I have a rough draft discussion about applications of the Hurst Coefficient methodology to (1) solutions of the Lorenz equations, (2) measured temperature data, and (3) results from calcuations with GCMs. I would like to get some peer-review.
The draft is here.
All comments, especially corrections to incorrectos, will be appreciated.
Posted in Chaos and Lorenz, Hurst Coefficients | 2 Comments »
On Tuesday November 11, 2008 at about 11:45 am I sent copies of the following letter to several NASA Quality Assurance personnel. The date has proven to be quite a coincidence as subsequent, and continuing, events have shown. I had started writing the letter a few days before I sent it.
I’ve heard nothing back yet; none of the recipients has acknowledged that the letter was received.
I have not yet located similar Quality Assurance offices in NOAA. All pointers will be appreciated.
Posted in Code Verification, Verification | 11 Comments »
The Motorcycle God of Wanderlust and the Goddess of Natural Wonders made me do it.
Mary, the love of my life, and the best lover ever in my life, insisted that this road trip be one for me; go slow, go fast, go where I want to, eat what, where and when I want to, stay in any motel that I want to. As usual there are no reservations and no destinations decided in advance. Look at the Real-Time Road Trip Planner and decide which of the Small-Line Roads to check out. Get to an intersection and decide which road to take. Follow the twisty roads, stop and smell the roses, take in the deep blue skies and fluffy white clouds. There was no other plan. The best Moto Road Trips don’t have Plans.
It was a most excellent Moto Road Trip. About eight weeks with every day spent in Biker Trash Paradise. Rode roads, ran roads, and toured for about 12,000 miles (19,000 km) in Western and Northwestern United States. Saw some beautiful and wondrous sights and met some interesting people. I hope do be able to do lots more of this 
Posted in moto touring | 3 Comments »
Another example of the lack of even the most basic concerns with verification of calculations has been discovered in GISS/NASA work.
The response by GISS/NASA employees is extremely disconcerting. That response seems to me to say that if the application procedure simply produces numbers, we’re ok with that. Verification of the numbers is left to others.
Posted in Calculation Verification, Code Verification, Verification | 1 Comment »
There are several discussions floating around on the subject of comparing GCM-calculated numbers with experimental data. Climate Audit and Lucia both have several threads. There are too many threads to give links; let me know if you need a specific thread. One focus of these discussions is the ensemble-average approach that is considered to be necessary for the comparisons. The ensemble is made up of the results from the various different versions of GCMs that calculate the results. Not only are GCMs different from each other, but the suggested approach is to make perturbations in the initial conditions between the runs.
I have mentioned that the results do not reflect the effects of perturbations in only the initial conditions. Everything about the approach is different between the runs. The GCMs are based on different continuous-equation models, numerical solution methods, application procedures, run-time options, and users, and maybe other aspects. How can we be sure that the results are all appropriate for Earth?
Posted in Chaos, Chaos and Lorenz, GCMs, Model Validation | 3 Comments »