This is wonderful news. As I mentioned in a different thread I expect that knowledgeable people will pick this program apart and find many flaws. I think the simplified version will leave out much of the speculative forecasting that he used to make such, what I consider, outlandish predictions. The fact that he was so visibly angry about this amplifies my belief that he knows the original program is heavily flawed and was very much hoping nobody would ever find out. As for the part about leaving most of the planet out of global warming, I understand that is due to his claim that carbon drifts towards the poles, and thus from the major industrialized nations (in europe, america and china) most of the carbon would trend toward that artic. I also remember seeing a study, maybe by svensmark but I don't recall, that set up mock magnetic poles, and had a general wind pattern similar to the u.s, co2 was then added and it did not as expected by Hansen drift toward the pole. Being as I don't have the document or an accurate citation that is meaningless but if anyone else can find it that would be great.

Again though I think this may be the largest victory for the public so far. It's little (maybe big) things like this that will help to de-politicize the issue. Whether, as I expect, the program is flawed and it brings about a collapse to much of the panic fueled theory of global warming, or it just enlightens the public to the exact methods used, it should be very interesting to see what comes from this. Some exterior source should be the one to provide the simplified code. Hansen obviously has something to hide, though it wouldn't surprise me if he already edited the program a bit before releasing it.

And speaking of bad data, the majority of the warming came from northern reaches of russia and siberia, to the tune of 6 or 7 degrees warmer than average this year, or some ridiculous figure like that. I don't think the temperature data from siberia is reliable at all, but in any case it certainly isn't as good as that provided in the U.S. The above paragraph is my opinion and I don't have data to prove that the siberian weather stations are less accurate, I just have a very strong felling that that is the case.

Good morning folks - anyone interested in the sea temperatures & the potential problems with that data set ( which Brett has correctly pointed out is the biggest by area ) could take a look on the Climate Audit archives where there were some really interesting facts uncovered ~ 18 months ago. The sea temp data set may be the most undependable of all ( for obvious reasons ) from a historical point of view.
I watched the feeding frenzey at the CA blog over the weekend & one point sticks with me. One fellow found a section of code where inputing 42 F as a tempereature & running it through resulted in an answer of 42.08 which was then rounded to 42.1 .... inputting 42.1 also resulted in an answer of 42.1.
A small error for sure but it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling on the accuracy issue that is always the first claim of the AGW crowd. On a further note the science may be settled as many claim but the errors have always lay in the application of that science ... especially where it applies to climate models.
This truly is a positive outcome & perhaps it will result in Hansen's vindication & the silencing of sceptics such as myself. I remain open to that possibility but I think others should also open their minds to the possiblity that this global temperature debate is much more complex than simplistic first thoughts considered it to be.

Record cold temperatures around Calgary Saturday night .... good call on the jet stream move & outbreak of Arctic air Brett. Reply: just wait till Wednesday! That cold airmass means business! But it will be brief. Brett

Be good,
Rick.

I'm glad to see that Hansen has released his sources. While I appreciate his frustration (I don't recall anyone from NASA being forced release Apollo mission source code to prove that humans actually walked on the moon), this release is ultimately the best way to settle the question once and for all.

Now that the code is out, I have some predictions:

1) Some additional bugs and discrepancies will be found. These will be loudly trumpeted by the contrarians and denialists.

2) The 99.9% of the code that is found to work fine and as-advertised will not be discussed by that community.

3) The code will found to be chock-full of spelling mistakes, mismatches between code and comment, routines that contain wildly incorrect code that is (fortunately) never executed, and a host of similar skeletons. THIS is why research code is different from production code, and (in my opinion) THIS is why the originators have been reluctant to release it. Those of us who have some experience with open-source code are no longer surprised by such phenomena. One hopes that BOTH sides will, for example, develop and apply some unit-tests and test harnesses to help track and bugs, verify corrections, and avoid reversions.

4) It will take months or even years for the contrarians/denialists to get this code working well-enough to produce consistent results. A huge number of the comments on the CA blog, for example, are from authors who clearly have NO prior knowledge of Python. This community has a VERY STEEP learning curve in the technology before they get ANY valid results.

5) It will take additional months or even years to associate differences between results with bugs and problems in either code set.

6) Ultimately, the various camps will settle on a "consensus release" that all agree represents the best-available analysis/coding at the time.

7) When the dust settles, Hansen's results will be validated to within some reasonable error bar (like 10%) of the results from this "consensus release".

In short, this entire exercise is a tempest in a teapot. Necessary, perhaps, in that perhaps it will finally silence all but the most dogmatic of Hansen's attackers. One hopes that Hansen and McIntyre, at least, will be able to agree on the outcome.

