RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Such great news on this very day!

    Comment by Pagodroma — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:02 AM

  2. Strange…. my version of the code has ‘JCHEAT’ but not ‘ICHEAT’. Do I need to change it, too ? A mutation maybe ?

    Comment by Michel Crucifix — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:12 AM

  3. Ahah… ICHEAT…;-)

    I love Van den Budenmeyer/Zbigniew Preisner music, anyway.

    Happy April Fools’ Day.

    Comment by Paolo C. — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:38 AM

  4. Really, this all comes down (or should that be up?) to what I call “northernhemispheriphilia” – the absurd insistence by scientists of ALWAYS showing the Earth with the northern hemisphere on top. If you guys had had the good sense to show the Southern Hemisphere on top then all the signs would have automatically reversed and the problem would have never arisen in the first place.
    Anyway, I think this reversal requires a more thorough analysis, so I’ve alerted the boffins over at WUWT to the situation, who should be able to provide some serious discussion, here:

    Comment by Slioch — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:49 AM

  5. ;)

    Comment by Lucibee — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:54 AM

  6. A giant , invisible bunny , out for his first spring day, explained this to me. Until then it had me fooled.

    Comment by John McManus — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:59 AM

  7. Dear Stefan,

    Nigel Calder recently produced a graph apparently from Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (2007) that shows exactly the opposite of your Fig. 3. I asked Nigel here and here if he could explain the contradiction, although I was not entirely satisfied with his response.

    If I may I would like to ask the same question here. How is it that Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have a graph that appears to contradict yours. Please don’t tell me it’s the ICHEAT bug. :) But it surely must be explained what they have done that is wrong.

    [Response: There is of course a real correlation between the 11-year solar cycle (which also modulates the cosmic ray count) and global temperature – quite a few papers have shown this, including recently Foster&Rahmstorf (ERL 2011). -stefan]

    Comment by Alex Harvey — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:06 AM

  8. Date_and_time(DATE=today)
    IF(today.EQ.”20120401″) THEN

    Comment by Deen — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:29 AM

  9. I’m confused. The comparisons showing the wrong sign above are between solar activity, PDO and cosmic rays with the temperature record, all observations. How would a bug in the code of climate models affect these comparisons since everything shown above is observations?

    Comment by Jeff Pierce — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:40 AM

  10. In commercial computer code, where people are trying to avoid litigation for copying proprietary code, the concept of “Clean room” development is well understood. You lock people away from net access and have them develope the functionality you want to copy from scratch. Sounds like some climate modelers need to try the method … or at least do some serious code analysis looking for shared sections and have them reimplemented independently.

    Comment by Geoff Russell — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:48 AM

  11. It would have been so much better if you’d just had the name of the Dutch scientist right. It is Van den Budenmayer!

    How can we believe anything you say if you can’t even get the name right? Pah!

    [Response:Must be a different guy. I’m talking about the colleague mentioned in the acknowledgements of this paper. -stefan]

    Comment by Marco — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:49 AM

  12. It’s probably a bad idea to publish satire in a climate blog. In a few days thisarticle will by cited on WUWT and pompously editorialized about on Forbes. It will end up being the 2123rd “final nail in the coffin” of AGW theory.

    Comment by Dallas Dunlap — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:52 AM

  13. Good to have this sorted at last. Have to say ‘though, that the ICHEAT methodology has been a great help in efforts to extract useful interpretations from recalcitrant data as attested, for example, by the outstanding efforts of Drs Roy (Julie) Christie and John (Woy) Spencer, not to mention the clever applications of Professor Mitt Linzwest (and others).

    And it’s great to see how this very special-ised methodology has been embraced by the hoi polloi, to such an extent that a complete absence of scientific insight is no longer a hindrance to the very productive data “re-interpretation” that we see at all corners of the Internet!

    Comment by chris — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:55 AM

  14. You should publicize those first graphs more, perhaps make it a quiz where people have to guess the trend in them after they are shown the temperature trend. Is there any reason to think that PDO is affected by the CO2 or the sun/cosmic rays?
    If they are all uncorrelated then it won’t be pretty if they all point the same way. What temp rise per decade would we get then.
    (thought you were just going to say the the temp graph was upside down because the satellites were programmed in the wrong hemisphere)

    Comment by Russell — 1 Apr 2012 @ 6:09 AM

  15. This seems to have spread into my bank’s software as well. I’m going to demand they release their code, but with no great hope that they’ll comply :(

    Comment by Cugel — 1 Apr 2012 @ 6:18 AM

  16. As a game developer I’ve done the same thing many times. It’s pretty common in programming – most non programmers don’t appreciate that when you only have 1s and 0s -1 is as good as 1, but takes up half the memory. All of the really cheap sites on the web use -1s and the letter o. It keeps the costs down. Happy -1th of April.

