Even if a program does what it’s supposed to, it still may be a lot less useful than a program that does the same thing but is well structured and commented.
The latter is much easier to analyze for conceptual problems and a lot easier to maintain and modify. It’s also a lot easier to incorporate part or all of it into other programs.
Not if they are expected to be phased off in a few years because they did deal with specific electronic items. Instead of checking for pretty code, the way to check for accuracy was then a “simple” one, you got a sample board that had the same circuits as the chip to be tested, if the program did not came up with the limits and voltage that were detected point by point, it was back to the programmer that could make a change or start from scratch, if the program came with the correct information, then it was sent to the testing floor. (this is a bit simplistic, of course some code was reused and documentation was appreciated, when available)
Seems to me climate models have a similar rate of change and issues, and that is because the resolution and sources of the data are changing, not to mention the quality of it since the latest climate missions come now with V&V included.
uh-huh.
If that’s really the case, there’s no reason not to release the code since it will be quickly obsolete anyway.
Uh-huh, and of course here we see that the explanations (that even I do not agree with, but they are reasonable anyhow) of why they do not release the code, fell on deaf ears in this case.
Unless there’s some incomprehensible explanation buried in one of your posts, that’s not true.
**jshore ** explained that several times already, you do not have the excuse of trying to decode me. 
“six sigma”
Which of jshore explanations have fallen on deaf ears then? Please just quote them.
Still doesn’t make any sense to me.
Pathetic, and only a few pages before you had the ability to go back and find past information.
Of course you may be right on this one, it was just a different way to say once again that “the usefulness of a program does not depend on the quality of how it was written.” with more emphasis on the quality.
There was another reason why I did select that example, trying to apply a quality control system in a shop that is already working properly, can paradoxically interrupt or affect the job in a negative way.
Sorry, but I’m not gonna do your research for you. You claim that jshore has offered explanations for the failure to release code that were not considered or responded to.
I don’t think that any such explanations exist, but if they do, I am happy to consider them now.
But it’s up to you to cite and quote them.
I’m not responding to the rest of your post because I don’t understand what your point is.
That is ok, it was not really directed at you specifically, it is just that the overal effort has concentrated in discrediting the research based on the idea that checking the coding in the computer models will reveal something bad or nefarious. I don’t think so, there are more mundane reasons why the coding would look bad. And still work.
That’s all the more reason to release it.
Well, it is always good to be honest about what you know and don’t know. However, claiming that we know nothing when we actually do know something if not everything can be as bad as the opposite extreme. And, that was indeed the tactic of the tobacco industry that was very effective and has been duplicated by others who seek to make the public doubt the evidence that scientists present us of real risks.
And, another point is that uncertainty cuts both ways. You essentially want to bet “the farm” on the proposition that a few scientists who think that the IPCC view is overstated are right and most of the field is wrong. However, another possibility is that some…if not many…of the uncertainties will “break” in the other direction. I.e., that scientists will learn to their dismay that their models are too conservative in some ways and changes can happen much more rapidly than they predict. This is what seems to be taking place in the field of those studying the melting and disintegration of the ice sheets as this article in the popular press discusses (and is, of course, one of the things that Hansen has been warning us about for several years now).
jshore, as always, your posts are thought-provoking. Let me clarify my position.
I do not say that we know nothing. I do say that the climate is immensely complex, and we do not understand it well enough to trust our simplistic, parameterized models.
We have good reasons from physics to reasonably believe that increasing CO2 will increase temperature. We do not know whether a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of 0.5°, or 1.5°, or 5°.
Before we are ready to take action, we need to answer the questions I posed earlier in this thread:
While it is very tempting to say “we know enough to act now”, unfortunately, we don’t. Clouds are arguably the largest forcing of our climate, and as the IPCC points out, we don’t know how to model clouds on physical principles. Until we can do so, claiming that the climate models are based on physical principles is childish foolishness. Yes, I know the modelers don’t say so … but then, I wouldn’t expect them to, they’d be out of a job … see Seductive Simulations for a discussion of this effect.
