Quote of the week – the numerology of "dialing in" climate science

qotw_croppedThis quote from ETH Zurich is actually from another just published post, but it is so grating, so anti-science, that it deserves its very own thread to highlight it.

Here it is:

If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.

Gosh.

This is like saying:

If we take all our economic projections for performance as suggested by our financial models, and correct it downwards, and at the same time, if we take all of our revenues and expenditures that are in the red, and adjust them upwards, out company will be on track and our investors will be satisfied.

Except, people go to jail for that sort of thing.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Frank K.

This is the most perverted use of the word “corrected” I have EVER seen. Just stunning…

Give them enough rope.
Sure seems to apply to this deviant branch of social studies.
I would blame full scale panic.

I am speechless.

Also, if the models must be corrected downwards then wouldn’t the underlying concept of the models – CO2 warming – need to also be corrected downwards?
Wouldn’t that make the CO2 effect even less of a concern?

JohnB

A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?

Eustace Cranch

If my bank would correct my outstanding loan amount downwards, and correct my savings account balance upwards, I’ll be in great shape.

PeterB in Indianapolis

So basically, if we make sh*t up to match what we think is the “right answer”, then we can finally demonstrate that our answer is right!

PeterB in Indianapolis

Or, to rephrase again,
Clearly the models are wrong, so we have to adjust those, but REALITY is ALSO WRONG, so we have to adjust reality as well, and then our results will look AWESOME!

If that pitch had been 1 foot higher and 8 inches to the right, it would have been a strike, so “YERRR OUT!”.

Vince Causey

It would be amusing if it wasn’t so dangerous, so insanely – in an Orwellian sense – anti science and anti human.

PeterB in Indianapolis

They have already been “correcting” the measured data… recent data gets corrected upwards by a bunch, and older data gets corrected downwards by a bunch, and they still haven’t been able to make reality match their models!
I hope that the next LIA comes during the lifetime of most of these morons… living through it myself would almost be worth it to see what happens to these “scholars”.

“Except, people go to jail for that sort of thing.”
Not if they are Chairing a Central Bank they don’t.

Auto

Guess I have to join in, too.
If I correct my height upwards, and my weight downwards, enough, well, blow me down, a BMI to content the medics.
So that’s all right then.
Auto

Those that can not believe that they have made mistakes, are destined to repeat them. This is an example. They have been “correcting” global average temperatures upward while “adjusting” CO2 sensitivity downward.

Frank K.

JohnB says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am
A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?

Yes it is unreasonable and totally wrong. It is not a “correction” since that would require that you actually know the “correct” value of the parameter in question. “Adjustment” would be a better term for this type of ad hoc “science”…

graphicconception

Hence:
2 + 2 = 5
(For small values of 5 and large values of 2.)

I played a game of half court basketball with a buddy yesterday. At the end of the game, I adjusted his score downwards and my score upwards and I won!

Louis

JohnB says:
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable. If you have a lack of arctic stations, you don’t assume what the temperature would have been. For all you know, actual arctic temperatures are colder than assumed.

Doctor Gee

Isn’t moving the measured data upwards an implicit “hide the decline” moment?

CarlF

More evidence that you can’t fix stupid.

mikeishere

Goose meet gander department: If the model data is corrected upwards and the measurement data is corrected downwards then the model and actual observations will be even further apart than they are and thus put this sorry hoax out of its misery even faster!

Unmentionable

Seemed to sum it up

Bob B.

How many Client Scientists does it take to change a light bulb? 6.
1 to input model parameters and values to determine the wattage needed for the desired brightness of the room.
1 to obtain and screw in the bulb.
1 to measure the actual brightness obtained.
1 to adjust the model parameters upward to more closely match actual brightness.
1 to provide sunglasses to adjust apparent brightness downward to more closely match modeled brightness.
1 to declare the project a glowing success.

StefanL

Quote of the week ?
More like “Quote of the Year” and possibly “Quote of the Decade” !
It illustrates the whole schemozzle beautifully.

JohnB says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am

The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?

Very. To start with you need to include an “upward correction” for the predominance of El Ni&ntides;os in the years before the PDO flipped negative.
Either of those “correction” provides tacit support to the inconvenient truth that “natural variability” is as big a factor as CO2, but the warmista will try to sweep that under the rug. Actually, those “corrections” are how the warmista try to sweep that under the rug and discourage attempts to identify, describe, and quantify that natural variability.

Admad

Sorry, this is just cr4p isn’t it?

pyeatte

This is spooky – those guys are writing science fiction and trying to pass it off as real.

hunter

This is nothing new in the climate obsessed set of behaviors.
The Climategate leaks showed the same sort of corrupt thinking, that in a regulated financial setting would send people to jail.

LeeHarvey

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a merry Christmas.

JohnB says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:28 am
A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?
Yes. Completely. Unequivocally. Totally. Absolutely.

