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.
Agreed.
And it’s clear that a great many WUWT readers were misled.
That’s why the article should be amended to clarify the point that Espen is raising. It would not be complicated to do this.
Theo Goodwin said:
“You want to read Loeb into Hansen’s statement but you have no justification for doing so as I have shown. Hansen affirmed all this and he owns all this”
Thank you Theo. It can be challenging to keep a thread on point with all the distracters that show up to defend but you have done a good job.
Regarding CO2, is there a global monitoring system in place that determines a “global average” or is everything predicated on the Mauna Loa data? If the latter, how can any scientist, in good conscience, make claims about a rise in global temperature caused by a rise in CO2, if there is no measurement of a global rise in CO2?
Mike Lewis,
The sources I use are http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html and http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/map_search.cgi. I copy and paste into spreadsheets. The reported monthly averages do not include spikes in measured flask data which could be anthropogenic or natural. These data represent global atmospheric background which varies very little with longitude and has a seasonal variation with latitude. Click on my name for a more detailed analysis.
There are two answers, Mike. One is scientific:
The alternative answer is, the claimed CO2 rise is fraudulent because the claims of science cannot be trusted.
The second answer is, of course, by far the simplest and most comforting.
A physicist says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:26 am
Espen says: Willis, I usually love your articles, but here I have to partially agree with Nick Stokes and “the physicist”: your article is quite misleading because Hansen doesn’t really use the satellite data.
Agreed.
And it’s clear that a great many WUWT readers were misled.>>>
I see. You asked for an explanation of “the problem”, you were given an explanation of “the problem”, you responded by wandering off onto entirely unrelated topics and ignoring the answers, but when someone else jumps into the thread who shares your misunderstanding of “the problem”…. suddenly you are in agreement despite having your original position on the matter torn to pieces with narry a word from you to dispute them.
I’m starting lean toward the explanation being Problem1 V2.
EFS_Junior December 21, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Said: “What I find really weird, is that most of the naive people here, including the person who posted this, are assuming that. TOA net downward energy flux could ever really be 6.5 w/m^2….”
EFS, this is one of the more incredible statements on the whole issue I have seen here. Your mind apparently works a little differently than most, or you are very practiced at the method of arguing a completely unrelated point.
It is blindingly obvious that what is in question is if an instrumental measure can be so obviously in error, how can we have the slightest bit of faith in a calculated, theorized result which is smaller by a factor of more than 7?
Exactly the same discussion would ensue if the difference in the two ‘measures’ was reversed.
I feel we are perhaps clouding the issue with discussion on what Hansen and/or Loeb meant or said or did or meant to say.
The point is that AGW proponents in debate claim temperature rises are confirmed by satellite TOA radiation measurements.
Quite obviously, with this degree of error (or accuracy) these measurements are somewhat less than convincing.
markx says:
The point is that AGW proponents in debate claim temperature rises are confirmed by satellite TOA radiation measurements.
I wholeheartedly agree. But as you can see, at least Hansen has now turned to OHC data to confirm his models, but he has to use the more sparse measurements below 700 meters to be able to measure a positive energy imbalance for the last few years. It would be interesting to scrutinize those few scientific papers to see how good their data really are, and also, it would be interesting to see if anyone could come up with a plausible explanation for how the abyssal waters can be warmed without any warming of the waters between.
(I hope Bob Tisdale or Roy Spencer takes a look at the Schuckmann and Le Traon paper!)
A physicist;
And IMHO, it’s very good to see that science and skepticism are evolving toward this natural mutual accommodation! :)>>>>
That’s probably the biggest load of total bunk you’ve posted in this thread so far.
Your assumption that skepticism isn’t even part of science in the first place, that it is some sort of other discipline or process, and that skepticism is moving toward an “accomodation” with science is ignorant and arrogant beyond belief. But what else should we expect of someone who calls themselves a physicist, but clearly doesn’t know SFA about physics or science? What else should we expect from someone who takes ridiculous positions, and rather than respond to the criticisms with facts and logic, simply changes the subject, or comes up with that most devastating or remarks, “what’s the problem?”