Another example, there is plenty of evidence that some unknown but large amount of the Arctic warming is due to soot (black carbon) on the white snow and ice. How much will reducing CO2 help that? Not at all.
Another example. The observational evidence for the effect of changes in what is called LULC (land use/land cover) on temperature is stronger than the observational evidence for the effect of CO2. How much of the current temperature rise is due to LULC? We don’t know. But it is clear that the effect of LU/LC changes will not be affected by changing CO2 levels.
Finally, it is not clear that rising temperatures will be a net problem. The main change in temperatures has occurred in the temperate zones, in winter, at night. I have a hard time believing that will be a big problem. The main issue people talk about is an increase in the rate of sea level rise.
But sea levels have shown no sign of any increase. In addition, sea levels rose from 8" - 18" in various parts of the world during the 20th century. Somehow that hasn’t made it into the list of the megadisasters of the last 100 years …
Thus, we are still a long ways from answering all the parts of question #4 above, viz:
You want to bet the farm on an incredibly expensive attack on one of many possible causes for what may not be a problem. Setting aside the fact that the attack may not work (see Kyoto for an example), the climate has been warming for the last three centuries. Thank goodness you weren’t around in 1650, you would have been predicting megadisasters from the upcoming warming … but the warming happened and there were no disasters, it was a net benefit.
Sorry, my friend, but I don’t buy it. You sound like Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s forecasting global starvation from the “Population Bomb” … I’ve heard the strident tones, and the predictions of imminent disaster, too many times to buy into it without serious scientific evidence that a) humans are causing the warming, b) how we’re causing it, c) exactly how the warming will be a problem, and d) a cost-effective way to solve it. To date, we don’t have scientific evidence to settle any, much less all, of those questions.
Until we have that, we have a lot of problems in the world that are crying out for immediate solutions. Some of these solutions, such as doing teaching and extension of drought-resistant farming techniques, are “no-regrets” options – they solve a current problem and at the same time help insulate us against future climate change. In addition, the “three R’s”, reduce, reuse, and recycle, do the same thing – they help us whether or not climate change is a problem.
That, plus lots of further study of what is an incredibly complex system, the climate of the planet, are what I would advise. Until we have identified the existence of a problem, and the cause(s) of the problem, and a cost-effective solution, “betting the farm” on anything is foolish.
My best to you, jshore, and to everyone.
w.
PS - regarding your press release about changes in the Greenland ice melting rate, you have to stop depending on the popular media, and take a hard look at the study. And even then, you have to look, not at the story that the scientist is trying to push, but at the fine print. The study in question, for example, says:
As I have said many times, and as this quote clearly points out, we lack certainty and consensus about most parts of the climate … I see this as a scientific challenge rather than a problem, but we would be foolish to ignore it and claim that the science is settled.
Thanks for your stimulating post, intention.
Well, these are exactly the sort of questions that are dealt with by the three working groups of the IPCC. The first two are addressed by the first working group. The third is addressed by the second working group. And, the last is addressed by the third working group.
While there certainly remain uncertainties, all of the questions have been answered with sufficient detail that most reputable scientific bodies have concluded that in fact we should act now. You, of course, have struggled to come up with reasons why they are wrong and you are right, but I don’t really find such arguments very compelling.
I am not betting the farm. I am suggesting that we start to take some reasonable steps to reverse the steadily increasing emissions. Is it really an extreme position to argue that there should be a direct cost associated with using our atmosphere as a free sewer when there is significant evidence that it really does have a detrimental effect?
As for the warming of the last few centuries, that was mild compared to the warming predicted…or even that which would occur if the rate of warming over the last 3 decades continues. It is a rate of warming of almost 2 C per century, which will rapidly take us to a climate that we haven’t seen on this planet for millions of years…In fact, a climate that homo sapiens have never even experienced. And, the rate is so rapid that it will cause significant additional stresses on species that are already stressed by pollution, fragmented habitat, and the like.