Wouldn’t “correcting model data” be both an admission the model is wrong, and creating a NEW model?

John in L du B

grumpyoldmanuk says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:36 am
“‘Except, people go to jail for that sort of thing.’
Not if they are Chairing a Central Bank they don’t.”
…or if they are directors in Goldman Sachs’. Then they get sent to Canada as US Ambassador to lecture Canadians about letting markets manage greenhouse gases.

Taphonomic

It’s obvious that we are not super-sophisticated enough to understand this this climate science and I’m super cereal! (Is Tom Steyer becoming the new ManBearPig?)

This is clinical insanity. As in, having lost touch with anything real, and being sure you can change it by just thinking about it and wishing it otherwise. It’s magical thought.

Jeff

If you torture the data long and hard enough, you can make it confess to anything.

Shouldn’t it be “if we correct it again”
I thought they have already done that a couple of times
Sooner or later it will work, just keep correcting, the more correcting they do the longer they can get funding!

Brian

Just admit the models are wrong, “correct” them so the outputs match reality and we might be able to have a rational discussion.

milodonharlani

philjourdan says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:33 am
They need to correct more than their “data”. The models themselves are all wrong.
Expect the next IPCC report to conclude with 99.99% confidence that that CACA is much worse than thought, while at the same time reducing ECS to 1.5 to 3.5 degrees C from 1.5 to 4.5, continuing the ever more realistic trend. Eventually they might get totally real, ie 0.0 to 1.5.

Frank K.

More science!
“From satellite data, for example, scientists know that the Arctic region in particular has become warmer over the past years, but because there are no weather stations in that area, there are measurements that show strong upward fluctuations. As a result, the specified average temperature is too low.”
Barrow Alaska weather station…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/met/brw_met_english.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow,_Alaska
Barrow … is the largest city of the North Slope Borough in the U.S. state of Alaska and is located above the Arctic Circle.
Weather history for Barrow, AK.
http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_BarrowWPostWRogersArpt_Barrow_AK_January.html

Resourceguy

Bingo, except that journalists don’t go to jail. They write about those who do go to jail. And as a matter of fact, a lot of Swiss should be in jail for cheating taxpayers around the world with numbered accounts for dictators and others.

Charlie Hendrix

Model data? Numbers coming from those models are predictions, not data.

milodonharlani

milodonharlani says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:56 am
Frank K. says:
August 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
Map of Arctic stations doesn’t include wandering “North Pole” recorder, nor frequent observations from subs surfacing at the Pole:
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
(Accidentally posted in another thread.)

Frank K.

milodonharlani says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:00 am
Correct – and I’m sure there is quite a bit more historical temperature data above the arctic circle. What baffles me is why mainstream climate researchers would make such a patently false statement then propose a “correction” based on the false premise.

Frank K. says:
August 19, 2014 at 11:15 am
Because it’s yet another way of falsely cooking the GASTA books.

Mohatdebos

This was published in a “peer reviewed” journal. Says a lot about the peers, doesn’t it! I won’t even comment on the integrity of the editors.

PeterinMD

This is a little off topic, but seeing as we’re discussing the absurdity of climate alarm-ism, I thought that the August monthly numbers as reported by weather.com is quite funny. This is for Baltimore MD, zip code 21230. It says the highest temp so far in August is 87 and the is 88. Bu their little graph shows that 87 is now warmer then 88!!! Just scroll down the page.
Also, Baltimore hasn’t had a 90+ degree day since July 27th. If we make it through August with out a 90+ degree day, we’ll break a record from 1984! Plus it will be only the 4th August since records were kept that we would have no 90+ degree days in the month of August! The other were in the 1930’s I believe and the late 1800’s!!

Louis Hooffstetter

JohnB says:
A bit of context…
The “downward correction” is to account for the predominance of La Nina over recent years.
The “upward correction” is to account for bias due to lack of arctic temperature stations.
Unreasonable?
John, John, John… We can’t adjust the models. They are based on sacrosanct laws of physics. To adjust them would be to “deny the science”. Surely you don’t want to be called a denier.
As for the temperature data, it has been adjusted enought already (way more than enough actually). So here’s what we do: Throw out the adjusted temperature data and use the satellite temperature data instead. Compare that to the unadjusted model outputs and see what you get.
Report back to us to let us know how that works out.

PabloNH

Why, when climate – arctic climate especially – has become a matter of life or death to the entire human race, have so many arctic weather stations been shut down? (Rhetorical question.)

graphicconception says:
August 19, 2014 at 9:44 am
Exactly. In other words, 2 + 2 = 5 if the climate alarmist scientists say it does because they can adjust one of the 2s by an increment of 1 if desired to make the statement true. Got it.
Orwell’s Ministry of Truth from his 1984 novel is alive and well today in 2014.

Keith

John B says the downward correction is for the predominance of La Niña during the “Pause”.
Are you taking into account the predominance of El Niño during the warming period of 1975 – 1998?
I thought not.