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.
crosspatch;
At first glance at the Loeb paper, it seems to me that the adjustments are reasonable. They are due to instrumentation and optical issues though I am not an expert with optics.>>>
Reading through the excerpts you’ve posted, it seems to me that the reason that adjustments are needed is sound. But are the adjustments themselves sound? My impression remains that they applied adjustments based on matching model results. If the reasoning behind the need for adjustments is sound, then the only reasonable course of action in my mind would be to base any adjustments on that reasoning and see what the result is. Instead, they seem to have used the reasoning as a basis for justifying the need for adjustments, and then calculated the adjustment needed from the results of computer models. If so, what value was there in putting the satellites up in the first place if any measurements derived from them are going to be adjusted to match the models anyway?
Apparantly, even the “Green police” do not support Hansen.
R.S.Brown says:
Jim Hansen > Jim Hanson ?
Because in the public’s mind, the name Jim Hansen properly belongs to the
man who created many of the beings populating Sesame Street.
Actually, the Muppets guy was Jim Henson.. with an “e”
crosspatch:
At December 21, 2011 at 1:44 am you say;
“At first glance at the Loeb paper, it seems to me that the adjustments are reasonable.”
You then provide a lengthy quote from the paper.
But your quote does NOT indicate that the “adjustments are reasonable”.
Please consider what each para. you quote says.
Para. 1.
Says the TIM instrument is more accurate than the other used instruments. But the difference is not stated and it is likely to be very small because all the instruments would have been calibrated prior to use.
Importantly, the para. does not say the degree of compensation adopted for this, but there should be NONE because accuracy is not precision. The reduction to accuracy would increase the error bars on the measurement result but would not alter the result.
Para. 2.
Says “a correction for light diffracted into the cavity” was applied. It does not explain why this effect was not present during the calibrations of the instruments.
Importantly, if the calibration were improperly conducted so this effect were not present during calibration, then the effect could be expected to be small. And the degree of the applied compensation for it is not stated.
Para. 3
Begins by saying;
“While these explanations do not account for the entire 4 W m^2 difference in solar irradiance, …”
That is certainly true because those “explanation” probably “do not account” for more than a trivial proportion of the difference. If they did then the instruments are so faulty that they should not be used.
And it is not clear why this para. says the difference is “4 W m^2″ when the adjustments in the paper are made to “a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)”
Para. 4
Says;
“Another positive bias is associated with how the global average solar irradiance is calculated. It is common practice to assume a spherical earth when averaging TOA insolation over the earth’s surface. This gives the well-known So/4 expression for mean solar irradiance, where So is the instantaneous solar irradiance at the TOA. When a more careful calculation is made by assuming the earth is an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere, and the annual cycle in the earth’s declination angle and the earth–sun distance are taken into account, the division factor becomes 4.0034 instead of 4.”
This is the only compensation which your quotation quantifies so it can be assumed to be the most significant (i.e. largest) compensation.
It adjusts the unexplained difference in solar irradiance from 4 to 4.0034 W m^2. In other words it is so small an adjustment that it makes NO CHANGE to the measured value within the inherent measurement errors.
(To put this in context, if one had a 40m tall building then a similar adjustment to its height would be less than provided by putting 2 Mars bars on its roof.)
Para. 5
Begins saying;
“The spherical earth assumption causes a 1 0.29 W m22 bias in net TOA flux.”
But that needs to be considered together with the statement in the previous paragraph that says ;
“the division factor becomes 4.0034 instead of 4”
It means the total TOA flux is orders of magnitude larger than the observed discrepancy of 4 W/m2.
And the para. continues by saying;
“Similarly, assuming a spherical earth in determining the global average SW and LW TOA fluxes (by using a latitude weighting in geocentric instead of geodedic coordinates) results in 10.18 and 20.05 W/m^2 biases, respectively.”
Again, this means the total TOA flux is orders of magnitude larger than the observed discrepancy of 4 W/m2.
In conclusion, the quotation from the para. which you provide does NOT indicate the “adjustments are reasonable”. On the contrary, the quotation indicates thart the adjustments are very unreasonable.
