Quote:

7. Removed 4-line header from a couple of .glo files and loaded them into
Matlab. Reshaped to 360r x 720c and plotted; looks OK for global temp
(anomalies) data. Deduce that .glo files, after the header, contain data
taken row-by-row starting with the Northernmost, and presented as '8E12.4'.
The grid is from -180 to +180 rather than 0 to 360.
This should allow us to deduce the meaning of the co-ordinate pairs used to
describe each cell in a .grim file (we know the first number is the lon or
column, the second the lat or row - but which way up are the latitudes? And
where do the longitudes break?
There is another problem: the values are anomalies, wheras the 'public'
.grim files are actual values. So Tim's explanations (in _READ_ME.txt) are
incorrect..

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming
two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

Quote:

The deduction so far is that the DTR-derived CLD is waaay off. The DTR looks OK, well
OK in the sense that it doesn;t have prominent bands! So it's either the factors and
offsets from the regression, or the way they've been applied in dtr2cld.

Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!! I can only assume that I was being interrupted continually when
I was writing this thing. Running with those bits fixed improved matters somewhat,
though now there's a problem in that one 5-degree band (10S to 5S) has no stations! This
will be due to low station counts in that region, plus removal of duplicate values.

Last modified: 2009-11-21 01:43:45 by asimov

Quote:

So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet
both contain monthly files.

Quote:

Edit: have just located a 'cld' directory in Mark New's disk, containing
over 2000 files. Most however are binary and undocumented..

Quote:

The conclusion of a lot of investigation is that the synthetic cloud grids
for 1901-1995 have now been discarded. This means that the cloud data prior
to 1996 are static.
...
Eventually find fortran (f77) programs to convert sun to cloud:
...
There are also programs to convert sun parameters:
...
For 1901 to 1995 - stay with published data. No clear way to replicate
process as undocumented.

For 1996 to 2002:
...
This should approximate the correction needed.

On we go.. firstly, examined the spc database.. seems to be in % x10.
Looked at published data.. cloud is in % x10, too.
First problem: there is no program to convert sun percentage to
cloud percentage. I can do sun percentage to cloud oktas or sun hours
to cloud percentage! So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.

Examined the program that converts sun % to cloud oktas. It is
complicated! Have inserted a line to multiple the result by 12.5 (the
result is in oktas*10 and ranges from 0 to 80, so the new result will
range from 0 to 1000).

Next problem - which database to use? The one with the normals included
is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so
obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases). The non
normals databases are either Jan 03 (in the '_ateam' directory) or
Dec 03 (in the regular database directory). The newer database is
smaller! So more weeding than planting in 2003. Unfortunately both
databases contain the 6190 normals line, just unpopulated. So I will
go with the 'spc.0312221624.dtb' database, and modify the already-
modified conversion program to process the 6190 line.

Then - comparing the two candidate spc databases:

spc.0312221624.dtb
spc.94-00.0312221624.dtb

I find that they are broadly similar, except the normals lines (which
both start with '6190') are very different. I was expecting that maybe
the latter contained 94-00 normals, what I wasn't expecting was that
thet are in % x10 not %! Unbelievable - even here the conventions have
not been followed. It's botch after botch after botch. Modified the
conversion program to process either kind of normals line.

Decided to go with the 'spc.94-00.0312221624.dtb' database, as it
hopefully has some of the 94-00 normals in. I just wish I knew more.

Conversion was hampered by the discovery that some stations have a mix
of % and % x10 values! So more mods to Hsp2cldp_m.for. Then conversion,
producing cldfromspc.94000312221624.dtb. Copied the .dts file across
as is, not sure what it does unfortunately (or can't remember!).

Quote:

These are very promising. The vast majority in both cases are within 0.5
degrees of the published data. However, there are still plenty of values
more than a degree out.

Quote:

TMP has a comforting 95%+ within half a degree, though one still wonders
why it isn't 100% spot on..

Quote:

DTR fares perhaps even better, over half are spot-on, though about
7.5% are outside a half.

Quote:

However, it's not such good news for precip (PRE):
...
Percentages: 13.93 25.65 11.23 49.20

21. A little experimentation goes a short way..

I tried using the 'stn' option of anomdtb.for. Not completely sure what
it's supposed to do, but no matter as it didn't work:

Last modified: 2009-11-21 01:59:30 by asimov

Quote:

..knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment
endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally
undocumented so we'll never know what we lost.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..

Quote:

Talk about cluster****. This whole file is a HUGE ASS example of it. If they deal with data this way, there's no ****ing wonder they've lost **** along they way. This is just unbelievable.

Quote:

The IDL gridding program calculates whether or not a
station contributes to a cell, using.. graphics. Yes, it plots the station sphere of influence then
checks for the colour white in the output. So there is no guarantee that the station number files,
which are produced *independently* by anomdtb, will reflect what actually happened!!

