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.
Wiillis, if you tried again to answer, more plainly, the question that Nick Stokes and I now are are both asking with regard to Hansen’s methods, namely What’s the problem?, then maybe folks will start appreciating better the nature of your criticism(s) of Flohn’s work and Mann’s work too.
In his EEI&I paper Hansen says in the first paragraph:
“Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing
more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar
minimum.
The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period
2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.”
Since he used the word “improving”, one can say that it hasn’t been very accurate in the past but is getting better. My question is: are the Argo floats a more accurate method of measuring this imbalance than the satellites which one can only assume are “improving” too?
If an observational value, a data point, is variable based on who is producing the data set, why waste the resources collecting the data? Just put out your fictional BS and call it good. That is pretty much the reality of climate science.
The only question is – are they really surprised that reality doesn’t match their computer generated scenarios, or did they just expect they could say and do whatever they wanted (adjust, I mean manipulate) the observations, and no one would have a problem with it?
Glacierman, as several other WUWT posters have noted, that is not what Loeb and his colleagues did. See for example crosspatch’ well-reasoned post
If Willis were to explain his considerations with similar clarity and thoroughness to crosspatch, perhaps we would all arrive at a shared understanding.
What I find really wierd, 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.
That’s 6.5w/m^2 net downward flux, as in the Earth would be heating up a lot faster than it is currently.
And if your claim is that Earth is not heating up, then please explain where the net downward TOA energy flux of 6.5w/m^2 is going to in the first place.
One would think that you all would be in agreement that the net TOA energy flux would be as close to zero as possible, since you all would appear to agree that the temperature changes are all due to natural cycles internal to the system.
But if you want to believe that a CALCULATED number is the same as a direct empirical/observational point measurement, then do please keep on being naive people.
Note to all you naive people: The CALCULATED number of 6.5 w/m^2 is not a direct empirical/observational point measurement, see;
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/atbd.php
Or this CERES data flow diagram;
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/atbd_linked_dfd_06_11_2009.pdf
Do either of these links suggest that the CALCULATED number is a straight forward process with absolutely no room for error? Because even Loeb (2009) themselves don’t believe their own unadjusted CALCULATION of 6.5 w/m^2.
D’oh!
A physicist;
the question that Nick Stokes and I now are are both asking with regard to Hansen’s methods, namely What’s the problem?,>>>
The “problem” seems to be that you and Nick don’t understand the problem.
If this were a Joseph Heller novel, it would be hilarious. And this “sound scientific practice” does belong there, along with all the antics of Milo Minderbinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder)… But seeing as this happens in the reality we live in, it is downright scary. This person is so far removed from science, one does hope NASA removed him just as far from their offices… which by my reckoning would place him just near the outer rings of Saturn.
People like this make a mockery of science, if what I was taught about the scientific process during my education is anything to go by.
A physicist says:
December 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Which is why there’s no dispute about it? … What planet are you on? If this stuff were easy, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it thirty years after Flohn’s work.
I see this argument made a lot. “Our model is off by a whole lot … in a whole lot of places. So it can’t give absolute answers. But despite that, by gosh it can give very accurate relative answers.”
It is POSSIBLE that either a climate model or a satellite dataset transformation could have those characteristics. Either one of those two, the climate models or the satellite results, could have the capability to be inaccurate but still be precise.
What I object to is the assumption that all models (or all satellite data transformations) are inaccurate but precise. Me, I see no reason to assume a priori that either one of them is precise. That is something that would have to be established, not simply assumed or asserted.
Indeed, it is quite possible to introduce further distortions by using some “objective constrainment algorithm”. Nor is there any easy way to check if you have done so. For example, the objective constrainment algorithm may adjust the tropics in a slightly different manner than the poles. And that would definitely interfere with the ability to “reliably infer relative heat balance, for example tropical-to-arctic heat flow.”
In short, it may be precise, but I’d have to be shown that, it cannot be assumed as the climate modelers do.
w.
The model energy imbalance is actually the same as the observed OHC energy imbalance… from Hansen 2005: “The observed annual mean rate of ocean heat gain between 1993 and mid-2003 was 0.86 plus/minus 0.12 W/m2 per year for the 93.4% of the ocean that was analyzed (20)”. So to say that the CERES measurements are adjusted to conform to a model is not true.
The CERES measurements are made with some known level of uncertainty and some known biases, so all the adjustment has done is to “calibrate” the TOA energy balance to the observed OHC energy imbalance by adjusting parameters within their uncertainty bounds and removing any known biases. Simple.
A physicist says:
December 21, 2011 at 11:40 am
“(2) Hansen refers to Loeb’s work, which applies an overall correction to the CERES data so that it becomes useful to “studies that infer meridional heat transports”. The point is that even if the CERES data has an uncertain overall calibration, Loeb and his colleagues show how the data can still be useful for studying (for example) differences in cloud coverage at high and low latitudes.”
We are here for debate. Your entire position rests on your claims about Loeb’s paper. If you do not explain those claims in your own words, including Loeb’s “adjustment procedure,” then you are refusing to participate in debate. Do not expect to be taken seriously if you cannot state your own position completely and in your own words.
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“What I object to is the assumption that all models (or all satellite data transformations) are inaccurate but precise. Me, I see no reason to assume a priori that either one of them is precise. That is something that would have to be established, not simply assumed or asserted.”