You sir are a charlatan attempting to present yourself as some sort of middle ground proponent, but your conduct reveals what you are. A spin doctor advocate for magic dressed up as science who understands neither the magic nor the science.
A helpful blogger sent me a copy of Loeb’s excellent paper, which I have now read. And no, I’m not about to “excoriate” it; it’s a major paper, and the techniques it uses are pretty fundamental. A key para is:
So they have stable instruments, which can meanure the relative amounts with high accuracy, but there are known error sources in the total. However, there is a fixed point to calibrate against, which is nett flux zero. And it isn’t quite zero, so they should use the best estimate, which is the model estimate.
This is a familiar situation in science. For example, you can easily make a liquid-in-glass thermometer which stably and linearly responds to temperature. But knowledge of the expansion coefficient is poor. So the scale is “adjusted” so that it’s right for the freezing point and boiling point of water (or fancier options like triple point). And to complete the analogy, for bp you don’t use 100C, but a value adjusted theoretically to account for atmospheric pressure.
That’s fine for temperature generally, but you can’t use it to determine the freezing point of water. And what Hansen is saying is that you can’t use the adjusted fluxes to determine TOA imbalance. You either have to be able to measure absolute flux accurately, or (as he does) look to ARGO.
Nick Stokes;
And it isn’t quite zero, so they should use the best estimate, which is the model estimate.>>>
That is total and utter bullsh*t.
Nick Stokes;
This is a familiar situation in science.>>>
To adjust data from instruments based on completely artifical calculations from computer models than cannot be verified except through comparison to the very instruments we’re trying to calibrate?
That is total and utter bullsh*t.
Nick Stokes;
For example, you can easily make a liquid-in-glass thermometer which stably and linearly responds to temperature. But knowledge of the expansion coefficient is poor. So the scale is “adjusted” so that it’s right for the freezing point and boiling point of water (or fancier options like triple point). >>>
Except that the freezing and boiling points of water are actual physical processes that the thermometer can be calibrated against. Your example would only be valid if you had a computer model that predicted where the boiling point and freezing point would be based on calculations that had not been verified through experimentation and were based on fudge factors to estimate the full effect of 90% of the variables involved and completely guess at how they might interact with each other. Do you know what a high quality thermometer that would produce? I’ll tell you. It would produce a thermometer with readings….
That are total and utter bullsh*t.
crosspatch says:
“Well, wooly mammoth, wooly rhino, auroch, etc were all likely killed by humans…”
That’s what I always thought, too. But someone posted this a few weeks ago, and now I wonder [I love a good mystery!]
davidmhoffer says: December 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“That is total and utter bullsh*t.”
Well, David, I guess it has come down to time to ask you what are your qualifications for declaring that what these eminent scientists (who aren’t climate scientists) are doing is as you characterise it.
Nick Stokes,
Well, Nick, I guess it’s time to ask my question again, since you’re apparently hiding out from answering:
Where can I buy some DDT if it isn’t banned?
Since you stated that DDT isn’t banned.
And your response to davidmhoffer is another instance of avoiding answering questions.
@Smokey and Nick Stokes re DDT
Ebay is a place where you can find most anything, even dangerous things.
For example – radioactive Uranium
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_npmv=3&_trksid=m570.l2736&_nkw=uranium
Dangerous vintage Radium kits
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l2736&_nkw=radium
Radioactive Thorium Nitrate
http://www.ebay.com/itm/THORIUM-NITRATE-USP-Crystals-sealed-vial-/380389963837?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item589102383d
Tools for making Cyanide
http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-Kontes-Scrubber-Flask-Cyanide-Reactor-652267-0000-/390115969055?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ad4b9481f
===============================
Surely you can buy DDT on Ebay if it isn’t banned?
DDT (the pesticide) – not found
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=DDT&_sacat=See-All-Categories
In fact finding it available for purchase anywhere on the net seems a lost cause.
http://www.google.com/search?q=purchase+ddt+pesticide&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
But if Nick Stokes wants to believe his usual head up his butt things, I say let him. He’s good comic relief. – Anthony
It took me less than 30 seconds to establish that Nick Stokes is entirely correct.