I hope that in the meantime, the loyal attack-dogs of each side can perhaps bark up a different tree.

Brett,

I see two fatal flaws in Hansen's argument

1. Accurate SST temperature records are measured from satellites, and the records do not go back very far. How can he compare them against the 1930s?

2. SST records don't show much if any warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html
The red areas north of Siberia are exaggerated in size by at least 7x due to the map projection, and are only present for about 3 months in the summer when anomalous arctic melt occurs.

Reply: the satellites are not very accurate in measuring sst's north of 60 degrees. You basically take it with a grain of salt that far north. Brett.

Amazing how bad some of this science is.

This really amounts to ongoing diversionary tactics by neocons who are upset that the measurements do not agree with their economic agenda.

There was significant global warming from the 1890 to 1940. Maybe that was some sort of recovery, but then the warming continued from 1980 to the present and it is this most recent warming that has unequivocally placed the climate in a precarious position.

The statistically insignificant rearrangement of data for just the US does not alter data from all over the rest of the world.

Hansen backpedals on releasing complete data? Another brilliant move designed to foment suspicion and controversy. When are the AGW people going to realize that refusing to allow complete analysis of data by others (pro, con or neutral) is reason enough for grave concern about its legitimacy?
Again this sounds not like science but rhetoric from a zealot knowing his data is less convincing than his words.

It appears that Dr. Hansen has his own set of rules at NASA. From ClimateAudit.org (Steve McIntyre in the comments section):

A number of the readme's have been written in only the last couple of days. My initial impression is that the code is poorly documented. NASA has very specific standards applicable to software described here . They say:

"Software engineering is a core capability and a key enabling technology necessary for the support of NASA�s Mission Directorates. Ensuring the quality, safety, and reliability of NASA software is of paramount importance in achieving mission success. This chapter describes the requirements to help NASA maintain and advance organizational capability in software engineering practices to effectively meet scientific and technological objectives."

Among other duties of the NASA Chief Engineer is the following:

"1.2.3 The NASA Chief Engineer shall periodically benchmark each Center's software engineering capability against its Center Software Engineering Improvement Plan. [SWE-004]"

As I understand it, GISS is part of the Goddard Space Flight Center and is subject to these guidelines. It looks like they apply even to Hansen

Yet, Dr. Hansen seems to be above the rules. Amazing, eh?

Andrew,

It did warm up between 1980 and 1998. If you add in the inexplicable 0.6 degree USHCN fudge factor, temperatures in 1998 were almost as warm as 1934.

Really scary......

Well, it looks as though the proverbial schist is hitting the alluvial fan (sorry for the poor geology pun). Apparently, Dr. Hansen and crew have been applying corrections to station data that really don't need correcting. This has resulted in a station in Walhalla, SC showing an increase in temperature prior to 1985 when there really wasn't one. (This is fro a preliminary analysis and, if true, it should be interesting to see how pervasive this ad hoc correcting is.)

BTW, I resent being called a neocon. I consider the term to be derogatory in nature. If you must resort to name-calling stick with skeptic. I like that moniker.

Just noticed something about McIntyre comment.

He creates strawman arguments by claiming that Hansen is implying that there is a lack of material change since the 1930s with the U.S.

The reality is that there has been significant warming since the 1930. The last 10 years has been the warmest 10 years for the US and it has been that way for a while.

Has Hansen actually stated that there has been no change since the 1930s?

I doubt it!

I do not trust McIntyre at all.

Creating strawman arguments and confusion is probably reflective of his character.
Sorry to say, but this seems to be a common trait of deniers.

Reply: Andrew, from what i have read McIntyre is not a denier, more of a skeptic, and there is a difference. Brett

It appears that Dr. Hansen has his own set of rules at NASA. From ClimateAudit.org (Steve McIntyre in the comments section):

See my items (3) and (4) above.

While folks like Paul may get a kick out of blowing smoke for awhile, those with industry and/or academia experience know better. NASA software responsible for real-time command, control and guidance of shuttle missions is qualitatively different from Python scripts written to massage data sources in climate simulation -- in the former, a system crash has immediate life-threatening consequences. In the latter, it generally means that somebody has to correct a typo and restart a batch.

Those who care more about the science than the argument will welcome this release and direct their attention to coming to agreement about the best answer possible.

It appears that North America, South America, Africa, Antarctica and the oceans are going to be declared officially irrelevant in the search for Waldo. The IPCC already declared the MWP irrelevant because it was (as far as they knew) only a European and Asian phenomenon.

What does that leave as evidence? A couple of hot spots in Siberia?

