Models, Methods, Software

A quick look at some of the info provides evidence that an Independent organization to Review and Verify all results, each and every number, that are to be used to set public policy is critically important.

Climate policy remains the sole exception to this world-wide universal standard.

The present system has been fatally compromised by the very organizations that resist Independent Review and Verification.

Maybe we’ll soon see a govrenment-level Carbon Regulatory Agency approach designed and implemented in a progressive country.

AOLBGCM validation is an ongoing process.
Can’t ever do too much of it.

I made this comment at Climate Audit. I’ll repeat it here:

The degree of inconsistency that RC exhibits becomes more astounding every day.

How many times have we been told that replication does not require that all the original material be readily available. Indeed, we have been repeatedly lectured that true replication is not obtained if only the original material is used. Yet, Tom P. could not have carried out his rapid-response function if Steve had not made all the material available.

By RC’s usual standards, Tom P.’s results could have been considered true replication only if he had started from a clean piece of paper, gone out in the field and gathered up some tree rings, properly selected the data to be used for analyses, developed the analysis methods, produced the coding for the solution of the methods, and then carried out the analysis. ( I’ll let Tom P. skip the Verification and Validation procedures as Climate Science does not do these. )

More and more, it seems to me that RC’s views are shaped by what is convenient in contrast to what they say is the correct approach.

By the usual RC standards, RC cannot accept Tom P.’s analyses and conclusions.

Thinking about this some more led me to the following:

A list of bona fides required by RC prior to Tom P.

1. Certified Climatologist

2. Peer-Reviewed Publications

3. In only the Properly-Certified Journals

4. In only those Journals having a High-Impact Factor

5. Known and verified Educational Pedigree

6. Comments limited to areas consistent with 5.

7. Comments of 6 also limited to the extent of 5 at the time of graduation

8. Replication from a clean slate

9. No reliance on any aspects of previous work

10. No funding by Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, or any organizations associated with Big Fossil in any way

11. No previous work experience in any of 10

12. No funding by “conservative” think tanks.

13. No funding by any think tanks to which 10 gives support

14. Previous work results are known so that source can be used to dismiss or accept all results

15. Proper identification so that 14 can be invoked

So far as I know, Tom P.’s status for any of these 15 items has not been established.

I can reject Tom P.’s results without even looking at the analyses.

Someone at RC will now label Tom P. for convenience in future discussions.

This is astounding to me. Tom P. meets none of the previously required criteria, and yet NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has accepted the results of Tom P.’s black-box analysis. Unquestionably without any provisos whatsoever.

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction

In the RealClimate post linked above appears this statement:

“So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.”

These statements are false. And they are known to be a false by those you made the statements. The statements are lies and the persons who made the statements are liars. If Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann cannot point to where Steve McIntyre has made these statements, Gavin and Michael are liars.

By this action Schmidt, Mann, and RealClimate have taken the next step and moved to a higher level of promoting dis-information. That is, while always refusing to correct mis-information stated by commenters, and even RealClimate in-line responses, Schmidt and Mann purposefully lie. The purpose being to jump-start the peanut gallery’s, aided by RealClimate, usual attacks on persons while ignoring the technical issues. The Science of Personal Destruction; invented at RealClimate.

A post and 176 Responses ( and counting ) and not a single error on the part of Steve McIntyre has been identified. Not a single error !! This is reflective of the way RealClimate has of diverting attention from the real issues. In effect, the entire post hinges on becoming discussions of nothing that the subject of the post has said or done. Yet another naked strawman post. Additionally, the comments, with supporting responses from RealClimate, rapidly deteriorate to nothing more than de-meaning, unfounded attacks on people; shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.

To paraphrase, RealClimate continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that their supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations they have engendered.

RealClimate, having been unable to point to any technical errors, have continued the Climate Science policy of the Science of Personal Destruction.