Well, you have to distinguish between predictions of a single scientist and those of a very large number of scientists. You should be wary of concluding that when the most extreme prediction doesn’t come true, that means there is no problem. For example, just because we have been able to deal with the population growth up to this point…and that the worst predictions of those who thought we would already be in deep trouble have not come to pass…it does not follow that overpopulation is nothing to worry about!
Humans have a tendency to do this. Just look at the tech market bubble and the housing bubble. There were those who were warning that the bubbles would burst but then as we went on longer and longer without it bursting, those who thought it could go on forever felt more and more vindicated. (Perhaps it is no coincidence that one of the authors of the infamous “Dow 36,000” book, James Glassman, now runs Tech Central Station, a libertarian website that is a big pusher of doubt on AGW.)
I also find it interesting that, while you are so careful to avoid “predictions of imminent disaster,” you seem to rather uncritically accept the dire predictions of economic hardship that opponents of action on AGW put out.
Well, I agree that such problems need attention to. However, it is not an “either…or” thing. As for a “no-regrets” approach, I would say that your approach is one that will lead to major regrets unless the scientific consensus on AGW turns out to be wrong.
On the other hand, an approach of starting to stabilize and eventually reduce our emissions is one with almost “no regrets” except perhaps if you are a coal company or an oil company (although many of the latter now seem to accept the need to take action). After all, our supplies of fossil fuels are finite so we will have to eventually wean ourselves off of them anyway. The question is simply whether we put the economic incentives in place to do so now and, in so doing, actually wean ourselves off of them before we have significantly altered our climate (and perhaps acidified our oceans)…Or, do we wait until scarcity does the job for us. [A third alternative is that we wait and then when the scientific of evidence of the need to take action gets even stronger, we act…but are forced to act much more precipitously because we have postponed taking action for so long.]
Furthermore, it is not as if we are proposing that we destroy the stocks of coal and oil that exist. If twenty years from now, we discover that more than doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere is no big problem at all, these stocks of cheap fuel will be waiting patiently for us to dig them up and use them!
Well, I guess we view things very differently. I don’t believe in imposing solutions on the world. I believe in giving the markets the proper incentives through either taxes or emissions caps so that they find the most cost-effective solutions.
The climate system is indeed incredibly complex…and we know that our emissions of greenhouse gases are a significant perturbation to that system. Therefore, I (along with most of the scientific community) believe that the wise approach is to make a reasonable effort to minimize this perturbation. I like the statement of paleoclimate researcher Wally Broecker says something like, “The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with a large stick.”
Your approach seems to be to hope that this perturbation ends up to be a smaller one than the weight of the scientific evidence so far suggests…or to hope that what problems we do produce can be solved by adaptation. This is an approach so extreme that it is even becoming increasingly difficult to find oil companies and power companies that support it!
My best to you too. I do enjoy our discussions.
Actually, what I linked to was an article, not a press release, and it was a discussion of the thinking of scientists currently studying the melting in Greenland. I see no evidence that it was based specifically on the particular study that you quoted. At any rate, it seems that all the recent (post 2000) data from Greenland indicates significant net ice loss (see here). However, regardless of what the current balance is, I think the main point of the article that I linked to is that scientists are seeing that the disintegration of ice sheets can happen by processes that are potentially much quicker than their simple models of the system account for. This is an example of an uncertainty that may well “break” the other way from the way you like to emphasize…i.e., where it may turn out that the predictions are too conservative.
I would also point out that you should remember to apply the same critiquing skills that you bring to articles supporting AGW to articles that you feel in some way support your more skeptical view. For example, in this thread (post #60), you linked to a popular press article based on study (or a few studies)…and I think you quite uncritically accepted that the study’s conclusions were applicable very broadly even though the study seemed to be quite intently focussed on the sort of purely statistical studies done, for example, in medicine.
