The Scientific Organization: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (2)
The Scientific Organization: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (2)
There are a few open themes in these blog posts that need attention – and a couple that I intend to fit together. In this entry I want to return to some of the issues raised in Something New in the Past Decade?, which looked at an old report on the organization of U.S. climate modeling and high performance computing. One motivation for returning to this old report is an ongoing panel study to write a new report about “A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling.” (link)
Over the past 25 years there have been many reports written about climate and weather models (example), climate and weather observing systems (example), high performance computing (example), and how to transition efforts from research to operations (example). If you look into these reports and their conclusions a number of common themes emerge. First, the presence of these reports suggests that there is a long-held perception that U.S. activities in climate science are not as effective as they need to be or could be. The reports consistently conclude with recognition of the creativity and quality of our scientific research, followed by calls for more integration across the federal agencies. In my earlier entry I argued that anytime there is a push towards more integration of research, there is both individual and institutional resistance.
This resistance occurs for many reasons, both good and bad, both structural and cultural. I want to focus on those reasons that appeal to the sanctity of “the science.” These arguments are often based on the notion of creativity and innovation and that creativity and innovation cannot be managed. Further arguments rely on the observation that many innovations come from unexpected places, and therefore, cannot be anticipated. Therefore, the creative edge of science needs to be left unencumbered by the heavy hand of management needed to assure integration.
Another notion enters into the argument - that is to comply with the standards required to integrate component pieces into a whole hurts the integrity of “the science.” There are two lines that support this. The first line focuses on examples of when attention was directed towards, say, information systems or technology and a product of dubious scientific integrity was produced. The second line is that by the time a particular component, say the algorithm that calculates the rain from thunderstorms, is integrated into an operational weather or climate model that algorithm is no longer state-of-the art. Therefore operational or production models are always a step behind the best science.
These arguments, which have merit, serve to benefit the dominate type of scientific efforts in the U.S. These are the efforts associated with individual scientists, who focus (or reduce) their problems in such a way to isolate something specific and to determine cause and effect. This reductionist approach to investigation is central to the classic scientific method, which has proven to be a very effective method of discovery. The focus on reduction comes at the expense of the path of science that comes from – how do all of the pieces fit together? That is the integrating or unifying path of science. This unifying path requires a synthesis of knowledge. This synthesis does, in fact, lead to new discoveries because when the pieces do not fit together, then we are required to ask – why not? The synthesis of scientific knowledge is also required to, for example, forecast the weather or climate or to adapt to sea level rise.
My ultimate thesis is that a focus on integrated or unified science does not come at the expense of “the science,” and does not undermine the scientific method or the integrity of “the science.”
There are several elements of the scientific method. At the center of it all is testing and checking. In a good scientific paper, most of the text is spent describing the results and how those results were determined to be correct, or at least, convincingly defended. A scrupulous reader looks for independence in the testing and validation; that is, how is unbiased information brought into the research to evaluate the results. Then the paper is subjected to peer review, which is another form of verification. Once a paper is published, it becomes fair game for all to question, and there is, ultimately, a requirement that the result be verified by independent investigation. If the result cannot be reproduced, then there is little acceptance of the result as correct (see Wikipedia Cold Fusion).
This process of checking is ingrained into scientists, and those who develop a sustaining legacy as quality researchers are always expert on how to check results in multiple ways. It is also true that on the individual level, it is ingrained into the scientist to question the results of others. Therefore, at the level of the individual, there is a built in process that does not promote synthesis, integration, or unification. Quite the contrary, what is promoted is the creation of many high quality nuggets of knowledge. These nuggets may or may not fit together to form a consistent body of knowledge.
Returning to the beginning of this article, one message from report after report is the need for the integration of the efforts of climate science to meet the broader needs of the community. This is true for physical climate, where there is the need for integration of knowledge to provide predictive models for assessment of climate change. And, as those who decide to use the information from these models try to make decisions for their investments and their projects, there is a need for the integration of this information with many other sources of information – for example, how big does my drainage pipe need to be? How high should my levee be?
The reports call for better integration, but at the very basis of the culture of research and the use of the scientific method, we value most the rugged individualism of skepticism. How then is integration of research to address societal goals achieved?