    Comment by Ben Bastian — 1 Apr 2012 @ 6:43 AM

  17. Not so new, first proposed by Avril le Fou

    Comment by jiminy — 1 Apr 2012 @ 6:50 AM

  18. Nice april fools joke.

    Comment by Darryl Williams — 1 Apr 2012 @ 6:56 AM

  19. April Fools’ Day!?

    But anyway a good check on knowledge and logic.
    I am a lay person!


    Comment by pieterzijlstra — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:06 AM

  20. Are de GHG, stupid

    Comment by Pepe Larios — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:07 AM

  21. Brilliant, ANOTHER climate conspiracy from the alarmists! I aim to be the Prometheus in this situation, by which I mean I will deliver your remarks straight to Fox News for immediate dissemination.

    However, being a humble man, I will not use my own name, as I wish no fame for myself for reporting this “discovery.” Also, I wouldn’t want to get famous on this particular day, since April is of course Hitler’s birth month.

    Comment by anoNY — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:19 AM

  22. While we argue and discuss this and that, seemingly going around in circles, but also maybe getting somewhere, step by step, here is my new book about POLAR CITIES that everyone dismissed so vehemently three years ago.

    TRAILER VIDEO for “POLAR CITY RED ” – sci fi novel by Jim Laughter

    POLAR CITY RED info link:

    Comment by Dan Bloom — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:24 AM

  23. I’m missing something here, how does an error in the code for a computer model make a difference in the observational data series you’ve shown? Has ICHEAT been used to produce final numbers for all these data? That is, has the PDO etc. been different than we thought? You really need to explain things better before weird memes propagate.

    Comment by Spencer — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:29 AM

  24. I am not sure I grasp the relevance of a computer bug to the data measurements shown in the Figures above.

    Could you elaborate on just what the “paradox” of data observations being anti-correlated with expectations has to do with a computer fudge factor?


    Comment by Brian Brademeyer — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:34 AM

  25. Gillard has obviously taken your important new finding seriously.

    Comment by GSW — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:37 AM

  26. As a resident artsie here at RC, I share your embarrassment not a whit!

    However, in order to begin to right the cosmic balance again (so to speak), I will ask a (perhaps foolish) question: does this mean that the long-standing and very well-accepted ‘pirate effect’ and ‘sheep albedo effect’ are now of the wrong sign?

    If so, your travails are surely not over…

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:37 AM

  27. Let’s see now…today is what?

    Comment by Larry Coleman — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:40 AM

  28. A very dangerous April Fool’s joke. Betcha Watts swallows it….and from then on it will be immortal in the blogosphere

    Comment by Dave123 — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:42 AM

  29. The people who think Stephen Colbert is a conservative will take ICHEAT to be fresh evidence of a scandal.

    Comment by Arun — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:44 AM

  30. I was about to sputter with rage, but then I noticed the date–nice one!

    Comment by wili — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:54 AM

  31. Nice ;-)

    I was reading the last few lines when I suddenly realised, that also this theory will be falsified. Very soon, I think. Maybe already tomorrow.

    Comment by Hans Kiesewetter — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:55 AM

  32. Re; ‘ . . We will keep you updated here at RealClimate, of course.’

    Once a year will be quite enough, thank you.

    Comment by Christopher Squire — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:58 AM

  33. Thanks for the hard work RC.

    Unfortunately, I believe you have the start date incorrect. The issue pre-dates Van den Budenmeyer by a couple decades. There are also reports from the astronomical community coming out that ICHEAT has been applied even earlier to the faint young sun “problem,” but it turns out stellar luminosity actually goes down with time!!

    This correction now explains why Mars has evidently cooled over geologic timescales, and beautifully explains the transition from greenhouse to icehouse climates over the last several tens of millions of years. It turns out that Earth is inevitably headed for a snowball state sometime soon, depending somewhat on the size of the sheep-albedo feedback (though some new minor issues open up in explaining previous, similar events).