Well, I’m not claiming that the science is settled in the sense that we know everything that we want to know and that we should stop doing further research. Far from it! And, in fact, I am quite concerned that the Bush Administration is cutting back some important NASA missions that would help us better understand some of the very issues that you have raised:
Perhaps trying to pressure the Bush Administration not to cut such important scientific projects is an approach that we could both agree on!
However, what I am arguing against (as is most of the scientific community) is the idea that we should endlessly research the problem before starting to take any actions toward mitigation based on what we have learned so far.
jshore, your detailed and informative response convinces me that we will just have to agree to disagree about this. However, a few points require a response.
You seem to think that the IPCC has answered the questions I listed … yeah, right … like the IPCC supported “Hockeystick” answered the questions about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. After that fiasco, it amazes me that anyone believes the IPCC’s procedures are scientifically sound. They seem to specialize in irreproducible results.
Next, you say:
I have responded in that thread, pointing out that, like in medicine, most climate studies (i.e. the Hockeystick) are also “purely statistical”.
My favorite line of yours, however, was this one:
So the Kyoto Protocol and other “emission caps” are not an imposed solution? I guess you’ll have to give us your definition of an “imposed solution”, and explain why Kyoto is not one. To me, you are imposing a solution called “lower the CO2”, when we don’t know if rising temperatures to 1998 are from LU/LC, black carbon, CO2, cosmic rays, or natural variation. How is forcing some factory in Spain to reduce CO2 emissions not an “imposed solution”? Because they choose the method? That’s like saying “We’re going to sentence you to death, but we’re not going to impose a solution, because you can choose between hanging, electrocution, or the firing squad.”
I do agree with you about several things, however. The first is that I greatly appreciate your contributions to the discussion. They are always interesting and provocative.
The other is that money spent on basic science is generally money well spent. Before we can draw conclusions, we need data, no matter what field of science we are interested in. Cancelling satellite missions is very foolish.
However, in my opinion Bush is one of the worst, stupidest, and most destructive Presidents we have ever had, so I don’t have much hope that he will do any better in the field of science than in the Iraq occupation … but I digress.
In any case, I’m going to leave this thread at that, along with my sincere appreciation for the tone, the content, and the quality of your contributions to the thread.
Best regards,
w.
I gotta agree with the OP Global warming. It’s become more of a faith to some people than a scientific study.
Well, if you just dismiss the IPCC, there is little to talk about since just about everyone in the scientific community recognizes those reports as being the best and most comprehensive summary of the peer-reviewed literature that is available.
I responded to your response. I think the only way to resolve this would be for you to take the specific ways that the authors of those studies describe that most research findings in the epidemological medical field turn out to be false and explain how they actually apply to climate science studies.
It sets caps on emissions of total greenhouse gases (in CO2-warming-potential equivalents). It does not even say what mix of reductions in the different gases must be achieved. And, it certainly does not try to impose certain technological solutions to achieve them.
That provides a lot of flexibility for the market to come up with the most economical way to meet these caps. I have quite a bit of confidence in the market to come up with efficient solutions if given the right incentives.
I agree.
Glad to hear you say that.
You certainly won’t get any argument from me on this point!
Thanks…As always, I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you.
Deleted
jshore, you say:
Oh, I see, the consensus argument again. People who believe in global warming believe in the IPCC, and majority rules, so the IPCC must be right … yeah, that’s the scientific method in a nutshell. I must ask again, are you sure you are a scientist?
If so, please give me the name of any scientific organization that writes the summary of a technical report first, with politicians and bureaucrats having a vote on the conclusions to be reported in the summary, and then changes the technical sections of the report to agree with the summary.
To me, that’s not science … that’s the IPCC. I don’t “just dismiss” the IPCC. I reject them because they do not follow scientific principles.
Even the NAS faulted the IPCC for giving prominence to the “Hockeystick” when it was only a few months out of the box, and had never been checked or duplicated. Doesn’t seem like the NAS thought much of the IPCC “science” in that case …
Or how about the IPCC being the only major international organization to use MER accounting in place of the universally accepted PPP accounting method for economic projections. Perhaps you could explain how that is oh so scientific? You might think that the fact that MER accounting leads to larger projections of warming is a coincidence … me, I’m tired of those kinds of “coincidences”.
