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.
This is a continuation of the attack on remote sensing (the thermometers they don’t control). The last thing these guys want is more satellites.
Matthew w @ur momisugly 4:56.
Sorry. It is Jim HensOn.
Regarding instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)
We should remember, Dr.Nicola Scafetta´s lecture:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
barryjo says:
December 21, 2011 at 6:29 am
Matthew w @ur momisugly 4:56.
Sorry. It is Jim HensOn.
=================================
Yep !!
Now let’s work on the Hanson Brothers !!
http://www.hansonbrothers.net/
Heh. I just realized Hanson is being arrested by “Officer Green” in the above photo.
Oh – the irony!
.
Penicillin was discovered because Flemming took the time to discover why his observations did not match his expectations. Many, many other advances in science has followed this path.
Climate Science on the other hand, when observation does not match expectation, changes the observations to match expectations. This guarantees that no new discoveries will be made in Climate Science, and that the science is indeed settled. ti is the modern day equivalent of book burning.
It would appear that the IPCC and Climate Science use the general form of the the Procrustean solution in their statistics:
In a Procrustean solution in statistics, instead of finding the best fit line to a scatter plot of data, one first chooses the line one wants, then selects only the data that fits it, disregarding data that does not, so to “prove” some idea. It is a form of rhetorical deception made to forward one set of interests at the expense of others. The unique goal of the Procrustean solution is not win-win, but rather that Procrustes wins and the other loses. In this case, the defeat of the opponent justifies the deceptive means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes
Hi Willis,
I tried to find your email but I have not been possible. With permission from the audience, I would like to ask for a post that you put before.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/
The link you put in the data is not available. It posible to obtain it. So I will know how you do the analyze of data. And how metodology you use to convert several dataset of diferent speleothems to one column dataset.
Thanks a lot,
A. PhD
This one reminded me of the stunt U. Colorado at Boulder pulled with the rate of sea level rise. When the satellite measured rate declined from 3.2mm per year to 2.85mm per year, they decided to “adjust” the numbers by changing the averaging algorithm and adjusting for sea volume. The bulk of the adjustment was for “volume” on the theory that the additional weight of the water was depressing the sea beds, thereby morphing a chart that continues to be labeled “sea level” into something else entirely. That “volume calculation” was about as arbitrary an academic exercise as I ever saw, but the result magically restored the rate of rise to (you guessed it) 3.2mm per year. Anyone who believes that the additional weight of 2.85mm of sea water will depress the underlying sea bed by 0.35mm should see me about a bridge I have for sale.
Sean says: “The real problem is that his first choice of experiment,”
The real problem is a lack of spine at N.A.S.A. Top level management should have fired Hansen for his unprofessional behavior and non-science activism. There is a solution. The American people, through Congress, insist that top-level management at National Anthropological Scamming Agency be fired for failing to manage, and failing to stick with their mission of Space exploration.
A physicist says:
December 21, 2011 at 3:36 am
I find it odd you were able to grasp the Hansen and Loeb papers but were not capable of grasping the post about exaggeration in a press release concerning walnut trees.
This is a joke, right?
A physicist says:
December 21, 2011 at 6:19 am
recognize the urgent need for higher-precision satellite measurements, in service of the long-term goal of strengthening climate-change science.
Climate Science has by and large destroyed the space program by diverting funds that should have gone into space exploration into the study of the earth. Those of us that were around in the 70’s will remember the re-tasking of NASA from space exploration to near earth observation.
The Argo buoy system provides a precise measure of the change in the earth’s energy imbalance. The problem for Climate Science is that Argo shows no imbalance. It shows that the oceans are incredibly stable. That if anything, the oceans are cooling.
However, the tools available to the layman to validate this are not user friendly, so we get puffed up reports from Climate Science to support their own preconceived ideas. Since Argo isn’t showing warming, the latest Climate non-Science is that warming must be occurring where Argo isn’t looking (below 2000 meters).
This is non-Science because it rests on the preconceived idea of unusual warming. The Argo data is consistent with the observation that outside of urbanized and farmed areas, there is nothing unusual about modern climate.
Bill Illis: In the final paper of Schuckmann and Le Traon, they write: “The GOHC estimation shows a significant 6-yr increase, with a rate of 0.54 ± 0.1 W m−2 (0.38 W m−2 for the Earth’s entire surface area, Fig. 5b).”
I don’t understand how Hansen gets that to be 0.59 W m^-2, maybe he used an earlier version of that paper, because if I add his estimates for non-ocean, southern ocean and abyssal heating, I end up with less than 0.55 Wm^-2.
I encountered a similar problem with a large set of drill hole data for a precious metals mine in S. America. Due to extremely hard and abrasive mineralized zones, the core samples down 300-m holes ended up with as much as 100 meters of deviation by the end of the hole. But since a down-hole orientation tool hadn’t been used to measure the deviation, I had to initially assume the holes were straight.