Brookline Tom
What McIntyre, Watts and others have shown is that the US temp data, supposedly the best available on Earth, is in fact unreliable [ref. surfacestations.org for some mindboggling examples]. The data is overstating temps due to UHI and as McIntyre showed a few weeks ago probably has been manipulated in support of the AGW hypothesis so passionately advocated by Hansen, Schmidt and their fellow travellers.

A review of a broad spectrum of peer reviewed papers published the past 18-24 months provides an interesting picture: Northern Hemisphere temps have levelled off since 1998 and Southern Hemisphere temps are falling. Sea surface temperatures [SSTs] are flat or falling. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity in either hemisphere. Current Arctic temp increase is a regional [not global]phenomenon for which there are several good non-AGW explanations, and Antarctica temps are falling. Greenland is experiencing coastal "calving" [as it did in 1930-40s] but overall its ice mass balance is up and its key glaciers have stopped regressing.
There is no "consensus" [an oxymoron in science anyway] and more and more scientists are now saying so publicly. The IPCC approved "consensus" science actually provides no verifiable proof of a man-made component to whatever temp changes we may be seeing.
McIntyre, together with McIntrick, in 2003 demonstrated that the so called "Hockey Stick" [Mann, et. al.] which showed runaway temp increases was a scientific fraud, a finding corroborated by the US National Academy of Sciences. He most recently caused GISS/NASA to revise downwards post-2000 US temps and my guess is he will probably wind up demonstrating how GISS/NASA manipulated their data through their code.
AGW is politics and the scientific hoax in support of it is coming apart. Just watch and see the mainstream media start to pick up on the new story line.
I doubt very much that McIntyre will ever "agree on the outcome" or somehow "settle" with Hansen as you suggest. Facts are facts and his auditing work has shown that they run counter to AGW. It took a while for people to get their minds around this, but fact is the earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around us.

Fortunately, we have satellite/MSU for the last 30 years or so with which the surface temp data can be compared.

And don't forget the history of the MSU data analysis done by Spencer/Christie. Errors in their orignal analysis resulted in huge errors in the temperature trends they calculated. This is in stark contrast to the small errors found in NASA's analysis.

Andrew
The importance of the recent temperature adjustments made to the US 1880-2006 record by GISS/NASA [read Hansen] is precisely that there has been NO warming since 1998. McIntyre doesn't say this so don't crticize him. GISS/NASA, a US Federal Government agency, actually does, but only after McIntyre doggedly audited their methods [just like he took apart Mann's Hockey Stick fraud].
Take out 2006 [which is expected to be adjusted downwards even further] and none of the years after 1998 make it to the 125 year Top Ten.

We go backwards and forwards continually on this topic, cherry-picking the parts of the argument that suit us.

If you look at overall trends then the picture is clear. If you look at the holistic argument then the picture is also clear.

The trouble is that this topic will never be solved while so much FUD can be added to the debate..

Brookline Tom and Andrew:
Someone has just left a link at CA to this site and thread. I hope you have your facts straight because these guys for the most part try to deal strictly with facts - they are skeptics not denialists. Steve McIntyre, for example, has repeatedly indicated that he believes that significant warming is taking place but he also has demonstrated that certain of the strong AGW proponents are playing games with the data and not following standard practices as far as archiving their methods and their data. CA contributors are pretty sophisticated number crunchers who have been inappropriately dismissed by churlish academics, Mann in particular. Hansen's belated release of the code is above all a victory for the scientific method and the principle of scientific replication: No code, no meaningful replication; No replication, no verification; No verification, no certainty attached to catastrophic predictions.

bt,

Yes, I agree. Why should the Royalty be held to the same rules as the common folk and us jesters? Why don't we just leave Dr. Hansen alone?

Hansen has a nice little kingdom there at GISS and now the jesters have gone out and ruined it for him. He may now actually have to explain to the masses how he does that thing he does. How inconvenient. Boo Hoo. I shall shed a tear for him tonight.

I see why he is such a bitter man. Too bad, so sad.

The last eight 5-year periods (2002-2006, 2001-2005, 2000-2004, 1999-2003, 1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000, 1995-1999), were the warmest 5-year periods (i.e. pentads) in the last 112 years of national records, illustrating the anomalous warmth of the last decade. The 9th warmest pentad was in the 1930s (1930-34), when the western U.S. was suffering from an extended drought coupled with anomalous warmth.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/us-summary.html

Suffice it to say that if the 8 warmest 5 year periods were the last 8 such periods, that the warmest decade for the US has clearly been the last decade!

This is information that McIntyre and his like do not want people to know.

Of course, this is just for the US. While global temperatures vary slightly from the US ranking (since the US is only 2 percent of the Globe), the trend is still overwhelming.

Do not pay attention to lies from the deniers!