    Comment by Chris Colose — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:02 AM

  34. I project that next week someone will get real and find the Fortran variable UCHEAT in another program available as an undocumented tuning parameter.

    Comment by Ric Werme — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:05 AM

  35. I have to say that, while potentially embarrassing, I would much rather this news be broken honestly, on a reputable climate science blog like this one, as opposed to entering the media through some denialist source. Mistakes are part of the scientific method, and I’d much rather our side keeps the moral/scientific high ground by being honest about mistakes when we find them. So, thanks for posting this.

    Comment by Caleb — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:26 AM

  36. Is this an April fool joke? Could you show a graph of a climate variabile where ICHEAT is -1 vs +1? You have only shown graphs where the system does not respond as naively expected.

    Comment by Mitch Lyle — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:31 AM

  37. Didn’t expect German climate crooks to have humour.

    Comment by KSchlonz — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:37 AM

  38. Love it. Had to check the date!

    Comment by John E Pearson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:46 AM

  39. I think you and your colleagues have more work to do. Please consider the first letter of “iCHEAT”. Everyone knows i is an imaginary number!

    Comment by The Elf — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:02 AM

  40. Dave123 @28:

    I always figured that every Watts post was an April Fool joke and he just hasn’t figured how to use a calender.

    Comment by John McManus — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:41 AM

  41. Alex Harvey @7

    Good to see you joining in with the April 1 jokes! Svensmark and Friis-Christensen did indeed use the iCHEAT method.

    Comment by chris — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:41 AM

  42. I’m not sure why everyone is releived? This is terrible news! Now we know for sure that it’s the Sun, there is sweet FA we can do about it.

    Comment by Alan — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:50 AM

  43. Yes Elf i is an imaginary number. That is why the version that Michael Crucifix has is jCHEAT – He must have the engineering edition.

    Comment by KnockJohn — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:51 AM

  44. Ha!

    Well done. :)

    Time to see who it spreads to.

    Comment by Salamano — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:24 AM

  45. I saw the ICHEAT as a reference to Fortran using variables beginning with I…J as integers.

    Comment by passing — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:28 AM

  46. This ICHEAT seems to be a useful subroutine – to bad it has been exposed. When word about this gets out to the deniersphere, this is going to create problems. Think of the headlines it will make: SCIENTISTS SCREW UP THEIR DATA USING ICHEAT! OMG, all those hefty paychecks from the government will dry up, and all you guys will have to get REAL JOBS!


    On a more serious note:

    How many climate change deniers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    None. They only know how to screw the planet!

    Comment by Craig Nazor — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:50 AM

  47. Dang! You had me for a bit. Not till I started reading the cosmic ray section did I realize what you were doing. :-) Nicely done.

    Comment by Daniel J. Andrews — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:26 AM

  48. Looks like as the latest Forbush decrease has confirmed the Svensmark’s hypothesis.

    Comment by vukcevic — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:36 AM

  49. Amazing, I made it all the way to the line about solar activity and ran right smack into the words ‘coincides with the deepest solar minimum’ when I realized the paradox was the relationship between the science outlined in the article and the time segment on a per anum scale. If the time segment occurs on a particular the ‘Wrong sign paradox’ make perfect sense to those that understand the coincidence factor. This also proves that if you choose your data correctly correlation handily proves causation.

    The relationship immediately became obvious and suddenly I realized that we’ve all been thinking about this wrong-headedly. This goes to the opposites attract theory. When two opposites come together in a binding relationship it is well known that bliss ensues until of course the opposites come to the notion that they do have something in common – the fact that they are opposite. This is akin to anti-matter/matter interaction at that point.

    Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:40 AM

  50. po’ po’ po’

    Comment by Susan Anderson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:44 AM

  51. delightful! thank you.

    then there is the law of inverse deniers too – how long it took one to see through your excellent good humour.

    Comment by David Wilson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:52 AM

  52. I need to do a talk on belief structures next week. Where can I download this code… or is it hidden?

    ICHEAT: Illusory Code Enables Alternative Translation

    Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:57 AM

  53. I have it on good authority that the iCheat methodology was hijacked by the Republican party for use in deciding the suitability of its presidential nominees.

    Comment by Alan Henderson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 12:32 PM

  54. tiswl TOTALLY get cited by teh deniers.

