Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

[wacki]

You also just provided a link to a quote from the agency I work for regarding this in Amongst Friends:

You work in NOAA?  What state?  When I worked for Infectious Disease I met a lot of people in NOAA.  It would be interesting to see if I've actually met you without knowing it.

Also are you seriously doubting the rate of change argument?  Please point to a point in geological history where CO2 changed at a comparable rate.

As for your funding argument well James Hansen is certainly having a tough time right now thanks to funding cuts directed by Bush & Co.

[Ben]

CA.

I'm saying that short term change is irrelevant to long term planetary climate timescales. We're not going to turn into Venus.

James Hansen put the noose around his own neck. He has every right to speak his mind, but as a Fed employee, he has to be prepared to face the consequences of doing that. I write a lot of budget justifications, so I'm pretty familiar with all the key words we're directed to put into them before they're sent up the chain,  packaged up in Silver Spring, and sent to Congress. Global Warming is quite popular, especially on the sub-committee that reviews our budget.

[wacki]

I'm saying that short term change is irrelevant to long term planetary climate timescales.

See the problem I have with this argument is that it ignores everything we know about physics, astronomy, etc for the naive hypothesis.  When in reality our models have done a much much better job than the null hypothesis.  By saying "short term change is irrelevant" are you really saying that atmospheric changes 10-100x faster than what occurred in the past doesn't mean a thing to you?

We're not going to turn into Venus.

Well I agree, but then again Venus is incredibly hot.

James Hansen put the noose around his own neck. He has every right to speak his mind, but as a Fed employee, he has to be prepared to face the consequences of doing that.

This is kind of an odd statement.  So I'm guessing you feel the same about Rick Piltz as well?

I write a lot of budget justifications, so I'm pretty familiar with all the key words we're directed to put into them before they're sent up the chain,  packaged up in Silver Spring, and sent to Congress. Global Warming is quite popular, especially on the sub-committee that reviews our budget.

I'm a bit confused as to what you actually do.  Are you involved in research or are you more of a managerial position?  What is your expertise in?

[Ben]

See the problem I have with this argument is that it ignores everything we know about physics, astronomy, etc

How? There have been all kinds of short term inputs in the past that over geologic, and even much shorter timescales have had little overall effect to the planet. And I'm talking planet, not any particular species that live or have lived on it.

Atmospheric changes 10-100X faster than what we think may have occurred earlier don't mean much to me in the short term, especially without any significant decimal places. The range is too broad, hence we have arguments over what exactly is going on. If it continues for another few thousand years, I may change my opinion.

The Hansen statement is not odd at all. He is a fed employee, not a tenured professor.

I'm a Physical Scientist with a remote sensing and geospatial science background. Why, what do you do?

[wacki]

Atmospheric changes 10-100X faster than what we think may have occurred earlier don't mean much to me in the short term, especially without any significant decimal places. The range is too broad, hence we have arguments over what exactly is going on.

I can get a precise range for you if you wish.  There really isn't much debate about past CO2 levels as the ice cores all show a high level of consistency.  And given the data that is publicly available I'm kind of shocked that you would suggest otherwise.  And given that in the last million years CO2 levels have never been this high I'm amazed that you would suggest that it "doesn't look much different".  You've made a lot of peculiar arguments in this thread.

If it continues for another few thousand years, I may change my opinion.

In other words 'all forms of forecasting is useless'.  Again another peculiar argument made from somebody that works for NOAA.  I'm late for a poker game but I'll continue on with this thread later.

[Ben]

Obviously we're not getting anywhere. You talked ice cores and I posted graphs showing pretty cyclic patterns over the long term. Then you switched to talking short term data. I told you climatologically that doesn't mean much to me. Or I will rephrase, it means as much to me as the short term data of the 70's and early 80's that predicted a completely different climate road.

There's nothing peculiar about what I'm saying.  Temperature variations of the Vostok ice core samples were trending higher 140,000 years ago than they are now, with according to the models, less CO2 than we have now.

Forecasting is not useless. Forecasting requires ground-truthing however. We can ground-truth weather forecasting because weather occurs over days and months and years. We can't ground-truth long term climate forecasting. The only peculiarity I see is that I'm not agreeing with you, or the particular models that you embrace. Historical data tells me this is simply a short term pulse that will be absorbed over long term warming and cooling periods over millions of years. It may affect humans, and where we live, just as climate fluctuations have always done. If so, we'll adapt, just like we've always done.  You seem to be interpreting it as a completely new trend that will drastically change long term planetary patterns.

Anyway, it's been fun, but it since we disagree on the models and data this will continue to go nowhere.