"luctoretemergo" and Paul remind of the proverbial dog that caught the car. Now that the actual code has been released, the contrarians/denialists find themselves in the perhaps awkward position of "put up or shut up".

If McIntyre has any professional integrity, he will see that he has no choice but to come to terms with Hansen about how this data will be handled. What I mean by "agree on the outcome" is that Hansen and McIntyre will agree on the quantities to measure, the algorithms by which that data is processed, and the code that implements those algorithms.

Nobody will need to "settle", in the sense of settling a lawsuit. The data will speak for itself.

I'm glad he's releasing it. Although what I find funny about the whole thing is how deniers are getting all worked up about one-thousandth of a degree. Sorry, guys, but a change of one-thousandth of a degree doesn't change the consensus view that AGW is occuring.

Wouldn't surprise me if ExxonMobil started hiring programmers to fudge the code...lol.

good post luctor summing the current state of the AGW scam...in the face of mounting real scientific evidence, it never ceases to amaze me how the doomdayers continue to look into a crystal ball and try to predict the future even when it comes to computer code critique...but in reality, i guess this is all they have ever had was some computer generated fairytale...its funny to watch the screaming getting louder as domino after domino falls proving their game is about up...but then again, i still see around a few terot readers, fortune tellers, national enquire magazines, fictional movies and books making a living off make believe...have a nice sunny warm day...its a good thing!!!

It is a pity that all-too-human tempers had to generate so much noise in what should be a matter of course. Anyway, the original reluctance to release the code was completely illogical, especially if we only have less than a decade to stop climate change, as Hansen uses to say.

My impression now is that the AGWers have lost the upper hand...after all, their argument relies on a tiny 0.6C temp increase.

But really, this should not be like following sports on the radio. The only thing that truly matters is if all alarms we got so far were almost baseless or not

I realise 1934 was a warm year and scientist often make mistakes but when the excitement settles down, will the arctic circle still be melting?

There have been recent complaints that temperature measuring stations all over the United States (and perhaps Cananda) were improperly located and the temperatures recorded were five to fifteen degrees higher than the surrounding locales. These sensors were located in areas of concrete and or asphalt parking lots or urban settings, in effect recording the "Heat Islands" generated by such artificial environs. That is one problem with the temperature data collection of the last say dozen years. Another problem with the AGW arguement is the pure physics of gasses in the atmosphere. I recieved an email from a man who claimed to have worked for thirtyfive years taking atmospheric samples using weather ballons. This fella claimed it was his work that led to the creation of the US ATMOSPHERE STANDARD MODEL that was taught in earth science classes accross america for decades. The Troposphere, Statosphere, Ionisphere being examples of the layered nature of earths atmosphere. He went on to explain that Ozone can not be depleted by CFC's or any other refrigerants or propellants because the gasses used are HEAVIER than the Oxygen/Nitrogen mix of the Troposphere...The Ozone Layer is above the stratosphere, and is also HEAVIER than the Layers below, Ozone is O3 , a heavy form of oxygen, Ozone is formed by the energy of cosmic radiation fusing O2 and O1 into O3...a naturally replenishing phenomena. Then the issue of CO2 as the culprit for AGW is also problematic because it too is HEAVIER than the OXY/Nitrogen air mix, the levels of the atmosphere where GHG's are supposed to cause the heating are above the levels where CO2 hangs around....where trees and plants breath and make us more oxygen. I am not deeply familiar with Hansen's or McIntyre's work other than what the general media feeds us. But I will say there are many many reports of global colding events that get no "air play" so to speak.

Simon,

The Arctic Circle will not melt. It's an imaginary line drawn on the globe. It's not really there. Not to worry.

bt,

.........never mind. You're not worth the energy expended.

My fellow threadmates,

Andrew has noted some very impressive evidence in support of the idea that we have seen some statistically significant warming over the last decade. Patrick Henry et al., what do you think of this data? Do you claim that teh data is bad (certainly plausible until we get tothe bottom fo the Hansen mess). Or do you believe that the data is sound, butthe conclusions are not?

Simon,

Ice melts in the arctic circle every summer. It freezes every winter. Some years more than others. The Antarctic is at an all-time record maximum level of sea ice. Does that mean we are headed into an ice age? Does that mean ice is going to cover the world?

We have Al Gore fighting the manbearpig and Jim Hansen fighting windmills. Is it in his job description to save the world? Reading the text of his response, it is obvious he is not objective.

If he wants to be a political advocate, he needs to leave his civil service position. His advocacy behavior is clearly in violation of federal law preventing civil servants from engaging in political activities stemming from their employment. His belief system is also keeping him from doing his job properly. Someone else focused on science needs to step in and clean up the mess. Hansen apparently sees the details of his job as a bother and a distraction.