    Comment by piffy — 1 Apr 2012 @ 12:46 PM

  55. The bug in my code says:


    “Nope, D’jew?”

    Comment by Louis Hooffstetter — 1 Apr 2012 @ 12:46 PM

  56. @52 John P. Reisman

    “ICHEAT: Illusory Code Enables Alternative Translation”

    Perhaps you meant:

    ICHEAT: Illusory Code Heuristically Enables Alternative Translation

    Comment by Richard Woods — 1 Apr 2012 @ 12:46 PM

  57. I LOL’d.

    Comment by csoeder — 1 Apr 2012 @ 12:51 PM

  58. Very funny. But not so funny. In the real world the ICHEAT is more complicated, and the researcher might not be aware that he/she is using it. There is always a tendency toward confirmation bias. There is always a tendency to accept one’s research results if it reaches what one expects or wants, and a tendency to fiddle with the research if not.

    Comment by t marvell — 1 Apr 2012 @ 1:07 PM

  59. or, to go with the tinfoil:

    ICEHAT – Illusory Code Enables Heuristically Alternative Translation

    Comment by Andy Lee Robinson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 2:19 PM

  60. Plus/minus one of your best, though nothing beats the sheep albedo.

    Comment by CM — 1 Apr 2012 @ 2:26 PM

  61. Not to interrupt or anything–but you need an April thread.

    They have an alligator farm in Michigan because of global warming. Some of the alligators have been pulling people’s legs…

    Comment by Snapple — 1 Apr 2012 @ 2:32 PM

  62. Well, this is certainly going to leave some April foolie day egg-yolk on someone’s face…

    Comment by R. Gates — 1 Apr 2012 @ 2:52 PM

  63. Funny piece, I prefer the German word ISCHUMMEL above ICHEAT or even the Dutch word IKLETSKOEK.

    The Dutch are famous though for their problem solving capabilities, after tackling this ISCHUMMEL problem, our scientific institutes are directing their attention on the monster of Loch Ness and the location of Atlantis, but our top priority will be to finally solve the famous chicken and egg problem.

    Comment by Jos Hagelaars — 1 Apr 2012 @ 3:29 PM

  64. Stefan: While I do realize this is an April Fools post, a note of clarification about your second example.

    You wrote, “Basic physical considerations would suggest that the global temperature is warm when the PDO-Index is high, i.e. when sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific are high. A theory that would beautifully fit the data – if only the sign were reversed (Fig. 2)!”

    The PDO does not represent the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. In fact, the PDO is inversely related to the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N.


    Comment by Bob Tisdale — 1 Apr 2012 @ 3:49 PM

  65. I have been mining the Bore Hole to try to work up the data for a new RC original post entitled- “Wrong spin paradox finally resolved?”

    Comment by Steve Fish — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:08 PM

  66. #56 Richard Woods

    ICHEAT: Illusory Code Heuristically Enables Alternative Translation

    Yes, my apologies, my IFLOP software was enabled when I typed that.

    Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:10 PM

  67. This is no “sheep albedo effect” but still clever.

    Comment by Andy — 1 Apr 2012 @ 4:13 PM

  68. I knew it!

    Finally you must have come to understand that gravity is just a theory.

    So much more work to do.

    Comment by richard pauli — 1 Apr 2012 @ 5:29 PM

  69. JCHEAT Do not forget many Euopeans pronounce the J as we would a Y

    Comment by Tony O'Brien — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:01 PM

  70. I actually looked at the code and, unfortunately, every instance of ICHEAT was multiplied by the variable NCHEAT which also was assigned the value -1.0. I’m afraid the problem has not yet been solved.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 1 Apr 2012 @ 7:09 PM

  71. Very Van-y!

    Comment by Tenney Naumer — 1 Apr 2012 @ 8:19 PM

  72. Oh Stefan,

    The iCHEAT is just to much to bear. I laughed until my sides hurt…you are too much……

    still laughing,


    Comment by Lucien Locke — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:00 PM

  73. Saving some excellent advice for the upcoming Open Thread:

    teensily OT here but useful nonetheless.