If it were easy, if were simply a matter of making sure that all of the right pieces were built, then we would not have 25 years of reports with a cadence of “need more integration.” Perhaps the obvious answer - there needs to be a process or an organization that as a whole honors the principles of the scientific method. This requires, then, a process that builds trust among the individuals of the organization. It requires structuring of checking and validation in a form that supports the transfer of knowledge (and computer code) from one individual to another. It requires the development of validation strategies that test the combined knowledge, the combined algorithms, in a quantitative and repeatable way. This organization is far different than an organization that is comprised on many, individual, excellent scientists. Next, thinking about the scientific organization that we need.
r
Figure 1: Chaos and order, 2008 Galvanized wire, 60x60x60cm. Barbara Licha, Finalist of Willoughby Sculpture Prize 2009. (from Ultimo Project Studios)
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
"All those...scientists with their fancy-shmancy degrees in climatology"
Just how many of the scientists that you are referring to do you think actually have any sort of degree in "climatology"?
* * *
Added:
By the way, a happy Father's Day to all.
Quote:
Warmist ‘scientists’ and psuedo-scientists’ are quick to question the role of the sun and oceans in multi-decadal climate changes. You may hear them use La Ninas to explain away cool years and can’t wait for the New Year’s day to end when El Nino’s develop to predict the year will be the warmist ever. They will never admit to the multidecadal cycles in the oceans as these might explain some or most of the warming they want you to believe are the result to your driving SUVs and the burning coal and oil. While Joe Bastardi and I readily admit man has an affect on our climate through factors like urbanization, land use changes, the addition of aerosols, etc, we believe natural factors can’t be neglected. We use them in our forecasting. Let’s look at one of these natural drivers, the PDO today.
The “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) is a long-lived El Nino-like pattern of Pacific climate variability according to scientists at JISAO at the University of Washington.
“While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate (his dissertation topic with advisor Robert Francis).
Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO “events” persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO.
Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: “cool” PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while “warm” PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.”
The PDO index is derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean. It was found while researchers at the University of Washington were trying to find reasons why salmon fisheries exhibited a distinct multidecadal behavior.
The landmark paper can be found here: Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis,1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, pp 1069-1079.
Their abstract:
Evidence gleaned from the instrumental record of climate data identifies a robust, recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered over the mid-latitude Pacific basin. Over the past century, the amplitude of this climate pattern has varied irregularly at interannual-to-interdecadal time scales. There is evidence of reversals in the prevailing polarity of the oscillation occurring around 1925, 1947, and 1977; the last two reversals correspond with dramatic shifts in salmon production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. This climate pattern also affects coastal sea and continental surface air temperatures, as well as streamflow in major west coast river systems, from Alaska to California.
The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
The authors made no claim as to which (PDO or ENSO) was the chicken and which the egg.
“The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
Indeed you can see clearly they similarity of the ENSO and the PDO in ‘ocean temperature distribution’ in the two positive PDO Index and El Nino and negative PDO and La Nina.
This is due increased storminess and increased Cloud Cover that has moved over the Arctic.
What a professional at misrepresenting Joseph D'Aleo's statement!
Here, let's read this again, and more slowly, for reading comprehension purposes.
They will never admit to the multidecadal cycles in the oceans as these might explain some or most of the warming they want you to believe are the result to your driving SUVs and the burning coal and oil.
Essentially, Joe D'Aleo is saying here that they will never admit to saying that the oceans are largely responsible for the warming.
The AD anomaly was forecast to break down, (and it has begun to do so, which has led to less melt) and the pattern would become stormier and would consist of more clouds in the Arctic.
Of course, your rebuttal is an ad-hominem attack, which is not really much of a surprise.
Ding ding ding !
The Oceans rule in the end ~ let alone that cloud formation understanding problem.
2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions
Edit: The script lacks a rebuttal to such items, hence the re-posting of it.
That seems to fit some around these parts.
Quote:
"The new episode is a deep minimum. It will look similar to the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1620 to 1720...This new Grand Minimum will last until approximately 2100."
------
This is pretty big for Dr. C. De Jager to say, as he is a very prominent solar physicist within the scientific community, puclishing numerous studies on the solar effect on climate.
Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!
Joules Smoules whatever!
We are all guilty Capitalistic Imperialists.
We must repay the the world for our sins!
They're "Plan B" once Gore fell from grace once the data PROVING global warming came under doubt.
One way or another "Global Warming/Cooling/Change" will be shoved down our throats because third world countries want their global warming money and the only way to get it is for nations to acknowledge it and pay out. Africa alone wants $67 billion per year for global warming payments.
The Kyoto Treaty was based on total emissions, an overly simplistic metric that makes no provisions for the fact that the rate of population and economic growth country are unpredictable, and that these factors greatly impact greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Kyoto simply established national “caps” for emissions in each country. Those caps would not change if the country’s economy grew, remained stagnant or even if it shrank. As a result, high-growth countries such as Canada and Spain have not come close to meeting their emissions targets, whereas countries which have experienced economic contraction and population decline have easily met theirs.