How on earth could he know what SSTs were 100 years ago within 0.1 degrees? Hew doesn't know what temperatures were in Africa 100 years ago, but claims to know what they were at Cape Horn? Think about how absurd that is.

Andrew - perhaps your pentads represent the completion of you global warmers moving all the weather stations to roof tops, parking lots & barbque pits. Oh, I know, Hansen corrects for all that garbage data by phoning the psychic hotline and getting Madame LaRue to read the tea leaves.
Sorry Brett but he started it with his neocon etc blathering, references to economic agendas & lies & deniers.
I have never seen a group as sensitive to scrutiny as the warmers .... I wonder why??
On a more serious note Andrew I read somewhere that you wrote that Hansen's work only concerned the US data & you maybe correct for the Y2K error Steve M found but Hansen was working with the data for the entire world & there are already a bunch of problems uncovered as they went through the continents with the Siberia area being a particularly messed up data set.
I'm sure there will be many more interesting disclosures in the weeks to come.
Remember to keep your stick on the ice boys!!
Rick.

An interesting review of the "Peer Review Process"
Seems more like an old boys club actually.
But for the AGW faithful it is Gospel.
Certainly as reliable as the Catholic church peer review of the gospels that made it into the new testament. Remember Constantine in the 3rd cnetury. Hmmmmmm. the similarities astound....
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf

No need to debate this any more. Our friends on the left have found the solution.
http://www.worldjumpday.org/

The link Andrew gave sent me to old NASA data, with 1934 still ranked below 1998. As long as you use that data you will be persuaded warming is dramatic. I know I was.
My love of meterology resulted in poor grades in Math, for I looked out the window at clouds during Algerbra class. I have a hard time following the jargon on both NASA and Climateaudit sites. I prefer a nice, simple graph.
I think it would help many if you simply posted the two graphs side by side. It is difficult to argue that the warming hasn't become far less dramatic. Many who post are obviously still using the old data and old graph. Not even NASA is using that now, though I imagine it may take them time to remove old data from its sites.
This is a beautiful debate, and demonstrates the value and practice of freedom. I cannot say how much I appreciate those who are approaching the debate with cool, slow, patient reasoning.
Caleb

Patrick, your self-enforced state of ignorance is seemingly endless.

The U.S. is signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Per the U.S. Constitution, this treaty is the law of the land. The UNFCCC's principal provision is that th nations of the world should "avoid dangerous climate chnage." Hansen's activities are rooted in this treaty. Obviously Patrick needs to move to some country where his traitorous principles would be consistent with the law. Good luck, Patrick!

Gentlemen Please. Calm Calm.

Facts are facts? unfortunately neither 'deniers' or 'AGWs' actually have any. Proof exist and has been accepted by both communities, that near surface measurements are NEVER precise, there is no such thing as a 'Global Temperature' ( where will you measure it?) all surface station temperature data requires 'adjustment' because of position, change of position, change of environment. Many, many surface stations do not meet current WMO standards. Climate predictions are made by Climate models which by the admission of the software engineers, do not include ALL climate components, all climate interfaces, all climate feedbacks. So, basically, we have absolutely no idea what the actual world temperature is and no idea what it might be in the future. proxy data and secondary proxy data will always be subject to a degree of unreliability because of its' provenance and scarcity (a tree here, a lake there). Lastly, the vast majority of the globe is not covered by reliable measuring instruments. Sea temperates by passing boats, armed forces, etc 5 not experienced meteorologists), huge areas of desert, tundra and ice are also not monitored and the effects of geography and geology and neither well understood nor included in climate computer models.

So there you have it. More research and less modelling and better data and system auditing (Mr Steve Mc @ CA) will provide us with a better understanding of our planet and our effect(s) on it BUT if you think for one minute that human beings have the power to modify globally this planet you are seriously delluded. The CO� emmited by the planet will always be far greater than us .

Steve Bloom,

You will like this. Soviet style enforcement of the official party line. No room for dissent in this democracy! Perhaps they should put the "traitors" in salt mines in Siberia or mental institutions?

It is so great that there are people like you out there saving the world. We all really appreciate it. Thanks much.

Political Correctness For State Climatologists - In Order To Force These Positions To Embrace Global Warming As Summarized By The IPCC. A Chilling Development There are currently two efforts underway to remove two State Climatologists from their positions because they do not parrot the summary conclusions of the new IPCC Report. These attempts are in Delaware (David Legates; see and see) and Oregon (George Taylor; see). This follows the recommendation by Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel to retract the certification of broadcast weather forecasters who do not accept what she considers is the accepted scientific view of global warming

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/07/political-correctness-for-state-climatologists-in-order-to-force-these-positions-to-embrace-global-warming-as-summarized-by-the-ipcc-%e2%80%93-a-chilling-development/

Mr. Richards,

Just like there is no one place to stick a thermometer to measure the world's temperature (although Newark, NJ is considered the "armpit" of the world by many...hmmm), why has the period 1951-1980 been christened "normal"?