And yes, they’re happy to supply a quote over the internet.
Evidently there’s no obstruction to anyone’s purchasing industrial quantities of DDT from HIL and shipping it anywhere in the world (although US customs might have something to say).
Now Anthony, isn’t there something you’d like to say to Nick?
Lesson: it’s best to be polite, even when you’re sure the other fellow’s wrong! 🙂
Happy to help, Smokey!
DDT sold here in 24oz packages packed in drums.
How many drums? Heck as many drums as you want.
Wherever do folks get these fixed notions that DDT is unavailable?
There is simply no truth to them.
A physicist says: December 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Dr. Sidles, pardon me, please, but you are one of the slimier, more dishonest trolls to have turned up here. Your rebuttals and “happy to helps” are dishonest half truths and nothing more than an exercise in “gotcha”. The truth is that smokey could not purchase as many barrels as he wanted because DDT has been banned in the United States since 1972. Countries that did not outright ban DDT were coerced to avoid usage through the terms of aid grants. The de facto ban on DDT has resulted in millions of avoidable deaths. Don’t even attempt to tell me about how mosquitos were becoming resistant…. you have no clue. I am done with you.
‘a physicist’,
Thanx for the link, but I don’t feel like traveling to HINDUSTAN to buy DDT. Willis was right, you don’t even read what you post.
Private citizens can’t buy [harmless] DDT anyway. As your link says: The Stockholm convention allows DDT use for Public Heath purpose only (Disease Vector Control).
Sheesh.
My main observation on the ban status was
“I believe some US anti-malaria programs stopped using DDT following the Nixon admin ban. But there was no international ban, and UN agencies kept using it. And I know of no tying of general aid to cessation of DDT use for insect control.”
And my advice to Smokey was
I’m not sure whether the 1972 US ban had that exemption – it may be that if you can convince the authorities you have a malaria problem, you can get some.
So yes, there is a ban in the US.
I’m not sure why discussion of the Paaijmans, Thomas et al paper has wandered to here, but it is an opportunity to ask Anthony if he still thinks that paper means that “Mann’s 1.8 million Malaria grant” should be given back?
Nick Stokes says:
“So yes, there is a ban in the US.”
Finally, a climbdown. But getting it is like pulling teeth.
when a troll puts out as much energy and effort as the combined total harvest of attention, it’s not successful trollery. it’s a job.
Smokey says: December 22, 2011 at 5:21 pm
“Finally, a climbdown. But getting it is like pulling teeth.”
Smokey, you live in an alternate universe. I never said, as you asserted, that there was no US ban. My advice to you, on the other thread, linked above, clearly said there was. As did my earlier statement, also linked, on DDT status in general.
A physicist December 22, 2011 at 11:10 am
said: “… … in fact it’s the climate change skeptics who repose faith in satellite measurements …”
What on earth are you talking about?
Pointing out that a measurement is imprecise and that it does not prove one argument, is hardly relying on it for the opposing argument.
It’s simply a case of one piece of ‘evidence’ being discounted, and henceforth ignored (in that particular discussion).
We seem to have a pile of spin artists in here trying to deflect, obscure and railroad discussion.
Nick Stokes;
Well, David, I guess it has come down to time to ask you what are your qualifications for declaring that what these eminent scientists (who aren’t climate scientists) are doing is as you characterise it.>>>
Ah, the last refuge of he who can summon no argument of his own. Show me your credentials that I may dismiss your opinion for the simple reason that mine is based on the opinions of others who have longer lists of letters behind their names than do you. Such was the argument of those who could cure disease by letting the blood out of people. Such was the argument of those who could diagnose all manner of conditions by feeling the bumps on your head. Such was the argument of those who maintained that the sun circled the earth, that the earth was flat, that volcanic eruptions could be supressed by throwing virgins into the volcanoes, and that North America did not exist because it wasn’t on any maps (a map being nothing more than a primitive model of the earth surface, and with no more bearing on where or if NA exists than does a computer model have bearing on what values instrumentation should produce)