How about the IPCC refusing to accept Paul Reiter, one of the world’s foremost experts on vector borne diseases who had previously participated as a member of the IPCC report crew, and replacing him in the “Diseases” section of the IPCC team with a man whose expertise is in fossilized excrement? Why? Because he didn’t agree with the “consensus”, so they dis-invited him …
How about Chris Landsea leaving the IPCC, saying:
Is he one of the scientists that you mention above as supporting the IPCC, one of the people who thinks the IPCC is scientific rather than political?
Man, you couldn’t make this stuff up. The IPCC is scientific only in the sense that a primary school science class is scientific … their subject matter is science. Other than the subject matter, they are a political body that does a politicized job of summarizing the evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, while giving lip service to the scientists like Paul Reiter and Chris Landsea who disagree with them.
w.
That is not a very fair description of the process. Yes, in order to have a report that all the countries feel belongs to them, there is a meeting where a panel of the scientific authors of the report go over the summary for policymakers with representatives from all the countries. These representatives get to ask questions and suggest changes to make it clearer or otherwise come to agreement that it is presented fairly. However, the panel of scientific authors ensures that the changes do not change the scientific content (at least in any way that is not justified in their view). Subsequent to that, the authors do insure that there is consistency between wording in the report itself and the summary.
Is it the most ideal method in the world? Well, maybe not. However, do you have any evidence that there have been drastic changes to the report made after the haggling over the summary has occurred? Furthermore, do you have evidence that most of the changes are making the report more “alarmist” as opposed to more “skeptical” or conservative?
The fact is that while scientists don’t take the IPCC as revealed gospel, they do generally take it as the most comprehensive summary of the field that is available and it is one of the first references in many if not most climate science papers that appear in the literature.
Well, you are welcome to do whatever you like. However, what you are going to end up doing is pretty much condemning yourself into irrelevance as the rest of the scientific community and the world at large passes you by.
This is already occurring as evidenced by the fact that it seems like most of the oil and power companies no longer subscribe to the “skeptics’” position on climate change.
Well, since you haven’t given a reference for this, it is hard to comment upon. But, I am willing to believe that they may have made this one criticism. However, the NAS seems capable of distinguishing between goodness and absolute perfection. So, while they may not think the IPCC is absolutely perfect, they do think it gives a good summary of the state of the science and they signed on to this joint academies statement noting and accepting the conclusions of the IPCC.
Well, the full letter from Landsea is here. Landsea may be a good scientist but he also seems not to play well with others, at least in this case. He basically demanded that the IPCC remove a lead author, Kevin Trenberth, of one of the chapters in the IPCC AR4 report and explicitly disassociate themselves from what Trenberth had said in a press conference because he felt it was not an accurate representation of the science. When the IPCC did not do this, he quit the process. However, the question is whether his demands were reasonable. I would argue that they were extremely unreasonable for the following reasons:
(1) Landsea said the Trenberth was saying things that did not have support from the previous IPCC report. However, Trenberth was talking about a rapidly changing field (how global warming affects hurricane intensity) in which papers were being published…or were soon to be published… that did support Trenberth’s point-of-view.
(2) Landsea argued that because Trenberth had been identified, among other things, as a lead author on the IPCC report, this amounted to him speaking for the IPCC and thus the IPCC had to disassociate themselves from his comments. However, the IPCC rightly noted that people regularly note that they have served as authors of the IPCC report and are not taken to be speaking for the IPCC. In fact, Richard Lindzen does so quite regularly when propagating his skeptical views. To my knowledge, the IPCC has never issued statements disassociating themselves from his views even when he has made some pretty silly statements…and I never saw Landsea complaining about this.
In short, the Landsea spat is much ado about nothing.