Why not make "normal" the average global temperature since the beginning of the Cambrian, say 22 deg C? The earth has been in this temperature range for a much larger percentage of time than the current temperature range.

Mr. Bloom,

Isn't the US a soveriegn nation? National law trumps world law every time. That is why we have Federal Courts and don't subscribe to the World Court. So, Mr. Hansen needs to pay attention to the laws of his own government first and foremost.

Paul now apparently will have the US abrogate executed treaty obligations whenever it serves some political purpose. Another striking irony -- the same right wing that so loudly proclaims this right also advocates the invasion and occupation of foreign nations who do the same -- Iraq and Iran being the current examples.

I guess that Paul just slipped right over Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)

Paul seems unable to realize or unwilling to admit that our treaty obligations ARE the "laws of his own government".

bt,

It looks as though your interpretation requires the US to follow any laws set forth by the UN, doesn't it? I guess we are on our way to becoming the "OneWorld" utopia, the libs... er, progressives are so intent on becoming. Great!! In that case, Dr. Hansen can do anything he wants, since he now only has to answer to the UN.

It looks as though your interpretation requires the US to follow any laws set forth by the UN, doesn't it? I guess we are on our way to becoming the "OneWorld" utopia, the libs... er, progressives are so intent on becoming. Great!! In that case, Dr. Hansen can do anything he wants, since he now only has to answer to the UN.

Thank you for sharing, perhaps inadvertently, your own political biases. I'm not sure how else one could interpret the portions of our Constitution I highlighted above -- I notice that you offer none.

I note that Paul remains silent on the hypocrisy of citing the refusal to implement UN resolutions as a casus belli for our invasion of Iraq, while simultaneously complaining about "OneWorld utopias" when contemplating similar resolutions directed towards the US that he finds distasteful.

In the law of OUR land, the executive branch negotiates a treaty. The Senate then has an opportunity to ratify that treaty, and must do so by a two-thirds super-majority. If that process is followed for a particular UN obligation then, yes, we would be obligated to obey it -- like any other of our laws. Like it or not, THAT is the way our system of laws works.

I know of no treaty, agreed by a President and ratified by the US Senate, that "requires the US to follow any laws set forth by the UN". Perhaps Paul will cite one. Failing that, it would appear that he has thrown yet another red herring on the table -- a table that is surely already groaning under the weight of so many smelly fish.

I'm glad to see that Hansen has released his sources. While I appreciate his frustration (I don't recall anyone from NASA being forced release Apollo mission source code to prove that humans actually walked on the moon), this release is ultimately the best way to settle the question once and for all.

It is about time for something, but I noticed he is still concealing the full version, nice to see you skipping that fact. Of course, Apollo actually landed on the moon, but we still have decades before Hansen's prophecies can be tested. Interestingly enough, he will be retired or dead by then. Yes, it is the best way to settle the question and Hansen's refusal, backing and filling and rants make it seem that this "settled science" either isn't settled or isn't science.

Now that the code is out, I have some predictions:

Whoo Hoo! Let's see what you got. I know what I'll find, but let's just see.

1) Some additional bugs and discrepancies will be found. These will be loudly trumpeted by the contrarians and denialists.

Depends on the nature of the bugs and discrepancies. So far, Hansen has stepped on his wanker repeatedly and some of the bugs found so far turn temperature variables into constants after rounding them up (i.e. - make it look hotter). Other things make it look colder in the past so that the "warming" delta looks much larger, but we already knew about that problem with NOAA.

2) The 99.9% of the code that is found to work fine and as-advertised will not be discussed by that community.

Never done any debugging or code porting have you? 99.9% is easy, that last .1% is a pain and can make an entire software package fail or give false results. A small program will be 10k lines of code, .1 would be 100 lines and from personal experience I know it only takes 1 bad line of code to screw up the output of an entire run. From all indications this "simple" version probably exceeds 10k lines of code.

3) The code will found to be chock-full of spelling mistakes, mismatches between code and comment, routines that contain wildly incorrect code that is (fortunately) never executed, and a host of similar skeletons. THIS is why research code is different from production code, and (in my opinion) THIS is why the originators have been reluctant to release it. Those of us who have some experience with open-source code are no longer surprised by such phenomena. One hopes that BOTH sides will, for example, develop and apply some unit-tests and test harnesses to help track and bugs, verify corrections, and avoid reversions.