Exactly. What “A Physicist” needs to do is establish the precision in his own words. Then he will have a post worthy of attention.
[Moderator’s NOTE: Theo, site policy requires a valid e-mail address. I had something to send you and it bounced back. Please provide a valid e-mail address. -REP]
Trenberth bragged about extracting an apology from the editor of an academic journal for allowing a paper that used observational data that contradicted computer models to be published.
What’s the problem?
Briffa published a paper that claimed to be a 1000 year temperature reconstruction of the global temperature that was based 50% on a single tree.
What’s the problem?
Mann published the famous hockey stick graph based on a computer program that sifts through mountains of data and weights anything that fits a hockey stick shaped curve out of proportion to the rest of the data.
What’s the problem?
Jones and Mann contend that tree ring data is a good proxy for temperature measurements, despite nearly half the data from tree rings taken during the instrumental record doesn’t match at all.
What’s the problem?
Mann, Jones, Briffa, etc etc etc insist that their models that show a nearly non existant MWP and LIA are correct except for isolated regional data despite evidence from dozens of studies all over the world to the contrary, and the same for historical records.
What’s the problem?
@crosspatch
Data from Mauna Loa has very strict protocols to reject CO2 measurements that represent local contamination from volcanic sources and the effects of regional vegetation. It is interesting to note that despite these rules the raw average annual CO2 measurements (from 1975) vary only from -0.606 to +0.288 ppm from the values calculated by applying the strict rules, which raises the question whether they are successfully measuring the background CO2 concentration.
So, is it just a coincidence that when they adjusted the CERES data down to be more in line with the imbalance suggested by climate models, they settled on exactly Hansen’s number of 0.85? From 6.5 down to 0.85 – exactly as Hansen’s model said it should be, right?
Sure glad the science is settled.
[Thank you. Nice area. Check your e-mail. -REP]
Finder says:
December 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“The CERES measurements are made with some known level of uncertainty and some known biases, so all the adjustment has done is to “calibrate” the TOA energy balance to the observed OHC energy imbalance by adjusting parameters within their uncertainty bounds and removing any known biases. Simple.”
Really, I would think that that calibrating TOA energy balance to OHC energy imbalance is something about which there is no agreement among climate scientists. You may mean that reading two sets of numbers and “calibrating” them is easy but the topic here is the actual relationship between TOA and OHC energy imbalances. Can you explain that relationship?
Yes. Exactly. It is sort of like the “Briffa problem” where you throw out any samples that do not meet your expectations so that your result looks exactly like your expectation. And they throw out quite a large number of readings.
I wonder how much this reflects CO2 and how much it reflects confirmation bias. Which is why I would feel much better if the monitor were not sitting right on top of an active CO2 emitter.
Eric Huxter says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“It is interesting to note that despite these rules the raw average annual CO2 measurements (from 1975) vary only from -0.606 to +0.288 ppm from the values calculated by applying the strict rules, which raises the question whether they are successfully measuring the background CO2 concentration.”
Empiricism lives! Yes, because of things like Spring and Autumn the measurements should vary much more than that. They do not have an actual empirical science that can predict and explain CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. They haven’t even tried.
Uh, yeah thats just conservation of energy. The amount of energy coming in has to be equal to whats going out plus what is used to heat the ground, melt snow and ice and heat the ocean etc. If the value were actually 6.5W/m2 and only 0.85 of that was going into the ocean, which is by far the largest sink, then you have 5.7 W/m2 which has to be going somewhere.
If the data are foo, the adjusted data will be adjusted foo. And Hansen looks foolish.
*Ouch*
EFS_Junior says:
December 21, 2011 at 1:38 pm
“What I find really wierd, 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.”
Uh, no. What we are pointing out is that there is no empirical data to support the values being assumed. What most of the naive dissenters seem not to grasp is that the inadequacy of one data set does not validate the adequacy of another. It isn’t an either/or proposition. They can both be completely wrong.
What we are seeing is a bait-and-switch in which empirical data is being used to lend credence to an hypothesis, but the data themselves do not, in fact, support it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/20/hansens-arrested-development/#comment-839402
It’s almost like you don’t even understand where CO2 mesurements have been made, how long these CO2 measurements have been made, how these CO2 measurements are made, and where these CO2 measurements have been made.
Please see “Trends in CO2”:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Get back to me when you have a firm handle on these CO2 data sets and accuracy thereof. Which means like never.
A physicist says: “And it sure seems to me that Flohn called it pretty much right,”
Not hard to do when you call it with four possible rather open predictions, the person doing the judging is biased, the person judges in favor of despite three of the four predictions having yet to occur, and the person judging ignores the one semi-predicted possibility missing the decline (granted it was a hidden decline).
By the way ‘A physicist’ what is it you do not get about “Flohn selects thresholds of temperature increase, which he then speculates would produce climatic conditions similar to those of earlier periods in the earth’s history” being all to conveniently possible (non earth shattering)?
Try it this way: Given a future temperature of X, the climate in the future will look “similar to those” climates in earth’s past history which had a temperature of X. Never mind that X temperature happened in the past without the burning of fossil fuels…
davidmhoffer says: December 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm
“The “problem” seems to be that you and Nick don’t understand the problem.”
Well, do you? Care to explain, carefully, and without getting excited? Let’s stick just to what Hansen said on this occasion, since Loeb’s paper is hard to access.