Requesting the Real Code
Posted by Jeff Id on February 7, 2009
In another appeal to the authorities on global warming, on someone’s suggestion I tried to point out a different aspect of the paper Steig et. team on global warming – the consequences. What if every climate naturalist was wrong? What if these guys really are super weathermen and can predict climate a hundred years from now? Where will we be if all the dire predictions came true?
We the people of Earth are entitled to know the detail of these papers on which policy is based. Childish games with our future are completely unacceptable.
Dr. Steig and Dr. Schmidt,
I am writing you in hopes that you will reconsider my legitimate request for your code including intermediate steps and data used to call the RegEm functions for your paper titled:
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
If you will, please consider that all of us reap the consequences of the paper you published, politically and environmentally. Scientists are already talking about the shift of the earth’s axis resulting from the massive warming predicted in your paper. How serious do the consequences have to be before you let us in the public see the rational. In my opinion, we the public have the absolute right to know why.
It seems your previous responses were motivated by fear of the critique. I was very active in the laboratory from a young age and learned early on as an undergrad, no cleverly worded critique can stop good science. In this case the potential consequences are too severe to play games with.
Jeff Id
(In the spirit of openness, this email and your response will be public record.)
I don’t expect much from them today, it is Saturday after all. Perhaps some others will consider requesting the data and complete code on RC. If they have to cut enough posts perhaps they will consider releasing it. In the meantime look at the amazing predictions of this article in the news. The loss of Washington DC, New York and California don’t sound too bad right now and it seems odd that the flood waters are attracted to money but all kidding aside, this is a pretty serious prediction.
Sea levels would rise unevenly as ice sheet melts, study says
This article predicts unequal sea level rise resulting in much heavier flooding in the northern hemisphere.
The collapse of the massive ice sheet covering West Antarctica has always been one of the nightmare scenarios of global warming. So much water is locked away in the ice that if it were distributed evenly in the world’s oceans, it would raise sea levels by an average of five metres.
But a Canadian-led research team has made an unusual discovery about what will happen if the ice melts: Not all coastlines of the world will be affected equally.
According to Dr. Mitrovica, these physical properties would cause sea level to rise 25 per cent more than is currently expected along some coastlines. The worst effects would be in places such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and the coast of California. Southern Florida would disappear if sea levels were to rise more than six metres.
These are dire predictions, considering that warming is detected in the Antarctic, can Dr. Steig afford to continue playing these games.
Adam Gallon said
The reluctance of Steig et al, to release the full data and method of calculation can only lead to the one of the following conclusions, depending on where in the “Warmist”-“Denier” spectrum one sits.
1) They’ve knowingly used false data or a methodology to produce a desired result.
2) They’ve unknowingly used incorrect data and don’t want to lose face in admitting it.
3) Their data & methodology are correct, but they’re too bloody-minded to release the info to people whom they regard as lesser scientists than themselves.
4) They’re just plain bloody-minded.
It will require a politician of great stature to get the answers from them.
Adam Nealis said
Mr Id,
You blogged the above three days after the reply to your question (below) was posted here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/
Jeff Id said
#2
Read this…………
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/steigs-code/
Taphonomic said
Jeff,
The article was published in “Nature”. Their editorial policies are at:
http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/availability.html
These clearly state:
“An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission. Any restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript, including details of how readers can obtain materials and information. If materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, this should be stated in the paper.”
and:
“After publication, readers who encounter refusal by the authors to comply with these policies should contact the chief editor of the journal (or the chief biology/chief physical sciences editors in the case of Nature). In cases where editors are unable to resolve a complaint, the journal may refer the matter to the authors’ funding institution and/or publish a formal statement of correction, attached online to the publication, stating that readers have been unable to obtain necessary materials to replicate the findings.”
While this does not explicitly specify software, the associated journal “Nature Methods” has policies for software that apply to “Nature Methods”. These are spcified at:
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v4/n3/full/nmeth0307-189.html
You are seeking to replicate the results of this paper that made the cover of “Nature”. It has been demonstrated that there were problems with the data as cited in the paper. The author has refused full disclosure. Perhaps a letter to “Nature” requesting they help you acquire everything you need from the author is in order
Jeff Id said
#4 I gave it a shot.
AndyL said
I suspect Steig is just stalling. He will release all the code / data etc, but after a short while.
The reason is that climate scientists believe that “denialists” would use minor errors to cast doubt over the whole study. They don’t want that in the period that the paper is on the front cover of Nature as suspected errors would get huge amounts of publicity. Once a suitable period of time has passed, minor errors will be less concerning.
I also suspect this is part of the reason Schmidt was so quick in tracking down the data errors at BAS and putting out a note saying that the errors caused no significant changes to the results.