Canada’s inability to meet its Kyoto commitment is not a source of national shame—it is the inevitable result of a flawed treaty which failed to recognize the relationship between population growth, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions.
Link
I wonder when China and India are signing up???
LOL! We are at record low levels now and you think the North Arctic is cooling now. LOL! Keep dreaming!
Hmmm. Can you find some articles from de Jager that are posted on a real peer-reviewed journal, not the pretend Journal of Cosmology? (As you know, if you've kept up with such things, the COJ has been widely derided as "a ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics") And nothing against C. de Jager himself--I'm sure he's a fine fellow--but he's 90 years old and hasn't been actively involved in his field for decades; someone who's kept abreast of changes in the field might be a better spokesman.
The fact is, of course, that the solar contribution to last century's warming was 10% or less. And, in fact, the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling effect, yet the planet has continued to blithely ignore that and warm up anyway.
There's
littleno doubt among scientists that the coming solar minimum will definitely not in and of itself induce an ice age, nor even a cooling period of any type; there's simply too much CO2 for that to happen.No, he wasn't; we disproved that a few days ago. He was, in fact, eerily dead-on in his prediction.
The planet is getting warmer, and warmer, and warmer...
Hansen was off for this year by only 60300000000000000000000 Joules!
perhaps, but "Mmmmmmm-bop" is a great song.....
except for those periods in planetary evolution where it gets colder, and colder, and colder..
Really? Then how did we go into an Ice Age 450 Million Years ago with 10X as much Carbon Dioxide?
Answer: Solar Activity was at record low levels.
So even with Carbon Dioxide levels being 10X as high as they are now, the Earth still went into an Ice Age because of the sun. How about that.
So this is what CAGW Advocates' rebuttals now consist of: "No it's not."
Where on Earth did I say the Arctic was cooling...??
Now, I realize the research was conducted by actual scientists with degrees and all, so some may choose to ignore it, but, still, it may be of interest to others:
Washington Post Article...
I sure hope the Little Ice Age Part II kicks in and reverse the course of things. C'mon, Solar Minimum!!!
Having fun and a good give and take here.
I resign to using my energy/time casting my next vote.
As opposed to beating my head against libs that twist tax rates via changeable GDP %s.
Seems like making a simple point about GDP is beyond Socialist comprehension.
Just like punching a ballot
in Palm Beach county.
The libs in Palm Beach still dont comprehend the directions on the ballot.
(Check your vote to make sure it lines up with your candidate and you have punched the ballot completely).
Thank God forming a paragraph
ON A BLOG!
Is what the voters in Palm Beach are concentrating on.
Or for that matter,the outnumbered libs in Collier county!
You (my friend) may find it important to use proper composition on a blog.
But your cohorts on the other coast cant punch a hole in a paper ballot!
Good luck in 2012!
Snicker!
Anyway, here's more of that "Socialist" science stuff for those who care about such things:
Reuters Article...
Read more:
Link
Somali Pirates Disrupt Fishing Industry, Increase Fish Stocks
Link
Catch Limits in 12 fish stocks increasing May 1.
The stocks include Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder and Gulf of Maine cod.
The Associated Press
PORTLAND %u2014 A year after shifting to a new system for regulating New England fisheries, federal officials are increasing limits on 12 out of 20 groundfish stocks when the new season begins May 1.
Higher catch limits will be a relief for fishermen who saw across-the-board restrictions last year, when fishermen were first allowed to join "sectors" with specific allotments. This year, about half of fishermen will use that system, while the remainder will face restrictions on the number of days at sea.
Marjorie Mooney-Seus from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service says bigger catch limits for 11 stocks including Georges Bank cod and Gulf of Maine cod are due to successful efforts to rebuild stocks. Higher limits on the 12th, Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, were negotiated with Canada.
Link
http://students.umf.maine.edu/katie.l.thomas/publ ic.www/Oceans%20Webpage/Atlantic%20Ocean/fish.JPG
The supposed "humiliating climbdown" to which your ten-month-old report refers has proven to be anything but, of course; numerous follow-up studies have shown that a) the oil did not simply dissipate and b) it's had a grave effect on Gulf seafood.
