Dana1981 at SkepticalScience Tries to Mislead His Readers
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Dana1981 (aka Dana Nuccitelli) recently authored a SkepticalScience post titled Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy? Believe it or not, in it, he complained about my comparison of modeled and observed ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content. See Figure 1. But his complaints do nothing more than misrepresent my graph and the modeled and observed trends of the Ocean Heat Content data. His intent is blatantly obvious. It is to mislead his readers. And it’s so obvious, it’s silly.
In this post, I’ll simply respond (once again) to complaints about that graph.
Dana1981’s initial reference to my graph comes in the opening sentence of his post. It reads:
Recently there have been a number of claims of a large discrepancy between modeled and observed ocean heat content (OHC), for example by Roger Pielke Sr., David Evans, and Bob Tisdale.
The post he linked was the WattsUpWithThat cross post of my most recent quarterly NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) update titled October to December 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments. The only model-data comparison graph in that post is Figure 1. So that simple graph is the only one he chooses to complain about.
Figure 1
Dana1981 uses the ridiculous heading of “Inaccurate, Unskeptical Graphs”.
First, there’s nothing inaccurate about my graphs in general or Figure 1 specifically. The data for Figure 1 is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and the model projection is based on Hansen et al (2005). I include a detailed description of that graph in that post. Second, I’m not sure how unskeptical applies to a graph. Unskeptical according to MS Word means open minded. Whatever Dana1981 was yakking about, it’s nonsense. Figure 1 is an accurate presentation of the model projection and the data.
Dana1981 then goes on to write under that heading:
The first cherrypicks have already been discussed above – ignoring OHC below 700 meters, and ignoring the OHC increase prior to 2003.
Figure 1 appears in my post under the heading of “ARGO-ERA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT MODEL-DATA COMPARISON.” That limits the period of discussion, don’t ya think? There’s really no reason to include OHC data prior to 2003 in a graph of ARGO-era OHC data since ARGO floats had such poor coverage before then.
Dana1981 claims that presenting the NODC 0-700 meter OHC data is cherry-picking, apparently believing the NODC’s OHC data for depths of 0-2000 meters should be illustrated as well. There’s a very obvious problem with that logic, and Dana1981 fails to recognize it. The Hansen et al (2005) paper “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications” has been the reference all along in my series of OHC updates. It presents the NODC OHC data for 0-700 meters, not 0-2000 meters. Dana1981 even uses Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005) as Figure 1 in his post.
Dana1981 then posts a graph from Tamino that represents the problems Dana1981 sees with my model-data presentation in Figure 1. We’ll overlook the obvious difference, which is that he’s looking at annual data and I’ve presented the data on a monthly basis. I’ve added a couple of notes to the SkepticalScience Figure 4 and posted that graph here as Figure 2. My graph in Figure 1 presents the extrapolated trend of the model mean. Tamino’s graph presents the trend for the annual Ocean Heat Content data, not the model mean. He also elected to show a trend for the data for the period of 1993 to 2002. But the period used in the Hansen et al (2005) paper that Dana1981 referenced was 1993 to 2003. The only reason to omit the 2003 data point is because the trend is lower without it. Then Dana1981 notes:
By choosing the baseline such that the models and data are equal in 2003, Tisdale and Evans have graphically exaggerated a model-data discrepancy.
So the point where the trend meets the data is Dana1981’s basic complaint. Yawn. Somehow in Dana1981’s mind the intercept makes the graph inaccurate and unskeptical. Dana1981 linked Tamino’s post Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline, but he failed to also link my rebuttal here or the WUWT cross post Technical paper training for “Hansen’s Bulldog”. Dana1981 also failed to realize how the Corrections to the RealClimate Presentation of Modeled Global Ocean Heat Content impacted Tamino’s unfounded criticisms. So I’d better point it out to him.
Figure 2
Where should the model intersect with the data? Let’s take a look.
Dana1981 uses the uproariously funny heading of “Accurate Graph”. Dana1981 then presents the corrected RealClimate graph that compares model outputs and OHC data. The graph is from the RealClimate post OHC Model/Obs Comparison Errata. Yup, that was the first time in two and a half years that RealClimate posted an “accurate graph” in one of their OHC model-data comparisons. I’m not sure Gavin Schmidt liked being reminded of that fact by Dana1981, but I sure appreciated it. I’ve reposted the graph here and thrown on another question for Dana1981. It is: Where would an extrapolation of the model mean trend (1993-2003) intersect the NODC OHC data, Dana1981?