It could perhaps be argued that the quotation justifies increasing the inherent errors of the measurements such that they are larger than the observed difference from models’ results of” 4 W/m^2″.
But the quotation certainly does NOT indicate that it is reasonable to adjust the measurement results from
“a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)” … “to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)”
But that is what the paper says it does.
Richard
crosspatch notes (amongst other things) “Another important factor is diffraction. Most instruments prior to TIM did not make a correction for light diffracted into the cavity. ”
And I have to wonder how they calibrated it in the first place. Surely they cant have got it so wrong here on earth before sending it up? I mean the diffraction problem should have stuck out like proverbial dogs balls with any testing they did.
Watts, December 19: “Smearing and innuendo is hardly fair play”
Eschenbach, December 20: “Normally these days I prefer to only deal with scientific papers, which of course leaves activist pleadings like Hansen’s stuff off the list”
Nick Stokes is correct.
Hansen’s point (which is plain in the article) is that the calibration uncertainties in the CERES data are so large as to place no constraints upon aerosol forcing. For this reason, Hansen’s article takes care to ensure that precisely none of its conclusions and recommendations depend upon the CERES data correction that the WUWT post is complaining about.
Thus, Hansen and his coauthors have already done precisely what WUWT’s guest poster (Willis Eschenbach) suggests they should do.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that (1) Eschenbach should read Hansen’s article more carefully and in its entirety, and then (2) Eschenbach should amend his WUWT post to retract his unfounded criticisms.
Michael Palmer says:
December 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“Check out the the name of the arresting officer on that picture.”
The irony is that, if you truly wanted to be green, you’d want *more* carbon dioxide, not less.
I thought the usual practice of calibrating instruments used as measuring devices was to use actual measurements to calibrate them. How can anyone think calibrating to “model” output will do anything but make the instrument mimic the model?
Anyway, if you assume, as I do, that short of all out nuclear war, humans cannot cause “climate change”, what is the purpose of all this? It all reminds me of the medieval philosophical argument of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I’m glad to see Hansen has adopted a more rigorous approach to quantifying the alleged “aerosol forcing” than before. Modellers have been coming up with various ad hoc theoretical estimates for this for decades, and it has been highly contentious, especially considering the experimental data is highly ambiguous. Indeed, much of the disagreement between the models is due to this factor.
However, Hansen came up with an inspired scheme…ask his grandkids to pick a number (see Figure 2).
I’d say the various GCM developers are kicking themselves that they didn’t think of it! 😉
Climate Modeling after the fact.
Did you know James Hansen is a great guy at modeling lottery numbers as well? After the draw and using an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust their lottery model they can come up with the exact same numbers drawn. Who else could claim this? The man is a genius.
from a climate scientist
(so-described by other climate scientists)
.
.
The measured data was obviously incorrect,
because it didn’t match our models
But once we adjusted it,
it fitted our models quite well.
Proving that our models are correct.
DOH !!!!!
I’m sure the other CAGW consensus scientists will applaud Big Jim for his brazenness, and follow in his footsteps, adjusting where adjusting is necessary for The Cause.
All hail the UNFCCC.
Running my comment through an “objective constrainment algorithm” yeilds:
“Hansen is a very “tricky” person.”
Perhaps the constrainment is a little too restrictive?
Can’t we issue a press release with the photograph of Hansen’s arrest, using as its caption the sentence hihglighted by Willis, and adding the remark “arrested on suspicion of scientific fraud”?
R.S.Brown says:
December 20, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Jim Hansen > Jim Hanson ?
Because in the public’s mind, the name Jim Hansen properly belongs to the
man who created many of the beings populating Sesame Street.
The conflation comes from both men being involved in fantasy and sock muppets.
==============================================================
Jim HENSEN = Muppets
Next there will be a new model that will predict we are doomed, DOOMED I tell you. (Unless you deposit several $Trillions of unmarked bills in a paper bag in the garbage can at Monk’s Restaurant, that is) Why measure anymore when the models already tell us everything we need to know?
