« Previous — Next »
Much of Global Warming Science is not being PEER REVIEWED
24 August 2007
A key component of any science is the ability of peer scientists to review and replicate. To replicate requires the data and the methodology used to analyze the data. Then and only then can conclusions be verified and generally accepted in to the body of scientific knowledge. This is how science confirms and advances.
Why did I pick the above cartoon? Because we are being preached to and until the world body at large can verify the data, this whole global warming stuff might as well be a religion.
However the NASA scientist (Hansen) who crunches the temperature data will not publish his software code. Making it impossible to verify the conclusions and results of temperature data.
The ability of later researchers to carry out independent due diligence in paleoclimate is severely limited by the lack of journal policies or traditions requiring contributors to promptly archive data and methods. King [1995] has excellent comments on replication. In this respect, paleoclimate journal editors should consider changes taking place at some prominent economics journals. For example the American Economic Review now requires, as a precondition of publication, archiving data and computational code at the journal. This is a response to the critique of McCullough and Vinod [2003], and earlier work by Dewald et al, [1986]. The files associated with paleoclimate studies are trivial to archive. In our view, if the public archive does not permit the replication of a multiproxy study, then it should be proscribed for use in policy formation [McCullough and Vinod, 2003].
I did see a segment of code posted on Hansen’s website and it was given to illustrate his point that reviewing the code would be a huge task and extremely complicated. And I agree, apparently this is a rather large program and most of it is written in FORTRAN.
From this I gathered two clues, 1) Elements of this program are very old and most likely not subjected to any level of Software Quality Assurance. 2) This program has probably been patched to the point that no-one knows how exactly it works.
Modern software quality theory maintains that you can not inspect the quality of a piece of software, but rather you must follow a process to define the requirements, the function of the code and how software verification is accomplished.
From what I can read on Hansen’s website and from the glimpse of code, I can not confirm and I doubt any level of software quality assurance has been done on this software.
The results from this code are being used to influence billions of dollars and international policy.
You can not ask us to blindly accept these conclusions on un-proven un-tested software.
The only way the global warming data is going to be verified is for a full and open disclosure of all data and methodologies. And I’ll bet people are going to find major flaws in the code, both in syntax and logic.
I doubt the code can be made “good” or verified. If we are going to be asked to spend billions to correct global warming, it seems reasonable to me to spent the 10 or 20 million dollars and the year it’ll take to start the software process from scratch using modern software techniques and a modern software language and put a team together and get it done right.
My conclusions on the global warming data issue.
1) Much of the data is from suspect sources and can not be verified from an historical viewpoint. Can not be verified from an accuracy of recorded temperatures and from the location of the readers relative to external heat sources such as air conditioners and sewage treatment plants and airports.
2) The process to use the temperature data requires the use of a numerical model. Models have a degree of error. All models do.
3) The software used to model the data most likely has had no quality assurance processes used and therefore should be assumed to be faulty. Because I have never seen code writen ad-hoc ever to be flawless. Never.
4) The owner of the data and the models is overly concerned about outsiders reviewing his work. Why?
5) The whole global warming issue is not soley based on surface temperature readings. I get this. There is other evidence. But I have to wonder, does this other evidence suffer also? Some sunlight on this process would do everyone some good.
You can’t ask people to spend billions of dollars on a “trust me I work for NASA”. Well I’ve had a NASA contract and guess what, it is a government agency and I vowed I would never take a NASA contract again, I’d go homeless first.
Here’s a quick quiz, which of the graphs below represent a RURAL temperature station in Brazil?
Answer QUIXERAMOBIM
Hansen replied to his “critics” with
Fox, Washington Times, and their like have gone bananas over a flaw discovered in the
computer program that produces global temperatures at GISS each month. They have even
managed to get Congress and NASA Headquarters involved. Now we know what mom meant
when she said “don’t make a federal case out of it.” Hey, what is really going on here?
Want to discredit your “critics” bring up Fox News and the Washington times and bring Mom in to it. This public employee is a bit too sharp tongued for my money.
Best way to shut me up and your other critics is to shine some sunlight on your process and let the world verify. You may be right, but till it is verified like all good science is, I’ll reserve judgement.
No comments yet