Well I've just spent 24 hours trying to get Great Circle Distance calculations working in Fortran,
with precisely no success. I've tried the simple method (as used in Tim O's geodist.pro, and the
more complex and accurate method found elsewhere (wiki and other places). Neither give me results
that are anything near reality. FFS.

Worked out an algorithm from scratch. It seems to give better answers than the others, so we'll go
with that.
...
The problem is, really, the huge numbers of cells potentially involved in one station, particularly at high latitudes.
...
out of malicious interest, I dumped the first station's
coverage to a text file and counted up how many cells it 'influenced'. The station was at 10.6E, 61.0N.
The total number of cells covered was a staggering 476!

Quote:

Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.0

Quote:

Climate change and the Christian

Is global warming the end of the world or media scare-mongering?

Global warming is often seen as either the end of the world as we know it, or as mere media scare-mongering. Which is right?

Could it be that I, a respectable Christian, am partly to blame? Might I need to change the way I live? Before we search for climate changes, we ought first to understand what it is that might be changing.

The climate system is made up of the earth's atmosphere, oceans, ice, vegetation, and streams. It is both beautiful and complex. Humans have a mandate to forecast its behaviour and use it (Genesis 1:28). However, we feel in awe of its destructive potential, seen in such things as hurricanes and floods, which are part of the curse inflicted upon the earth following the Fall (Genesis 3.17). Moreover, control and certainty belong to God alone (Job 38-41). So there is a possibility that our actions may affect the climate system in unexpected ways. It was claimed in the 1970s that the earth might be about to enter an ice age. The evidence for this was minimal, but the decades of painstaking research that have followed the 1970s have unveiled both the natural variability in the climate system, and the dramatic effects of human actions.

To assemble a record of global climate changes over the last 150 years we use instrumental records, such as rain gauges and thermometers. Since it is only recently that such instruments have been widely used, to reconstruct climate changes prior to the 19th century we are compelled to use indirect sources of information, such as tree ring widths and ice core layers.

Using this mixture of data, we have assembled global temperature records for the last millennium. There is much natural variability throughout the records, but there is also a 20th-century rise in global temperature that is unprecedented in its magnitude and rate of change. Is it merely a coincidence that this global warming has come at the same time as the huge expansion in human population and industrialisation that we have seen in the 20th century?
Climate gases

It is conceivable that humans could alter the behaviour of the climate system by polluting it. The more relevant pollutants of the atmosphere may be divided into three groups: greenhouse gases, aerosols, and ozone-destroying chemicals. Although the destruction of ozone and the 'ozone holes' play their part in global warming, it is a comparatively minor part. Ozone holes are more directly important for their potential biological damage to living cells and human skin, which is beyond the scope of this article.

The role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is to absorb energy (in the form of infra-red radiation) that would otherwise be lost from the earth, and so maintain the warmth of the earth. Greenhouse gases are nothing new, but the amount of carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution. The increase is mainly due to land use changes, and the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, petrol, diesel) in power stations, transport, homes, and industry. The vast majority of the increase has come from the West. It is to be expected that increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect, and so warm the earth.

Aerosols, the third group, are microscopic airborne particles that result from burning of fossil fuels. They are different from the greenhouse gases in a number of ways: they act to cool the earth; they are short-lived; and they are concentrated in regions. However, the cooling from aerosols is unlikely to offset the warming from greenhouse gases.
Climate models

Exploring the possibility that humans are warming the earth uses climate models run on some of the world's most powerful computers. Findings show that although solar, volcanic, and oceanic forces upon climate have been important, they are not sufficient to explain the warming of the 20th century. It is only when we include human pollution that we can explain the magnitude, rate, and pattern of change. Consequently, the consensus among scientists is that 'the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate'.
Climate futures

At present the effect of human pollution on climate is relatively small. However, humans are polluting the earth at an ever-increasing rate. So unless substantive positive action is taken soon, the effects of human pollution on climate will become very great. Moreover, due to the time lags in the climate system, even our present actions are having consequences that our grandchildren will still be feeling. We are already committed to seeing global sea levels rise by half a metre during the 21st century. This is quite apart from the unknown risk of a catastrophic collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet. Our best estimate of global warming during the 21st century is 2 degrees C, which far exceeds the record increase of 0.4-0.6 degrees C in the 20th century. The exact climatic effects in any one region will depend strongly on how the global changes affect the circulations of the atmosphere and the oceans, and are difficult to predict. It is also uncertain how climatic extremes - such as hurricanes - will change. What is certain is that environments and humans will be affected the world over. There is no evidence to support tabloid headlines anticipating a Costa del Bognor or the end of the world as we know it, but neither will the impacts be small. On BBC Radio 4's 'Costing the Earth' programme in January, the Bangladeshi Environment Minister mentioned the expected global sea level rise. She explained that crowded Bangladesh expects to lose around 20% of its land to sea level rises. She noted that this would make 20 million people homeless, and stated that it would be the responsibility of the rich of the world to find room for them, since it is the rich who have polluted the earth. Bangladesh is an extreme example, but there will be an abundance of difficult consequences of climate change.
Climate politics