They must continue to feed the small-minded, foul-mouthed labelers such as tamino and dhogaza. It’s interesting to me that those who chose to label with the most extreme and debasing labels chose also to remain anonymous. The, mostly non-scientists, peanut gallery at RealClimate seems to revel in this race to the bottom, cheering on tamino and dhogaza at every opportunity.

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Penn State’s Michael Mann are liars.

Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann lied in the subject post, therefore everything they have written is suspected of being lies.

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction

Steve McIntyre has discovered and presented yet another problem with a long-term temperature reconstruction: Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem. While Steve has named his blog ClimateAudit, in my opinion his work is in fact Independent Verification.

The old, and rapidly becoming tedious, “Peer Review Publication is Required” nonsense has already appeared in the comments. Ironically, it seems that no one who raises this issue is aware that Steve is in fact discovering problems in peer-reviewed publications.

A very short summary of a major problem area relative to this olde rant follows.

Read the rest of this entry »

John A is the site admin (CTO) and Webmaster for this blog, and all of auditblogs.com. After several requests by me he has added his Tip Jar over there to the left.

Please consider dropping a few coins to help with covering his costs and time.

Thanks.

I received the following e-mail from Pat Roache regarding his new book about Verification and Validation. He has also made arrangements for reduced prices on two others of his books.

I am pleased to announce the publication of
“Fundamentals of Verification and Validation” by Patrick J. Roache.
Copyright 2009, ISBN 978-0-93478-12-7. 476 pages, subject index.

The book is the successor to my 1998 book “Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering.” About 1/3 of the material is new, including a new Chapter 11 describing the Total Validation Uncertainty approach of ASME ANSI Standard V&V 20 (2009).

The attached file outlines the new features of the book. A complete Table of Contents, including designators for new and modified Sections, will be found on the website.

The price is the same as the 1998 book, U.S. $85.00 (but shipping charges have increased). The book is available directly from our fulfillment house, BookMasters, by email order to

orders@BookMasters.com

or from Amazon.com at the following.
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Verification-Validation-Patrick-Roache/dp/0913478121/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253150836&sr=1-7

The orders to BookMasters tend to ship faster since they do not run out of stock. Also, wholesale orders can be placed by contacting BookMasters at orders@BookMasters.com.

I would appreciate it if you would forward this email to any of your colleagues who might be interested.

Thanks for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Patrick Roache

p.s.
If anyone is interested, the 1998 V&V book is on clearance sale for 1/2 price at US $42.50. Available from orders@BookMasters.com or from Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/Verification-Validation-Computational-Science-Engineering/dp/0913478083/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253718713&sr=8-4.

Likewise, the book “Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics” is on clearance sale for 1/2 price at US $37.50. Available from orders@BookMasters.com or from Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Computational-Dynamics-Patrick-Roache/dp/0913478091/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253718713&sr=8-5

[Updated September 26]
I think the name of the program originally known as the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative ( ASCI ) is now known as Advanced Simulation & Computing ( ASC ).

[Updated August 26]

I have uploaded an excellent summary, developed by Los Alamos, of the ASC V&V Program at LANL. It is here.

A couple of quotes.

Confidence in simulation extrapolation comes via confidence in physics & numerics models, not calibration to experimental data.

Having “good agreement” between calculations and observations is not sufficient to establish scientifically credible predictive capability.

More and more it seems that the Climate Change Community remains the only holdout among all compute-intensive enterprises relative to application of rigorous, independent V&V to computer software.

Update
Read the rest of this entry »

Here and here.

I sent a slightly revised copy of the comment on the Proposed CO2 Ruling, given in this post, to Ms. Lisa jackson, Administrator of EPA. The letter to Ms. jackson is shown below. I received a reply from Rona Birnbaum, Chief, Climate Science & Impacts Branch, Climate Change Division. (The actual signing of the letter was a task delegated to someone whose name I can’t read.)

As in all previous cases in which I have attempted to convey the critical necessity of Independent Verification and Validation to persons outside the software development community, I failed again. It is obvious that Ms. jackson, Rona Birnbaum, or whoever read and responded to the letter, have no idea what I’m talking about.

Read the rest of this entry »