@ur momisugly NIck Stokes:
As you noted, Hansen et al discard the results of the adjusted satellite measurements as insufficiently accurate. With this post, Willis is apparently criticizing Hansen’s failure to condone the merit of using the model output to adjust the measurements. The point is lost in the hyperventilating….
“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.”
Hansen et pals are admitted activist scientists and seem to have manipulated science to fit the meme, “catastrophic warming.” I can appreciate the sentiment of this post. However, patience being a virtue, it would be more effective to wait on writing this post until Hansen actually relied on the admittedly flawed data to defend his model.
It would be interesting to see the Loeb paper to understand the context of that work. Seems fishy, but it would make an interesting read.
Grey lensman says:
December 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm
SAIP, but energy cannot be created nor destroyed “in a closed system.” That last part is often left out. The Earth’s atmosphere is not a closed system, so while we may not have actual creation or destruction of energy in the atmosphere, we ALWAYS have energy entering and exiting the system we call the atmosphere. The rate and amounts of those exchanges is a debate for another post. It’s not as simple as just stating that it can’t be destroyed, therefore it has to be going somewhere (i.e. missing heat being stored in the depths of the ocean). That’s why they have to fudge the observations to meet the models. The models are programmed incorrectly. But what do I know. I don’t travel the world getting arrested for my activism while supposedly working for taxpayers…
As usual ‘a physicist’ completely misses the point. He needs to read Josh Grella’s comment on taxpayers being defrauded by the scofflaw, self-serving, and always wrong James Hansen.
And Alan Statham says:
“Watts, December 19: “Smearing and innuendo is hardly fair play”
Eschenbach, December 20: “Normally these days I prefer to only deal with scientific papers, which of course leaves activist pleadings like Hansen’s stuff off the list”
Preferring to deal only with scientific papers is not ‘innuendo’, at least not in my world. If that’s the best Statham can come up with, he’s already lost the debate.
Do my eyes deceive me in that picture? Is J. Robert Oppenheimer still among us? “I have become Death…” and all that?
By the way, there is no “fudge” in genuine “instrumentation calibration” factors.
This basically says the satellite data is worthless. It produced an impossibly large number so instead of going back to the drawing board to figure what went wrong they simply applied an arbitrary correction to it.
Imagine if a nurse takes your temperature in the hospital and the thermometer reads 107F. She notes to herself you’re not dead or even showing any signs of fever so she concludes the instrument must be wrong. She blithely records 102F on your chart because that about as warm as a human can get without showing any overt signs of fever.
Then she goes on to the next room to take the next patient’s temperature and automatically subtracts 5 degrees from them all.
This is essentially what Hansen has done. He’s taken a flawed instrument, applied an arbitrary correction, and then pretended the instrument is fine for continued use.
Incredible.
Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.
Nice find, Willis.
There’s good news, Willis … you’ll sleep even better as you learn more about how NASA actually calibrates its satellite data.
James Hansen is right to foresee that, with further advances, it won’t be long before we have multiple, accurate, redundant satellite measurements of earth’s energy balance.
This process of steady improvement can only make climate change science steadily stronger … which is the main goal of rational skepticism too, eh?
By now it’s clear that Willis Eschenbach and James Hansen actually are natural allies, in that Willis and James both recognize the urgent need for higher-precision satellite measurements, in service of the long-term goal of strengthening climate-change science.
So keep up the good work, gentlemen! 🙂
Hansen does this all the time in his papers.
Speaking of data distortion, can someone review the new Ocean Heat Content paper by
Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011 that Hansen is using as one of his primary metrics, the energy imbalance and how much is being absorbed in the oceans.
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf
This is pea under the thimble discussion because they are quoting a rise in OHC from 0 to 2000 metres of 0.52 10X8 joules/m2 from 2005 to 2010. Can anyone convert this data into W/m2/year going into the oceans 0-2000 M. I’m getting lower values than are being quoted by Hansen and around the net – closer to the numbers Josh Willis is quoting. It seems the data in the paper were purposely stated in numbers and in a way that would confuse people.