    Comment by Susan Anderson — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:02 PM

  74. Wow. The mountaineer, backcountry skier and mountain biker in me always thought the rule: Gravity never takes a day off was sacrosanct….but now I’m not sure about that either! ;-)

    Comment by tokodave — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:09 PM

  75. I’m saving my sympathy for the guy who has to tell Arthur Dent the answer was really -42.

    Comment by owl905 — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:24 PM

  76. Google has its own subtle sense of humour too. When I pasted Van den Budenmeyer to google it searched Van den Budenmayer then asked if I really meant Van den Budenmeyer!


    Comment by Noel Fuller — 1 Apr 2012 @ 9:33 PM

  77. I must admit that the sheep albedo effect is my favorite, although there were several other goodies. Gotta love today.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:18 PM

  78. Dan H.

    Gotta love today.

    In your case, it’s sort of like Groundhog Day blended with April Fool’s.

    Having read so many of your posts and all.

    Comment by dhogaza — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:42 PM

  79. Apple will be announcing the iCheat in Q3 2012 … since scientific computing requires so much computational horsepower, it’s iRack mountable.

    Comment by dhogaza — 1 Apr 2012 @ 10:46 PM

  80. You RC guys are just cruel.

    Comment by DF — 1 Apr 2012 @ 11:36 PM

  81. #7 Alex Harvey

    Perhaps Calder did not see any pressing reasons to reveal to you that the “impressive” cosmic rays/temperature fit of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen in their never-published reply to Lockwood & Fröhlich was only achieved by removing a trend of 0,14C/decade – or 0,7C over the last 50 years? ;)

    Best, Christoffer

    Comment by Christoffer Bugge Harder — 2 Apr 2012 @ 12:41 AM

  82. It ill behoves me to criticise such an august body of scientists as those who run but I feel it incumbent on me to do so. You are indeed correct to state the variable ‘ICHEAT’ has appeared in all climate models up to the present but are completely wrong about its provenance. It was introduced by Dr CO Jones and Professor SN Dall and should read ‘1 C heat’ and represents the CO2 climate sensitivity built into the models. In 1988 the neo-Confusion philosopher, Jim Han Sen, introduced the following line: ‘WATVAP=3.0”. Climate sceptics claim that as there has been no warming since 1998 its value should be 0.0.

    Comment by Ron Manley — 2 Apr 2012 @ 1:46 AM

  83. Oh dear. My attempt, mentioned at #4 above, to get the WUWT site commenting on this didn’t get very far, see:

    “Slioch says:
    April 1, 2012 at 2:45 am

    May I draw everyone’s attention to the fact that there has been a major reversal in climate science reported at Realclimate here:

    REPLY: This is a badly executed April Fools Joke, ignore it. Here’s why I didn’t do one this year:

    With so much deception going on, you’d think RealClimate would know better. I guess not. – Anthony”

    Perhaps Anthony was concerned lest his followers fell for it, though, to be fair, they had not done so in the hours before he added his reply.

    Comment by Slioch — 2 Apr 2012 @ 2:09 AM

  84. ICHEAT2 is also a very useful variable. If you set it to 0 and then use it as a multiplier, all sorts of things can simply disappear. There are times when that is more useful than simple ICHEAT. For example, it would be difficult to interpret CO2_conc *= ICHEAT;
    but CO2_conc *= ICHEAT2;
    has a very simple interpretation. There isn’t any CO2, so it can’t be doing anything.

    Comment by sydb — 2 Apr 2012 @ 4:16 AM

  85. @Stefan-inline response to #11:

    This is quite funny, there IS such a person as Van den Budenmeyer in climate science?!

    I was convinced you were alluding to Van den Budenmayer, a fake composer made up by Zbigniew Preisner and Krzysztof Kieslowski.

    There I was, thinking I made a smart remark pointing out I looked through the April Fool’s joke, and the joke is STILL on me…

    [Response: Admittedly, the VdB acknowledgement in that old paper was inspired by Kieslowski… Don’t tell anyone! -stefan]

    Comment by Marco — 2 Apr 2012 @ 4:21 AM

  86. Ha ha. (But EVERY day is April 1 for climate skeptics!)

    Comment by Jbar — 2 Apr 2012 @ 5:23 AM

  87. Susan on Trolls,

    The wrong sign paradox applies to trolls, too.

    By observation, at least a few people on any blog will respond to trolls, thus providing sustenance. An individual who is bothered by this is best served by adding to the din, as that will hasten the troll’s exile to the Bore Hole.