The issues involved are serious, and of global concern. Consequently, in 1988 the IPCC (the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) was set up to advise all countries of the latest scientific findings. The IPCC produces consensus reports that represent agreement between thousands of scientists worldwide, and have an authority that individual scientists cannot hold. Guided by these reports, 180 countries have ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), which aims at the 'stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'. The convention has no power except persuasion. However, in 1997 the Kyoto protocol was signed in which it was agreed that, relative to 1990 levels, there should be a 5% cut in annual emissions of greenhouse gases by the period 2008-2012. This does not mean that all is now well.

Firstly, thus far the Kyoto protocol has only been signed, not ratified, and there is substantial doubt as to whether the key player (the USA) will ratify it. Secondly, a 5% cut is a minor cut, not the major cut that is required. Thirdly, the cut is in emissions, not in atmospheric concentrations, and so only slows down the rate at which concentrations are increasing. Fourthly, it is one matter to agree to a cut, it is another matter to implement it. The UK Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, has described the Kyoto protocol as 'a first, modest, faltering step' .

There is no perfect level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and there is no perfect global temperature. Both vary naturally. However, the changes we are introducing through our pollution are morally questionable because of their consequences. Put simply, in the rich part of the world we have polluted in order to get rich. Yet the most severe consequences are likely to fall upon the poor, because they usually cannot afford to adapt. This introduces two parallel ethical issues.

Firstly, now that we know the consequences, should we continue to pollute? Secondly, given that we may be responsible for hurting our fellow humans, should we help them? To my mind, the Scriptures are clear. Humans are stewards, not masters, of God's creation (Genesis 2.15), and one day we will have to account for our stewardship (Luke 19.11-27). While it is not wrong to change the atmosphere, it is wrong to change it more than we need, certainly if it is at the expense of poor people. Making money at the expense of the weak is condemned (Luke 20.47), and to assist the weak is praised (James 1.27). Yet continuing as we are will make us richer at the expense of the poor. Given that we have stolen from the poor of the world by our pollution, we might learn from Zacchaeus (Luke 19.8). In our selfish world, each state pursues its own interests.

Oil-producing states lobby for unrestricted combustion of fossil fuels. Rich states only accept reductions in greenhouse gases that will not hurt their economic interests. Poor countries demand free help from the rich. Christians in politics ought not to think in this way.
Climate action

What can individual Christians do? Some, but not many, are called to be scientists and politicians. However, we all have the vote, and environmental issues ought to be among those that we weigh up carefully before casting our vote. We are also each responsible for a small part of the daily emissions of greenhouse gases. Do we use our energy-intensive cars wisely? Are we guilty of worldly attitudes to public transport? With domestic heating and insulation, do we spend more and pollute more than is necessary? The government urges us to reduce our energy usage so that we may indulge ourselves in other ways, but we have a higher motive for reducing waste (1 Timothy 6.17-19). Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).

Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.

For an enhanced version of this article, with extra diagrams and links to further information, visit the website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~f709762/climate/en....]

Last modified: 2009-11-21 03:33:42 by wearedoomed

Quote:

This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light

Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, and this one is likely to lead to more public confusion

Bob Ward guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009 20.40 GMT

Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, with the hacking of email messages between some of the world's leading researchers on global temperature trends. But as usually happens in the blogosphere, this episode is generating more heat than light and is likely to lead to more public confusion over the causes of climate change.

For the past few years, a small group of climate change 'sceptics' have been poring over scientific journal papers that report historical trends in temperatures from around the world, as recorded by directly by thermometers and other instruments, and by 'proxies', such as tree rings. Their primary objective has been to seek out evidence that global warming has been invented by climate researchers who fake their data.

Among their main targets have been papers published by research teams led by Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and particularly those featuring the famous 'hockey stick' graph, showing that average temperature in the northern hemisphere was relatively stable and constant for most of the last couple of millennia, but rose dramatically upwards in the last 100 years. This graph appeared prominently in the landmark Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, which concluded that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

The attacks on the hockey stick graph led the United States National Academy of Sciences to carry out an investigation, concluding in 2006 that although there had been no improper conduct by the researchers, they may have expressed higher levels of confidence in their main conclusions than was warranted by the evidence.

The 'sceptics' believe they have been vindicated and have presented the hockey stick graph as proof that global warming is not occurring. In doing so, they have ignored the academy's other conclusion that "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence".

More importantly, these skeptics have not overturned the well-established basic physics of the greenhouse effect, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. They also have not managed to make melting glaciers and rising sea levels, or any other evidence of warming, disappear into thin air. But they have managed to confuse some of the public about the causes of climate change.

Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by 'sceptics'. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about 'sceptics' who accuse them of fraud.

It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.