ROFLMAO. Which means Hansen is using a hacked up mess that violates all standards of programming. So what? I'm sure such problems will be noted and discarded since after all, it is critically important for our future that this AGW stuff gets settled one way or the other.

4) It will take months or even years for the contrarians/denialists to get this code working well-enough to produce consistent results. A huge number of the comments on the CA blog, for example, are from authors who clearly have NO prior knowledge of Python. This community has a VERY STEEP learning curve in the technology before they get ANY valid results.

You really haven't done any coding or debugging of software packages, have you? I do notice that you haven't mentioned the comments from the people who have already had it up and running and are documenting problems with the logic.

ROFLMAO! From the official Python website:
"Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong support for integration with other languages and tools, comes with extensive standard libraries, and can be learned in a few days. Many Python programmers report substantial productivity gains and feel the language encourages the development of higher quality, more maintainable code."
http://www.python.org/
Emphasis mine. I glanced over the programmer tutorial and I agree.

5) It will take additional months or even years to associate differences between results with bugs and problems in either code set.

Oh absolutely, since there are a number of problems trying to figure out which dataset Hansen is using and when he changed. Hansen is still not being forthcoming, so the months and years will come from getting Hansen to cough up more information that he still is concealing. Otherwise this isn't a big deal.

6) Ultimately, the various camps will settle on a "consensus release" that all agree represents the best-available analysis/coding at the time.

Going to push Hansen to get all his data and methodology out on the table then? That is what will take months and years.

7) When the dust settles, Hansen's results will be validated to within some reasonable error bar (like 10%) of the results from this "consensus release".

You are so knowledgeable, why don't you show us what a 10% error would mean in either direction. No need to be specific, just let us know if 10% one way is totally off the reality chart and if the other way that Hansen put on cleats before stepping on it again.

In short, this entire exercise is a tempest in a teapot. Necessary, perhaps, in that perhaps it will finally silence all but the most dogmatic of Hansen's attackers. One hopes that Hansen and McIntyre, at least, will be able to agree on the outcome.

I just wrote some code that uses measurements I'm not going to show you adjusted in ways that you don't need to know about. It proves that within 50 years the earth will be an iceball. So, if I get a job with NOAA (or maybe GAO ;) ) or put out a docudrama what-if film you will support me too? Will it make my new "science" "settled"? Nobody will ever have to check it? No need for peer review, Mr Brookline "I love peer review" Tom?

Steve Bloom said: "The U.S. is signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Per the U.S. Constitution, this treaty is the law of the land. The UNFCCC's principal provision is that th nations of the world should "avoid dangerous climate chnage."

Steve, as is almost always the case whenever I see you‘ve chimed in somewhere, you've jumped the shark, & completely misstated reality. Again.

Now, regarding "danger", here's what the UNFCCC actually says:

Article 2
OBJECTIVE
"The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

Although you disagree, in the opinion of many others, by continuing to spend adequate (actually huge) sums to better research all issues & the sciences involved, the USA is indeed doing it's due diligence to fully quantify & comprehend the issues & the science, to "avoid" what is not now but later may indeed be seen, as "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

Now, regarding the Convention, President George H.W. Bush did sign the Convention, and the US Senate did ratify the Convention. Understanding at the time there was & would be no potential for any forced compliance, nor for any punitive actions to be applied against any nation not agreeing with whatever the future agreed upon Protocols may be.

In fairness, those later to be agreed upon Protocols now do indeed provide for some compliance mechanisms, but only within the limited scope of the principles agreed upon for each future Protocol issue.

However, it must be understood, the USA is not a signatory of any later Protocol provision. With that, the USA has not agreed to be bound by Kyoto, nor any other Protocol. Therefore, we are not legally bound into any form of compliance, other than by the original limited scope, as stated within the original UNFCCC.

Steve Bloom said: "Hansen's activities are rooted in this treaty. Obviously Patrick needs to move to some country where his traitorous principles would be consistent with the law. Good luck, Patrick!"

Having said all of the above, & all of the above being true, it seems best that prior to your continuing to spew any further allegations charging those who disagree with your brand of Eco-Faith as being "traitorous", you learn, deeply consider & then cognitively apply, some of the reasoning & the actual facts of this issue, into all your future arguments.

bt,

Since you insist on bloviating about the subject of Iraq, your comment I note that Paul remains silent on the hypocrisy of citing the refusal to implement UN resolutions as a casus belli for our invasion of Iraq, is way off base. You need to read House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," to enlighten yourself to why Iraq was invaded.