    Be that as it may, I don’t think Dan H and Norman are trolls, and from their actions, it seems that the mods at SS & RC agree. Norman was ejected for being too high-maintenance. Hopefully he’ll learn to shrink his bandwidth.

    Comment by Jim Larsen — 2 Apr 2012 @ 5:29 AM

  88. Better check those voting machines for ICHEAT, too

    Comment by steve — 2 Apr 2012 @ 6:35 AM

  89. Having done computer modeling in flow dynamics I know you do have to sometimes force the model to behave like the real word – especially when have to satisfy a CPA that the finacal output is accurate. I almost bought into it until I realized ‘oh sugar’ what is today’s date!!! LOL

    Comment by Phil Hoey — 2 Apr 2012 @ 11:07 AM

  90. “…the 2123rd “final nail in the coffin” of AGW theory…”

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 2 Apr 2012 @ 1:45 PM

  91. It’s important to understand that this ICHEAT code must only be applied an odd number of times, otherwise it is totally ineffective.

    Comment by Jim Ramsey — 2 Apr 2012 @ 3:10 PM

  92. I’d like to refer you to Lou Grinzo here :
    “If you’re going to do an AFD joke, make it funny and make it subtle enough to actually fool people.”

    I don’t think RC should attempt April Fools gags. The topic is (a) serious (b) tough enough to understand for the layman . But there’s a (c) Funny doesn’t work in a polarized dialogue, not because it’s not funny, but because it creates a them and us mentality, or the them and us mentality that’s already there becomes more polarized. Or something like that.
    I’ll give you an example from my own experience. To face down unruly litigants the ‘State’ uses humour in the courtrooms. Ive been there, and I cant quite explain why it works. If you don’t get what I’m saying, sorry, were I to explain what Im on about I would go way off topic of RC. Now Im not saying Ive had my SOH lobotomized but put it this way have you ever lied when someone’s asked “D’you get the joke?”


    Comment by Hengist — 2 Apr 2012 @ 3:36 PM

  93. Oh my gosh. How embarrassing. And to think I sent this to 4,374,210 people…
    What a great example of obfuscation.
    My friend, Willy Wonka, would truly have appreciated this.
    I look forward to next year’s rant.

    Comment by Jim Newman — 2 Apr 2012 @ 3:38 PM

  94. Ha! You had me fooled – mainly because this bit is all too true:

    “useful computer code spreads like a virus amongst scientists…nobody ever starts writing scientific code from scratch if colleagues have already solved aspects of the task at hand and the code is free.”

    I’m sure there are a few bugs out there that have spread in this fashion.

    Comment by Timothy — 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:25 AM

  95. John McManus says:
    1 Apr 2012 at 4:59 AM

    A giant , invisible bunny , out for his first spring day, explained this to me. Until then it had me fooled.

    Eli did not! It was a secret.

    Comment by Eli Rabett — 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:27 PM

  96. I’m definitely not a computer person, but it seems that there may also an issue in the design tolerances for what look like remnant loops: SEPTIC_FOO and SEPTIC_BAR. Specifically the escape counter using the variable DUM_NUM seems to have been left in a default with lots of 9’s in it. Perhaps if you’re going to leave those functions in there, setting a lower limit for SUM DUM_NUM would shorten runtime and thereby avoid overtaxing the heat sinks… at least on some of your more antiquated systems.

    Comment by Radge Havers — 5 Apr 2012 @ 1:15 PM

  97. As one of the people involved with the code review on this important topic, I thought it would be useful to give an update. It seems that far too many extant papers and theories rely on this particular variable essentially inverting non-conforming data, so rather than eliminating the variable, it seemed better to rename it to more accurately describe its function. Henceforth, this data-inverting variable shall be called KONTRARIAN. (Patches available on request.)

    Comment by Ed Beroset — 6 Apr 2012 @ 6:37 PM

  98. i may be an imaginary number but the author of the post isn’t. In any event, joke or not, better vetting of the climate model computer code, numerical estimations, and actual validation would be a good idea all around.

    Comment by George M — 17 Apr 2012 @ 5:07 PM

  99. If you’re going to print April Fool jokes, please pull them after 1 April. Maybe I’m just a curmudgen, but reading the article on 22 April is no longer funny, just a waste of time.

    Comment by Mike — 22 Apr 2012 @ 8:12 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.238 Powered by WordPress