Figure 3
Gavin Schmidt was kind enough to post the answer to my question. He provided it when he corrected the OHC model-data comparison graph in his post 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons. See Figure 4. I’ve noted the answer on the graph. They don’t intersect. In my graph, Figure 1, the model and data at least intersect during the ARGO era but in the RealClimate graph that Dana1981 calls an “accurate graph” they don’t intersect. Would you rather I shifted the model trend to the left, away from the OHC data, Dana1981? Would that make it an “accurate graph” for you?
Figure 4
Figure 5 is the same OHC model-data comparison graph from RealClimate. In it, though, I’ve highlighted the ARGO era, which is the period I presented in Figure 1. I removed the NODC data for 0-2000 meters since it has no bearing on this discussion. I’ve also approximated Tamino’s linear trend of the NODC OHC data from 1993 to 2002 that Dana1981 would like us to believe represents the model mean. Does Tamino’s linear trend come close to representing the model mean? Nope! For some reason, things that are blatantly obvious to most of us elude Dana1981 and his cohorts at SkepticalSeance.
Figure 5
What Dana1981 failed to realize is, when Tamino pulled the two sleights of hand with that graph (using the data instead of the model mean and using the trend of the data from 1993 to 2002 instead of 1993 to 2003), the erroneous data that RealClimate was posting at the time, Figure 6, was aligning with the bogus Tamino trend. That erroneous model trend only made it appear that Tamino’s presentation was right. But it never was.
Figure 6
I was going to overlook Dana1981’s complaint that I was neglecting a raft of other sources of OHC data, but I’ve decided to respond to it. I use the KNMI Climate Explorer as the source of data for my quarterly Ocean Heat Content updates. That fact is discussed in the first few paragraphs of those OHC updates. It’s tough to miss it, being right up front. I use data that’s readily available from KNMI in my posts for a reason: so that anyone can reproduce my graphs. Up until a few weeks ago, the NODC Ocean Heat Content data for 0-700 meters was the only updated Ocean Heat Content dataset available at the KNMI Climate Explorer. I would have been more than happy to include other OHC datasets, but there haven’t been any—until recently.
KNMI recently added an Ocean Heat Content dataset based on the UK Met Office EN3 analysis. I haven’t really investigated that dataset in depth (pardon the pun) so I haven’t prepared a full post about it. Figure 7 compares the UKMO EN3 data to the NODC ARGO-era OHC data for 0-700 meters and also to the GISS model trend. The UKMO EN3 data appears similar to the NODC’s ARGO-era OHC data before the NODC’s 2010 modifications. I’ll confirm that in an upcoming post. If you haven’t noticed, the trend of the ARGO-era UKMO EN3 OHC data (0-700 meters) is negative from January 2003 to March 2012.
Figure 7
The UKMO EN3 OHC data is presented in 4 depths at the KNMI Climate Explorer: 0-400m, 0-700m, 0-1000m, and 0-2000m. We can compare the global ARGO-era 0-2000 meter UKMO EN3 data to the trend of the GISS model mean for 0-750 meters, Figure 8. The models are still out of the ballpark. There’s no reason to search for the GISS model trend for 0-2000 meters to illustrate that point.
Figure 8
CLOSING
When Gavin Schmidt published those corrections to the RealClimate OHC model-data comparisons, I believed that no one would be foolish enough to ever again complain about where the OHC model trend and data intersected in my ARGO-era graphs. But I was proved wrong. Dana1981 raised the bar on foolishness. And his readers went along with it.
Roger Pielke Sr. also published a post yesterday about Dana1981’s OHC post. Roger’s post is titled Grappling With Reality – A Comment On The Skeptical Science Post By Dana1981 “Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?” Yup, Dana1981 and many of the commenters on that SkepticalScience thread are grappling with reality, but they’re losing the wrestling match.
By the way, Dana1981, thanks for allowing me to post the ARGO-era model-data comparison graph once again. It’s one of my favorites.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just as a quick response to ThePhysicsGuy’s ad hominem ([SNIP: Dana, gratuitous snotty asides will be snipped. -REP]), I happen to currently have 2 papers in the journal review stage and 2 more in draft. I also have a BS in astrophysics and an MS in physics. Not that my qualifications are at all relevant (my post stands on its own merits), but I thought it would be worthwhile to set the record straight.