Although, many of the justifications for the war involve UN Resolutions, one of the main justifications for continuing the War with Iraq was Public Law 107-40. Having said all of that, you may continue bloviating at will, but that will be the last I will respond to anything on the Iraq War on a Global Warming blog.

Brett, I am merely responding to a challenge set forth by bt. I have no intention of continuing along these lines.

BTW, thanks Tex... for setting Mr. Bloom and bt straight.

Ooh, I seem to have hit a sore-spot with Kamatu. Quite the rant. The piano is trivially easy to play. It is manifestly difficult to play well. I submit that Python programming is quite similar.

Now that he has "glanced over the programmer tutorial", I see he's an expert in Python as well as climatology. Perhaps he can help his friends, like "Skip" over on the CA blog figure out what numeric type Python returns from an expression buried inside a few layers of indirection and coercion. I'm sure that, along the way, Kamatu will offer them his profound insight into how and when the Fortran code does its rounding and coercions, how and when the Python interpreter does the same, how the C-language primitives affect both, how platform differences in byte order and alignment affect all this, and how all of this should or not be reflected in the resulting output(s).

Simple, right?

I do notice that you haven't mentioned the comments from the people who have already had it up and running and are documenting problems with the logic.

Uh-huh. Would those be the comments on the "Hansen Code" thread at CA?

Funny, it doesn't look to me as though very much is "up and running yet." I see a system with years of legacy code in at least three languages (Fortran, C, and Python) on multiple hardware platforms that was never written for public consumption. I certainly hope that Kamatu is offering his deep debugging expertise to the CA team -- it surely appears that they can use his expert help.

With all due respect to the rant from Kamatu, I stand by my predictions.

Uh - oh, looks like Hansen is cooking the numbers again. Apparently since he has released the code, he's in there adjusting the adjustments. But then again, he only has to answer to the IPCC.

Nah, meteorology and climates, just stuff I pick up in passing. Math is a totally different matter and AGW doesn't add up. Ditto for software engineering and computer modeling.

I never claimed to be an expert in Python, just disputed your steep learning curve after reviewing it with my knowledge of similar computer languages. The biggest problems I see is that the code looks like it is old and kludgy, something someone who doesn't know how to code whipped up. The guys over there are doing just fine with it and since I don't hack anymore as a way of life, I don't feel the need to go out and set up a system to debug what looks like an unfinished piece of software while digging out my old manuals to refresh my memory. They are mainly debugging a non or semifunctional piece of software.

So, what we are left with is you claiming months and years and steep learning curves (typical of someone who doesn't speak the language) on something that will take days or weeks at worst since these guys don't get Hansen&Co's pay to make this stuff up in their spare time while altering datasets to support their AGW theory. The reality reads as people having to fix, then reverse engineer whatever Hansen puts out to see if it fits in with what Hansen claims as his results. This wastes everyone's time for something you claimed as important and predicted is ultimately the best way to settle the question once and for all.

You stand by your predictions, I'll stand by mine, that Hansen will continue to avoid releasing his true data, methods and algorithms.

I'll let you tell me though BT, what is it that makes this warming cycle any different from all the other warming cycles for all of history and prehistory? That is, why will there be no cooling cycle? Got any math? Or just handwaving about CO2? Or will you just ignore my questions?

FYI, I can give you a rant if you really want to see one, might take a couple of posts though. I'd tell you what that post really was, but this is the kinder, gentler blog now and I don't want my post squished.

Kamatu: My understanding is that an abrupt cooling period will always follow an accelerated warming period while any emission targets or current attempts to control the climate will be arbitrary.

What makes you think that AGW suggests that only a steady warming will occur?, there are many different theories within the consensus. My opinion is that AGW will cause climate change, sea level rise and will alter arctic conditions which will trigger quite the opposite effect over a very short period of time.

When you look back in time for comparisons you would do well to look at the time scale of these events before you imply we will have time to adapt.

This was not the case for the LIA which gave the black rat no time to adapt and the surviving pop no where warm enough to cultivate crops. A couple of decades of cooling killed millions and put a stop to the crusades. In the modern time a brief acceleration of warming has already kick started the crusade once again and so a cooling period may now just be what we need to control the real cause of all that is wrong and deliver solutions to the few that will survive this current plague.

AGW can only be resolved when human plague numbers can be reduced. We are not a species that can control our own numbers effectively therefore a natural limit must have been crossed. I believe nature has put a stop to progress and its all just down hill from here.

What we should be working towards is a real attempt in safeguarding what humans have learnt or else the sum total of knowledge will be the printed works of myths and legends giving rise to the next generation of pagan beliefs that will give birth to another choice of respected religions.

If the last 12000 years is anything to go by then i would say that prior to the last major ice age the human population had the same plan for the future as we have today.