I used that word. That’s your ugliness, not mine. Nor did I take the actions of UCAR personally, they seem to be asshats about their data equally to everyone.
Since the conspiracy is your assumption and your fantasy, you are free to wait for a full explanation. Me, I’m angry that they put little gold locks on the data I’m paid for.
Read that last sentence again, and then tell me how waiting for their excuses will change that at all. Neither you nor anyone else has said why the little gold locks to keep out the plebians are so important. Instead of doing something useful, like either pointing out where the data is available, or explaining why the little gold locks are there, you want to bust me for your fantasies about conspiracy theories.
Go away and bother someone else with your claims about conspiracies, James. I’m not interested in doing what you recommend, which is apologizing for my actions before hearing from UCAR. As I said above, if you want to recommend being a pre-emptive apologist, go somewhere else. I’m not interested. Go play scientific Miss Manners on your own time. Your advice is pathetic, puerile, and unproductive, and your bedside manner sucks.
w.
Government agencies should not be witholding tax funded data for any reasons except demonstrated national security measures or public safety. These tax funded climate cathedrals of academic and governmental true believers are due for demolition and a thorough post-mortem.
Who is signing Mosher’s paycheck? Or is there another explanation for his scurrying around shoveling the manure for UCAR besides “follow the money?”
So we pay for their basic needs, their wages, their research, their findings, their everything else,…; yet are arrogantly snubbed through riduculous exercises in application process. I see also we must repay to read their publications. WUWT?
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/publications/
My continuous mantra: Take away their gravy train funding.
Oh, yeah, I forgot this one …
James of the West aka The International Fool says:
May 7, 2011 at 7:14 am
I assume that you are serious, which is a shame.
Protip, bro’—when you stand up without being invited to tell a man in a public place that he is acting improperly by not apologizing before hearing from the other side, and go on to condescendingly tell him you hope he learns a “valuable lesson” from his mistakes …
HE’S GONNA TAKE IT PERSONALLY, 99 and 44/100ths of the time. No question. Duh …
Where do you live internationally that they don’t know this stuff?
w.
fredb says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:42 am
And what does this have to do with my request for the forcing data? I wanted neither the code nor the output that you waste time discussing in your post. I think you’re just manufacturing excuses.
Gary says:
May 7, 2011 at 9:49 am
Near as I can tell that is the sea-air flux data, not the ghg, volcanic, solar, and other forcings used in the 20C3M simulations. But I could be wrong, I couldn’t really tell because the good folks at UCAR have published the description of the CORE data behind a paywall … but what I can find seems to say it’s not the volcanic, solar forcing etc.
w.
Some of you are missing the point. It is simple. First AND last “there is absolutely no reason for them to restrict access in the first place.”
Willis has good reason to post his frustrations over the constant misbehavior of public funded elitists filling their bottomless coffers with no accountability, oversight or reasonable access to what we the tax payer pay for repeatedly…over and over and over again.
Roy Weiler says:
May 7, 2011 at 10:18 am
Yeah … but were you successful in actually downloading the data?
Because when I try, I get the same message I got before, which says:
And when I push the “Subscribe” button so I can join the blessed ones with “privileges”, it once again says my application to subscribe will have to be approved … WHICH IS HOW I GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We’ll see … I still, however, have no access to the CCSM3 forcing data for the 20C3M 20th century runs.
w.
Willis, as Steve pointed out, you’re looking in the wrong place.
The CESM SVN repository has two parts – the release code, which is public, and the development code, which is accessible only to model developers and collaborators. If you want access to the development code, become a collaborator in the CESM effort.
The CCSM3 (previous version) code and input data are available via the Earth System Grid, not the CESM SVN repository. You can cancel the request for the certificate (ESG is now part of a large federation of sites, and OpenIDs are an allowed form of access) and simply log in with your username and password.
Steve already pointed you to the ESG URLs for the old CCSM3 code and AR4 input datasets, but here they are again:
CCSM3.0 source code
CCSM3 input forcing files
There’s nothing hidden or secret going on.
The reason registrations are required is to provide metrics to the CESM project and management; these metrics allow for more efficient utilization of resources.
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 are fine too.
w.
Specific ESG URL for the files used to create those plots.
Derecho64 says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:49 am
Many thanks, Derecho, that looks like exactly what I wanted. Unfortunately, I went there, but all I find is a description of the file and its location on some unknown computer … what am I missing?
w.
Derecho64 says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:41 am
You and Steve are right. However, here’s what happened. I went to get the data in the exact same place steve sent me. It said I had to register to get the data, and presented me with the registration page, which I filled out. So what I was doing (unknowingly) was applying to be a collaborator ON A READ ONLY BASIS to the project … and I was turned down.
I await your very logical explanation for that …
w.
Are you sure their computer doesn’t have schizophrenia?
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-05/computer-scientists-induce-schizophrenia-neural-network-causing-it-make-ridiculous-claims
You know a good conspiracy theory is made by lots and lots of connections, an overload of connections that really don’t necessarily have relevance or correlation. Its the interpretation of those connections that make the difference between rational and irrational thought. So it is with AGW. A computer model can give you any result you want given enough connections. See chaos theory on adding extra numbers behind the decimal.
Derecho64 says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:41 am
As Willis has since pointed out, he tried to register, and was refused access.