I also concur with Glenn and Nick Stokes’ points, which are important ones. Cherrypicks aside, we’re not actually even comparing real model runs to the observational data here, and thus it’s not possible to determine if there’s a model-data discrepancy. Claims to the contrary are over-reaching.
Naughty naughty Bob, how dare you take a combative tone when defending your “normally massively flawed” analysis.
What a bunch of kids.
[insert Josh’s treehouse cartoon here]
“Falsifiability is perhaps the most basic tenet of science. Without an answer, how can the modelling be called science?”
1. the models are “falsifiable”
Falsifiability refers to whether or not the statement has “empirical” content
2+2=4, has no empirical content. “god is all” has no empirical content.
“yellowstone will erupt within 100K years” has empirical content. So, the criteria of
falsifiability refers to whether or not the statement has empirical content.
2. Falsifiability is not a tenet of science. It is a tenet of the philosophy of science
and is generally not a very good description of how science actually works.
That is, its not a scientific description of science.
In practice, theories are built and refined and changed and sometimes replaced. They are rarely “falsified”. They are falsifiable in principle ( have empiricial content) but in practice, scientists dont universally operate by rejecting a theory that fails to account for all observation.
So rather than having theories about how science actually works, its a good idea to actually look at how its done.
Steven Mosher says:
“So rather than having theories about how science actually works, its a good idea to actually look at how its done.”
What is your opinion of how ‘science’ is done regarding Mann, Briffa, etc.?
Bob.
My point about full and plain disclosure is simple. I refer to CA to give due credit to steve mcintyre for the notion. You’ve plotted data. You’ve plotted an extrapolation of a model mean.
If we use the CA criteria as a fair standard I’m suggesting that you havent made full disclosure.
Pretty simple. You cannot compare model results to observations without showing all your work.
I know the other side does it, but I’d rather raise the bar for everyone than seek the lowest common denominator
DirkH says:
May 30, 2012 at 9:05 pm (Edit)
Steven Mosher says:
May 30, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“2. if you choose to extrapolate a model you must state the uncertainty. with a small number of runs and the short time peroid your going to find out that you cant say much”
Which is the entire point of IPCC climate science, is it not, Steven? Scare everybody sh1tless without showing refutable predictions.
###################
You basically have two choices. If you dont like the way the IPCC does things and are critical of them, you can engage in the behavior you criticize OR you can do things the way you suggest is correct. In other words you cant complain about hiding the decline ( which really hides uncertainty) and then practice the hiding of uncertainty yourself.
You cant demand data and code and then turn around and not provide it yourself.
You cant attack cherry picking and engage in it.
well, you cant do these things and expect to convince fair minded people
Steven Mosher says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:43 am
”In practice, theories are built and refined and changed and sometimes replaced. They are rarely “falsified”. They are falsifiable in principle ( have empiricial content) but in practice, scientists dont universally operate by rejecting a theory that fails to account for all observation.”
Hmm, I agree, perhaps ”scientists don’t universally operate by rejecting a theory that fails to account for all observation” BUT they sure as eggs are eggs are likely to reject (or at least NOT accept) a theory that is seemingly falsified by the MAJORITY of actual observations!! aka – in this case the alleged theory of AGW/CAGW.
Smokey says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:50 am (Edit)
Steven Mosher says:
“So rather than having theories about how science actually works, its a good idea to actually look at how its done.”
What is your opinion of how ‘science’ is done regarding Mann, Briffa, etc.?
##########
i would say that many posts here fall to the sub standard practice that Mann and Briffa employed in the past.
The problem Smokey is that I’m not a team player. That means I get to hold everyone to the same standard. As long as skeptics stood on the sideline explaining the flaws in methods and data, they stood on solid ground. Now, over the past couple years, some skeptics have started to do their own ‘science”. That means, real skeptics, get to hold them to the same standards they held others to. Sometimes the shoe fit is uncomfortable.
But, that you should try to personalize the application of methods ( hey Mann and Briffa did it) really shows that the scientific method is not your concern. Your concern is the “fight”
So, start with some principles that you are willing to hold everyone to.
1. share your data as used ( dont point us to GHCN as Jones tried to do with Willis)
2. share your code as run
3. Show the uncertainty.
Uphold those principles. in all cases.
Steven Mosher: Regarding your May 31, 2012 at 11:52 am comment, here’s a link to the post the graph in question last appeared:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/october-to-december-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/
It is presented under the heading of ARGO-ERA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT MODEL-DATA COMPARISON. That graph is discussed in the next section under the heading of STANDARD DISCUSSION ABOUT ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON. And discussed further under the heading of HOW LONG UNTIL THE MODELS ARE SAID TO HAVE FAILED? (STANDARD DISCUSSION).