The variograms (3-D statistical correlations) produced from these holes indicated a poor level of correlation (which alerted me to the probability that something was seriously wrong with the data) and my preliminary mineral model was anything but precise as evidenced by high estmation variances between samples and block values.
So it was decided to down-hole survey the drill holes that could still be found (about half of them) and, because the geologist sitting the drill rig logged the mineralization of every hole, I was able to devise a fairly accurate correction factor (my “objective constrainment algorithm” that was tested with a procedure called “jack-knifing” on known holes) and apply it to those lost holes, resulting in a complete, corrected dataset which produced better variograms and much lower estimation variances on the block model.
But here’s the kicker–My reserve estimation based on the correctly oriented drill hole samples ended up with only half the ounces as the model generated from uncorrected drill holes because the “mineralization” was no longer as scattered, and to add insult to injury, the corrected mineralized zone was offset so the open pit determined by our mining algorithm was in a different location than the open pit based on the initial, uncorrected model.
So even though management wasn’t happy that I “lost” a bunch of ounces and had to re-design the whole mine, any straight-thinking engineer would obviously use the mineal model based on correctly oriented drill holes. He would NEVER use the uncorrected model just because it gave a rosier estimate of the value of the deposit. Why? Because eventually the deposit would be mined and a wrong model would cause disastrous economic consequences to the company (and my job).
By analogy, Hansen’s approach to this problem would be the reverse–he’d leave the drill hole data as it was initially–in other words, he’d rather use a false model and “adjust” the data according to it because it would support his agenda better. He’d be off the hook (and a favorite of management, too) until mining commenced.
There is always a judgement day.
“Continued failure to quantify the specific
origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to
understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was
caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar
minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt
and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration
of the rate of sea level rise this decade.”
Translation: We can’t explain what’s happening, but we’re pretty sure that you, and those fools that continue to pay for our “research”, won’t be able to tell that we’re winging it. Send more money.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
GIGO!
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 20, 2011 at 11:17 pm
The problem is that from any single point in space (either the moon or a satellite) you can only measure the amount of sunshine reflected back to your observation point. But there’s lots and lots of other light that is reflected in a host of other directions away from your observation point. To measure them accurately, you’d need a swarm of satellites surrounding the earth so they could all measure the reflected light at once.
As any photographer should know, you are describing the difference between incident and reflected light. A camera can only measure reflected light from the subject, whilst an incident meter, which uses an omnidirectional translucent dome, measures light falling on the subject. But I’d hate to see someone like Stephen Chu get wind of this, lest he propose building a massive Simpsons Movie-like pale dome over the entire earth, in the name of science and saving the planet of course.
Hansen freely admits to modifying data to obtain desired results on the GISS Personnel Directory.
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
Perhaps this link can explain the application of an “objective constrainment algorithm”
http://web.mysites.ntu.edu.sg/epnsugan/PublicSite/Shared%20Documents/CMODE.pdf
Yikes
Thanks, Crosspatch, for the interesting comments about variation in earth’s albedo. Ellis et al (JGR, vol 83, 1978) used monthly mean values which varied from a low of about 0.287 in September to a high of about 0.314 in May. I’m not sure how those values were obtained. There’ll be inter-annual variation as well and I can see why you suggest taking readings over a 20-year period or longer. It’s certainly not a constant.
First rule of ‘climate science’ if reality the models differ in values , its reality which is wrong, given that Hansens is merely follow the ‘Teams’ standard approach . Anyone want to bet that this passes through ‘review’ at the usual ‘Team’ only speed ?
Regarding earthshine to measure trend – is there enough spectrum preserved in earthshine to calculate energy in the important wavelengths?
“Y’er doin’ it backwards, laddie.”
A physicist says: “There’s good news, Willis … you’ll sleep even better as you learn more about how NASA actually calibrates its satellite data.”
From your link to the Mann/Gore/Hansen/IPCC blog (Real Climate) entry:
“Combined with a full implementation of an annually varying temperature correction,” & “found higher levels of scattering than they had anticipated, which was leading to slightly excessive readings”
Interpretation: a reversed engineered “temperature correction” of 4.95 W/m2; based on Mann’s graphing of Hansen’s climate modeling of IPCC’s lemon picked weather station data; after first deducting 0.05 W/m2 found and attributed to “scattering and diffusive light contamination”.
PS: I for one am not sleeping any better knowing my Tax Dollars are still being abused to fund climatologists’ pensions and a Gore inspired political agenda.
“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 …”
This is as disgusting as it can get. They are cheating right in front of the public’s eyes and telling the public that they should like it. The moral values traditionally associated with science after the work of Galileo have simply disappeared from the narratives produced by Hansen and people like him. The only ideology of the modern world to be so brazen is Lenin’s communism which taught that Leninism will enjoy the only intellectual victory possible because it will be the triumphant ideology. It is the ideology of the Last Word.
Thanks again, Willis, this is important.