I, like others may, have to assume that this allows for “more efficient utilization of resources” by preventing him from finding out what is wrong with the data 😉
After I read this post, I Googled the email address for the chief scientist at UCAR, Jim Hurrell, and dropped him a note. Here’s what I said, and his reply. Hope this helps.
BTW, I put copy email addresses for my Congressional Rep and my two Senators for Jim to see.
> Hi Jim,
>
> A climate researcher that I follow regularly, Willis Eschenbach, has
> applied for a permit to have read-only permission to see the actual
> CCSM3.0 model output “data.” He explains that, although the information is
> created through tax funded programs, and the information is hardly top
> secret “National Security” output, his request was declined.
>
> I expect that this was a clerical error, and that the mixup will be fixed
> quickly. Or, should I just advise Willis to start filling out a Freedom of
> Information Request?
>
> Thank you for any help you can provide.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Bob Shapiro
> Andover, MA
**************************
Dear Bob,
Thank you for writing. I will reply formally soon. All people are
granted access to our RELEASE code — the code used to create climate
simulations. The data from these simulations are also available.
Willis did not request access to the release code.
Best regards,
Jim
Bob Shapiro,
I see, Willis didn’t know the secret handshake. But they still spent his tax money.
Derecho64 says:
May 7, 2011 at 11:49 am
The URL Derecho provided says that the file is located at:
Access URL: file:/datazone/esg-cdp/xserve/ccsm/csm/3.0/input/ccsm3.0.inputdata.ipcc_ar4_20C3M_T85_forcings.tar
Well, I tried that URL and got nothing. So I did a google search, and I thought I’d located it or maybe its cousin at
http://datanode.ucar.edu/data/xserve/ccsm/csm/3.0/input/ccsm3.0.%20inputdata.T42.tar
Note that the address details are nearly identical, and the only difference is that the generic “/datazone” is replaced with the actual address, “/datanode.ucar.edu”.
But hey, guess what, folks? You can’t get there from here, it says:
And the wheel goes ’round again.
Mosher, or Derecho … you guys have any other brilliant plans? Because I still don’t have the data you say is so easy to get. For those joining in, here’s what I’m looking for—the numbers underlying the graphics shown on this page. Month-by-month global values for the forcing variables.
w.
PS—Derecho64, you and Mosh claim it’s all so easy. Are you starting to see what I’m talking about? The address you sent is useless, and the address it (kinda) contains in turn is forbidden … but you tossed it out like it was so easy to get, and I was the fool for not finding it. Someone got fooled in the deal, all right … but it wasn’t me.
PPS—Also for those just joining, I don’t think that there is some conspiracy to keep me personally out. I think it’s just part and parcel of the culture of childish secrecy that has built up in the field. As a part of that AGW-wide paranoia that someone will actually investigate what AGW supporting scientists have done, UCAR has put a host of nonsensical restriction on people even READING their work. I find it laughably pathetic. Others defend it as a justifiable and reasonable practice … you make the call.
Bob Shapiro says:
May 7, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Thanks, Bob. My writing was not of the clearest, as I was enraged at the time. I neither requested, nor do I want, the release code. Nor do I want output data. What I want is bozo simple – the global month-by-month (or annual average, either one) forcing data underlying the graphics shown on this page. I’d prefer if the data were in W/m2, rather than the underlying concentrations.
I’ll wait and see what happens from here. And yes, your underlying implicit message is correct, I should have followed protocol and worked my way up the ladder so that after a month or so I could have been rejected at the top. But as I said, I’ve been stuffed around too much, I have no patience left for those kinds of games. So I wrote it up here.
As a result, my intention in this has been two-fold. One is to actually get access to the data.
The other is to bring some heat on people who make it so hard to get the data. Why is there registration and approval necessary for READ-ONLY access to UCAR computer runs done five years ago, or done today for that matter? Why do I have to jump through hoops and provide justifications merely to read the data?
If those AGW mainstream scientists that hide data and results, Thompson and Mann and all the rest, were doing their work on someone else’s dime I wouldn’t mind so much … but I’m paying their salaries, and they’re acting like prima donnas and doing slipshod work. The CCSM3 forcing data should already be in the CMIP dataset that contains all of the 2oth century hindcast data from a range of models … but UCAR didn’t provide it. They provided the results from their Tinkertoy™ model, but not the forcings. So all of this is only necessary because they did a p-poor job in the first place … which just ups the angrification level of my blood.
Oh, and of course to get the CMIP data, you have to register and get approved by CMIP as well … there’s just no end to the fun when you study climate science.
So I lost it when I was asked to register for what should be trivially accessible and was supposed to already be delivered …
We’ll see how it plays out. And yes, as folks have pointed out to me, I’m probably ragging on the wrong guys, because according to my friends, UCAR is the best of the AGW lot in terms of transparency … and if that isn’t depressing, I don’t know what is.
Anyhow, I’ll wait for Jim’s response. He sounds like a good guy. However, if anyone can point me to the data before then, I’ll be a very happy camper.
w.
PS – Usually I do an end run around this kind of nonsense by just digitizing their graphs, and I may end up doing it yet. It’s some hours of work … but at this point, I’ve put more than that into trying to do it the right way. That’ll learn me, dern me …