I believe that’s about as full a disclosure as I need to make.
Steven Mosher,
Thanks for your response.
You are wrong on so many levels.
First, it’s not just ‘the fight’. That is a means to an end. The central problem is those named individuals [and many others] have their hands deep in our pockets, and they not only refuse to disclose their methods, data, methodologies and metadata — paid for by taxpayers like me — but they hide out from any public debates. That is a clear indication that they know absolutely that their ideas can easily be deconstructed.
I would ‘personalize’ anyone who used the devious means that Mann and his clique use, on anyone who gamed the system at my expense. Why do you think they put the names and pictures of lawbreakers in Post Offices? The names of dishonest scientists should be put on public display.
Scientists as a group are no different than any other group: some are exceedingly honest, most are average folks with average ethics, but some are thoroughly dishonest charlatans. Unfortunately for taxpayers, that last group has learned to control the system. If you have any doubt at all, read The Hockey Stick Illusion. Or go over your Climategate emails again.
As for the actual science, I note that neither you nor any other climate alarmist has ever taken my challenge to try and falsify this testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere.
That is an eminently testable hypothesis: simply provide verifiable physical evidence showing conclusively that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global harm. We already know the planet is greening due to higher CO2 levels, therefore the added CO2 is beneficial. QED
So there is your real science. It cuts to the chase. Without any evidence of global harm due to CO2, AGW is merely a conjecture; an untestable opinion. If/when it becomes testable it will be a hypothesis, or possibly even a theory. But for now it is an evidence-free opinion. Much like a computer model.☺
dana1981 says: “I also concur with Glenn and Nick Stokes’ points, which are important ones. Cherrypicks aside, we’re not actually even comparing real model runs to the observational data here, and thus it’s not possible to determine if there’s a model-data discrepancy. Claims to the contrary are over-reaching.”
Refer to my reply to Nick and Glenn above. Since you and Gavin are apparently on speaking terms, please ask Gavin Schmidt to have KNMI publish the GISS Model-ER simulations of OHC that exist in the CMIP3 archive. Then there’s no question about the extrapolation.
BTW, everyone reading this thread can readily see that you’ve never responded to my earlier comment to you at May 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm.
Mosh says:
So rather than having theories about how science actually works, its a good idea to actually look at how its done.
Institutional science is actually done in accordance with philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend’s observation that when it comes to promoting a scientific theory:
Anything goes.
Databending, journal jockeying, editor threatening, peer review sandbagging, adverse result hiding, media courting, over-hyped/under-sourced press releases, flat denial of the foregoing, etc.
No wonder people have little faith in institutional scientists or their output these days.
[SNIP: Sorry, Sean. I think it’s funny but we really don’t want to do this. -REP]
For all who criticise Bob’s methods, surely it is up to the compilers of the models to prove their models work, not for Bob or others to disprove them, (or indeed Dana and co to try to prove it for them).
Is anyone aware if they have done so?
Bob, you asked for easily accessible sources of OHC data. NOAA has a bunch for 700m here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/ohc
Unfortunately there aren’t many easily accessible sources of 2000m OHC data online. NODC (Levitus) have pentadal averages (and annual starting in 2005) available here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_global.html
dana1981 says: “Bob, you asked for easily accessible sources of OHC data. NOAA has a bunch for 700m here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/ohc”
Dana1981, thanks for the link. But if there are links through that website to the actual data used to create those graphs, they are not easily visible. A clarification: I’m not looking for graphs. I’m looking for the data. I’m also looking for a website that allows me to download the data on a gridded basis. That way I can divide the data into logical subsets (ocean basins, hemispheres, tropics v extratropics) and attempt to determine when and why ocean heat content has risen since 1955. Global datasets are useless for that.
DavidA: Sometimes people mistake direct and to-the-point word useage for hostility. At least the moderator gave me a warning and didn’t snip the comment. Now the question is: how long will my comments remain on that SkepticalSeance thread? A month? Six months? I’ve saved screen caps just in case.
Bob, if you click on the authors names within the graph (by way of the link dana gave you) the data shows up.