From the Wikipedia entry on the oil spill (and you can find all the references there):
"The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries. In late November 2010, 4,200 square miles of the Gulf were re-closed to shrimping after tar balls were found in shrimpers' nets. The amount of Louisiana shoreline affected by oil grew from 287 miles in July to 320 miles in late November 2010. In January 2011, an oil spill commissioner reported that tar balls continue to wash up, oil sheen trails are seen in the wake of fishing boats, wetlands marsh grass remains fouled and dying, and that crude oil lies offshore in deep water and in fine silts and sands onshore. A research team found oil on the bottom of the seafloor in late February 2011 that did not seem to be degrading."
Hardly the rosy, non-science, anti-logical "pollution is good!" blather printed in the Mail, is it?
At any rate, the BP spill was just one of many assaults on the aquatic environment discussed in the article to which I linked. Bad stuff, it is. Bad, bad stuff...
As for fish stocks rebounding due to underfishing caused by the presence of Somali pirates, that illustrates just how badly mankind is doing. And in reference to the changes that are allowing Atlantic cod to rebound, I'd call that yet another success story highlighting the need for continued government regulation; left to their own devices and greed, many people simply can't be trusted to be good stewards.
Saw nothing at all untoward.
I love me some yellowfin. (Or used to.) But from what I recall, YFT are top dwellers, so they wouldn't be hanging around down in the deep where the oil reportedly remains thick and nasty. Glad you had a successful outing, but, of course, a "clean" catch in one area isn't necessarily indicative of the same thing elsewhere.
At any rate, the world's seas are
I suppose we'll find out sooner or later.
Thank you WUWT for showing us the truth about them.
Saving the world and the ocean, one activist opinion at a time, another NGO flap, this one duped global media
thanks....
One can generally read the depths of Watts' despair over any particular bit of environmental news by the amount of knee-jerk shouting he starts doing. This is a great case in point: a group of knowledgeable and dedicated scientists from different disciplines get together to discuss what they're seeing--and all the failed TV weatherman can do in response is throw yet another thousand-word tantrum?
Oh, well. I'm sure in AW's little sheltered corner of the world, the oceans can be treated like a bottomless garbage pit into which can be dumped decades worth of fertilizers, petrochemicals, and refuse--along with startling heat--and yet nothing will ever harm fish stocks. The thing is, though, anyone with even a modicum of common sense can tell you that's simply not possible.
The oceans are dying, Anthony. Say what you will, but there's far more evidence to support IPSO's conclusion than there is to support yours...
One has to be really desperate if they are going to cite the Mann paper. Their basis for this claim that sea levels are rising the fastest ever recorded? Two stations off the coast of North Carolina. As we have previously discussed, you can not take one or two stations and say that this is the Global Average. It doesn't work like that.
Even worse, when one looks at the actual data, instead of Mann's infamous smoothed data, you see that the rate of Sea Level change has not increased in North Carolina.
Interestingly, the Mann paper shows that there was now a Warm Period near the year 1000, which his infamous "Hockey Stick" does not show.
It appears that either you or the site from which you received your information is mistaken. Here's the text from Eurekalert:
"To reconstruct sea level, the scientists used microfossils called foraminifera preserved in sediment cores extracted from coastal salt marshes in North Carolina. The age of the cores was estimated using radiocarbon dating and other techniques. To test the validity of their approach, the team compared its reconstructions with tide-gauge measurements from North Carolina for the past 80 years, and global tide-gauge records for the past 300 years. A second reconstruction from Massachusetts confirmed their findings."
As you can plainly see, phrases such as "from Massachusetts" and "global tide-gauge records" contradict the "two stations off the coast of North Carolina" claim, so someone may want to take a different tack where that's concerned.
As to the graph you posted from the "Steven Goddard" site, it seems to be lacking context. That is, is it supposed to be showing global sea level? Hemispherical? Regional? I can only say this: there's definitely an upward trend since 1935 or so (when the chart begins)--which is right in line with the original articles findings.
The planet's warm, and getting warmer. Watts Up With That? ;-)
( shakes head )
for that, you deserve a time out....
this is what it would look like if we actually knew:
__---___---___---___---___
up down up down up down up
Okay, so they compared two stations in North Carolina to one station in Massacusetts to verify their findings... again, that can not be represented as Global data, because it is only 3 stations near the Atlantic Ocean!
Here's a few for Massachusetts... Sea Level clearly accelerated in Boston MA in the earlier part of this graph, faster than now.
Boston, MA
Martha's Vineyard- no acceleration at all.
Evidently, Mann's "smoothed" data that results in a Hockey Stick, can NOT be compared to Global Data.
I have one question for you- how can there be Global Tidal Records in Massachusetts, if it is only one point near the Atlantic Ocean?
I think I'm Skeptical about this "Science." :)
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index