Firing the Auditors

Firing the auditors

Somewhere between a week ago and forever (my how things fly on the INTERTUBES) the following appeared at Climate Audit
UPDATE 1/24 Some additional comments on this data

to (UPDATE CA quotes now in italic)

• defend Pat Michaels' congressional testimony where Scenarios B and C were erased
  

[Update: Jan 17 6 pm] To clarify, I do not agree that it was appropriate for Michaels not to have illustrated Scenarios B or C, nor did I say that in this post. These scenarios should have been shown, as I’ve done in all my posts here.

Strike that one

• because Hansen in his 1988 paper only mentioned that Scenario B was the most likely in an aside. The exact quote from CA is
  

"Despite the graphic precedence to Scenario A in the right panel graph, Hansen mentioned in the running text (9345):

Scenario A, since it is exponential must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints, even though the growth of emissions (`1.5% per year) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4% per year).

and, then inconsistently with the graphic shown on the right side only showing Scenario A out to 2050, said (p 9345) that Scenario B was “more plausible”, an aside that subsequently assumed considerable significance."

However, disapproving bunnies that we are, we RTFR and not the audit committee (mis) take on the paper:

The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenerios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or curdely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined. It represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 [CHECK], and reduction of CO2 [SADLY NO] and other trace gas emissions [CHECK] to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e. the sources just balance the sinks by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three.

The "graphic" that CA points to appears two pages later and there is no mention in the text of why scenario A was run out to 2050, while the others were truncated earlier (lack of computer time suggests itself but that is much less dramatic)

Strike that one

• then that Hansen never said Scenario B was the most likely in his 1988 testimony. CA has only the Senate testimony, but look at the splendid dramatic claims

[Update: The testimony is now available and Hansen’s statement that Scenario B was “used” in his 1988 testimony is very misleading: Hansen’s oral testimony called Scenario A the “Business as Usual” scenario and mentioned Scenario B only in maps purportedly showing extraordinary projected warming in the SE USA

(as mentioned by yr Humble Hare a year and a half ago, in his testimony to the House Energy and Power Subcommittee in 1988, Hansen said

For the future, it is difficult to predict reliably how trace gases will continue to change. In face, it would be useful to know the climatic consequences of althernative scenerios. So we have considered three scenarios for future trace gas growth, shown on the next viewgraph.

Scenario A assumes the CO2 emissions will grow 1.5 percent per year and that CFC emissions will grow 3 percent per year. Scenerio B assumes constant future emissions. If populations increase, Scenerio B requires emissions per capita to decrease.

Scenario C has drastic cuts in emissions by the year 2000, with CFC emissions eliminated entirely and other trace gas emissions reduced to a level where they just balance their sinks.

These scenarios are designed specifically to cover a very broad range of cases. If I were forced to choose one of these as most plausible, I would say Scenario B. My guess is that the world is now probably following a course that will take it somewhere between A and B

Our auditor does not realize that Hansen testified on these issues TWICE in 1988, once to the Senate and once to the House. He should read Rabett Run. Of course both in his 1987 and 1989 testimonies he DID mention that scenario B was the most likely. Tout suite

Strike that one

• then that since Scenario A was described as business as usual it had to be the most likely or

RP Jr. points out in the comments at CA that

Thus, I think it is appropriate to conclude that over the period to 2007, Scenario A is equivalent to what the IPCC calls its “no policy” scenarios, which mean business as usual without explicit policies implemented to limit emissions. When Hansen said “most plausible” he was factoring in factors such as limitations on fossil fuels and eventual emissions policies, which may certainly be the case over the longer term but have not interrupted BAU as yet.

and somewhat lower down pjaco writes

Also, I am curious as to what appears to be your (willful?) misunderstanding of what BAU signifies. It is not, nor has it ever been, a stand in for predicted reality. It is, and always has been, a scenario of unchecked emissions growth not countered by regulation, significant volcanism, or economic restraint. Would you make the claim that BAU is the predicted reality still today- with so many governments and companies now cognizant of the issue and attempts to reduce emissions already taking place? If so, you will probably find yourself in a tiny minority, if not alone, in that interpretation.

Kyoto, Pinutabo, and the collapse of the Soviet Union with its resulting emissions decrease obviously most resemble B, and as Hugh and lucia say, it is perfectly reasonable to take Hansen at his word in choosing B rather than A as most likely.

but Eli simply points you to what Hansen et al said in their paper quoted above

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns

which is what happened.

Strike that one.

• because the Scenario A line was in red it was the most likely because that is what a rock jock would do (OTOH red could indicate hotter, or whatever)
  

We laughed ourselves sick. Strike that one with lipstick

• because A was a solid line in the original it had to be the most likely (turns out it was finely dotted in the original which didn't reproduce well at low res. FWIW OTOH, A was a solid line in Fig. 2 showing the forcing scenarios so cry Audit and loose the drama queens of climate. Whatever, but
  

Strike it anyhow

The audit committee gazed at all this and said it was good, but lo, something was as rotten as a drilled pine tree when compared to the actual data


Turns out that CA had used the infamous Eschenbach versions, read through a glass darkly and just wrong on lots of things. The auditors thought that Eschenbach had got it right and Gavin Schmidt, NASA Employee, who had the actual data which he freely shared was wrong. Much hilarity ensued (see Deltoid and links there to CA).

But lo, our auditors had also used an older version of the RSS microwave tropospheric temperature reconstruction. It had a serious error. What does the corrected version look like?

There are minor differences in the other years which have not been entered. They fall within the width of the line. The biggie is 2007 which is substantially higher in the corrected version (Heavy red line. It must be important).

UPDATE: Terry of the comments points out that the RSS correction was posted 1/18, the CA post 1/16. What a spoil sport. There is a correction on CA. CA says that it was unfair to point this out as an error in the CA original post. Allow Eli a simple parsing, it was an error, it was not a culpable error. At the end of the day, the new reconstruction seriously weakens the argument that McIntyre was trying to make.

Oh yes, GISS Surf refers to the GISS surface stations + oceans data. GISS surface station data is shown in the figures immediately above

Of course, all this neglects the fact that the 1988 paper forecast the 1998 El Nino (just kidding folks)

The audit committee presented its bill. The bunnies used it for necessary functions.

What was the error?

We discovered an error in our processing of AMSU data from NOAA-15 for TLT. A new version, version 3.1 is now available and should be used for all applications. This new version is in much better agreement with other sources of tropospheric temperature. We apologize for any inconvenience.

What was the error?

Last January, I made a small change in the way TLT is calculated that reduced the absolute Temperatures by 0.1K. But I only used the new method for 2007 (the error). When the data are merged with MSU, MSU and AMSU are forced to be as close as possible to each other over the 1999-2004 period of overlap. This caused the error to show up as a downward jump in January 2007. To fix the problem, I reprocessed the 1998-2006 AMSU data using the new code (like I should have done in the first place), and merged it with the MSU data.

We would like to thank John Christy and Roy Spencer, who were very helpful during the diagnosis process.

Carl Mears, RSS, January 16 2008

PPS: Lots of folk are falling into the RSS error trap. As the UAH series before this stuff is flypaper for denialists. See Deltoid, Motl and more