Steve Mosher and everyone here, please take 5 minutes to read Gavin’s post at Realclimate BUT don’t just look at the graph he places in that post (which I told him I felt was not very informative considering that his post was on correcting an error in graphs that he has used for the past 4 years to show how the models were doing). You need to clicks on the links of the 4 year posts to see the new graph, then click on the link to the “incorrect” graph which he has a link to under the corrected graph. The difference is dramatic.
sue says: “Bob, if you click on the authors names within the graph (by way of the link dana gave you) the data shows up.”
Thanks. That at least gets me the annual data. Someday, somewhere, someone will post them on a gridded monthly basis.
dana1981, sorry. I missed the links.
Anthony: As always, thanks.
One thing I’ve truly enjoyed about this is that most everyone has already forgotten that Gavin admitted the models didn’t work out once he made the correction.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/ohc-modelobs-comparison-errata/comment-page-1/#comment-236042
The comment and reply:
armando says:
22 May 2012 at 12:11 PM
That must (have) hurt: http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc11.jpg
[Response: not really. I learnt a long time ago that a) I’m not infallible, and b) that one should never get personally invested in the results of a model. When things work, one should always remain pleasantly surprised, when they don’t there is possibly a reason that can found – which may be interesting. This is why science is fun. – gavin]
Steven Mosher says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:43 am
I pretty much agree with what you said concerning falsifiability and empirical content, but disagree with your last sentence.
I think you miss the point of what Popper and others were trying to do. Rather than think of their efforts as a ‘philosophy of science’, think of it as a ‘theory of science’.
A friend of mine cites building lighthouses as an example of people knowing how to do things that worked without having a scientific understanding of why they worked. Similarly, this was the case with science up until the 20th C. It worked, but no one could adequately explain why it worked.
Popper and others tried to rectify that situation.
So rather than arguing we should focus more on how science actually works, we should endeavour to make science more like the ways in which the theory of science predicts the process of science will have more empirical content, that is, produce better scientific theories, predictions, etc.
More attention to falsifiability is the main means to do that.
regard
the notion of ‘falsifiability’ applies exclusively to a logical proposition
the study of how one can know anything at all is called epistemology
it is an axiom that cause precedes effect.
it is an axiom that if an effect does not follow the alleged cause, then the proposition is falsified.
the simple, abstract form that the logic follows is ‘if A then B’.
this has as corollary: ‘if not B, then not A’. this is falsification.
epistemology was inverted, perverted and rejected at the outset in this co2 climate religion by the assertion that the effect (increase in co2) was the cause of temperature rise when data shows that co2 lags temperature rise.
this falsifies the notion entirely because if there is a cause, it precedes the effect.
it never ever happens backwards. truth can not be falsified – that is how one knows it is true.
truth exists in context, though. if one drops the context of the proposition, then it is a faulty proposition and not subject to logical analysis.
that which is not subject to logical analysis is also false.
but it’s next to impossible to perform logic without proper words.
proper english is no longer current. it has been replaced with an orwellian creole.
that was done, progressively, with the purpose of thwarting logic.
without logic, reasoning can not be done.
this is the age of unreason.
‘state’s rights’, indeed. not one man in a thousand has a clue how that anticoncept has functioned to destroy his ability to consider the nature of rights – and therefore not one man in a thousand can hold a valid concept of rights. it was intellectual disarmament and now there is no defense.
and that’s why we have the predators in ascendance.
why do you think they call it preying?
Steven,
1. “They’re falsifiable” is not an answer to a question about what constitutes falsification. The problem here that the answer seems much too malleable; that makes the model difficult to falsify, and thus less like science and more like mere speculation. Hence the original request for some measure of falsity, and my repeating of the request.
2. Have to disagree quite forcefully. “How science is done” is much, much less important than what science is, e.g. the tenet of falsifiability. Defining science as whatever people calling themselves scientists happen to be doing is a terrible degradation of the term “science.” That sort of muddled thinking is how we got in this mess in the first place!
3. There is still no answer to the question.
Bob, I realize how much time you have put into your work and how frustrating it has been. A couple of interesting things about this situation: Gavin was a co-author of the Hansen 2005 paper and the reference for the OHC model was to Gavin’s paper in preparation at the time. I find it odd that he would make the mistake of assuming it was scaled for the ocean area only but it was actually scaled for the entire global area. The other thing is that I know for a fact that he hadn’t planned to make this correction when he did. He may have planned to in the future, but definitely not the day he did or even the week he did…. Not that you could tell by his errata post. I almost contacted you that week, but Gavin made the correction publicly and I noticed that you became aware of it. Best regards and good luck with your future work.