January 9, 2010

Purloined global warming emails

No one knows who Harry is, but his attempts to make sense of the data that underpins those beaut (and largely secret) global warming / extreme weather events / climate change computer models are illuminating.

The scientific method is unequivocal: the results, if the hypothesis is to be deemed proven, must be repeatable - over and over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum.

All of our knowledge about climate, which is precious little, singularly fails to provide data or information sufficiently robust to be repeatable - at all.

Yes, I know, I know: the computer models all deliver the same - ostensibly repeatable - results, some simply more dire than others.

Just remind yourself that they're all using the same flawed data, ergo, same results.


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Well, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I
discovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.


As we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code>


OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.


If Harry can't get his head around the confusing and contradictory data, upon which the spending of trillions of dollars rests, how is it that any individual can stand up and declare, in good faith, that anthropomorphic global warming is a scientific fact?

Hide the decline - codified

No comments:

Post a Comment