The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[waldo]

It's a good thing there are more than alarmists working on planet Jiffy-Pop's future.....the modeling business is booming ! These folks like the 'harmonic' approach to explain (and predict) temperature fluctuation:

hey now! You've gone back to parroting your no-name denier blog guy! (by the by, did you pick your linked graphic for it's bright colour mix?)

do you have a point... or, uhhh... are you really, really, really advocating for time-series fitting of solar-system cycles as a replacement for general-circulation models?

on edit to add: you're now 6 for 6... keep up the good work

Edited March 29, 2013 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

This is exactly the same kind of dismissive attitude that invites closer and sometimes harsher criticism. Provide the raw data...straight up...every time...no games !!

I can post all the charts I want but without the underlying data they are not substantiated. Wonder where I can find some ?

Are you sure this is still an issue ? I remember this from years ago, but as I recall they had to negotiate with the source providers of data for the right to release them. As the data came out, we heard less about this presumably because there was nothing to the concerns expressed.

I put this with the 'heat islands' controversy that came out way back as well.

[Michael Hardner]

It it partially a quibble about terminology. The paper in question presented measurements of the x-ray density of lake sediments over time and presented an explanation for the relationship between the x-ray density and temperature. This explanation is rooted in an understanding the physics that govern the creation of these sediments.

No - it's a multivariate analysis, "rooted" in statistics and numbers.

This explanation, based on physics, constrains any subsequent analysis. An analysis that ignores these physical constraints is a bogus analysis. Mann produced a bogus analysis because he produced coefficients that contradict the basic physics of these sediments. That is your problem too. You think that physics can be ignored and any number that pops out of a statistical meat-grinder is as acceptable as any other number. You are wrong. Physics matters.

You keep getting this wrong. HE didn't produce coefficients, the model did. I don't think statistical meat-grinder numbers should be accepted as is, in fact that's the first lesson of multivariate analysis, that the numbers alone can't be considered. At best, this is a disagreement between what two numbers mean. I have read discussions that rationalize the effect of these sediments both ways.

A far stretch from corruption or conspiracy. Even the fact that we're arguing this issue down to this level should be an indicator of that.

[Michael Hardner]

Unfortunately I think Michael's quote there illustrates a much deeper lack of understanding of both science and statistics. First... the statement "humans can't understand them" is nonsense, since of course humans have to understand them, they are the ones that described and quantified the proxy, analyzed and understood the relevant physics, etc.

No - humans can understand the MODELS but not the physical world, not 100%.

Secondly, no, proxies are not "models of real world processes". Rather, a proxy is merely a set of data about any phenomenon, that, by way of physical understanding, a scientist can use as a stand-in (a proxy) for some other phenomenon of interest (like sediment density data or tree ring data standing in for temperature data).

Yes, your correction is apt. But, I was correcting TimG's even worse characterization of these things being real world processes.

Moving on.

Lastly, a lack of understanding of the physical processes underlying various data series (such as the lake sediment densities in question) is most certainly NOT why statistical studies are quoted as having 95% (or other % values) confidence.

I don't know that I said this. The thing about 95% to me is the fact that newspapers quote it as though Climate Scientists picked that number. It comes from statistics and the problem I have is when tabloids trumpet commonly misunderstood ideas in misleading ways.

I'll restate: these are models, multivariate models wherein an understanding of the physical process is - yes - central to creating the model. However, the process is not 'rooted' in physical science, it's rooted in data and statistical method, which are used to examine the validity of the theory to a confidence level.

Maybe that's a quibble with TimG's assessment, but I don't think it is. He's an engineer so he seems to think that applied physical science should somehow trump all methods at work here. The scientists used the data differently, and I have read rationales of that that make the case for both sides.

In any case, the criticism was made - how many years ago - and science doesn't seem to think that this is some kind of golden dagger to the heart of Climate Change theory.

Oh, and let's zoom in to why this paper was done in the first place: to construct temperature proxies over time for those who reject tree rings as a data source because they diverge from actual temperatures (which we know) in modern times. And ... nobody seems to be actually disputing whether temperatures are going up anyway, even TimG.

So this one issue about one set of data in one paper of many to support a theory already supported in hundreds of papers - this one use of data disagreed upon by two scientists who used parts of the data differently - is supposed to be evidence of some pervasive corruption, all done in an forum where papers are (and were) criticized and debated ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you sure this is still an issue ? I remember this from years ago, but as I recall they had to negotiate with the source providers of data for the right to release them. As the data came out, we heard less about this presumably because there was nothing to the concerns expressed.

I completely disagree with this dismissive approach.....the complete (and I mean complete) data set should be made available as part of peer and public review. Meta data and summaries are not good enough. I am particularly interested in 'outliers' or 'noise' that are excluded and the criteria for doing so.

The absence of such data only invites suspicion and criticism. In most cases, the data were collected with public research dollars. The only real constraint is procedural access across organizations and data set size.

I put this with the 'heat islands' controversy that came out way back as well.

This sort of data regimen is not specific to the global warming circle jerk....it applies to any field of study. Show us the data, and how it was obtained or derived....methodology....bias....etc. before telling me to tax the world for carbon emissions.

[Michael Hardner]

I invite Waldo and IimG to point out if I have misstated anything here as it has been awhile since I read through the minutae of that paper.

[Sleipnir]

It seems to me that people are throwing data and graphs around without really understanding them.

[Michael Hardner]

The absence of such data only invites suspicion and criticism. In most cases, the data were collected with public research dollars. The only real constraint is procedural access across organizations and data set size.

I just asked for proof that this is still an issue - if some of the 'hidden data' has been released and is found to be sound then where are we ?

Procedure problems still block access, so ...

[waldo]

A far stretch from corruption or conspiracy. Even the fact that we're arguing this issue down to this level should be an indicator of that.

clearly - the only recourse with TimG's skewed position is to agree to disagree... while pointing out that McIntyre has had many, many years to raise a formal challenge... which he hasn't - apparently, he likes the cozy confines of his isolated, secure blog world.

(uhhh... you may have noticed my slightly raised ire a few posts back concerning this issue coming forward again, for the umpteenth time. Mea culpa if you took it personally)

[Michael Hardner]

clearly - the only recourse with TimG's skewed position is to agree to disagree... while pointing out that McIntyre has had many, many years to raise a formal challenge... which he hasn't - apparently, he likes the cozy confines of his isolated, secure blog world.

(uhhh... you may have noticed my slightly raised ire a few posts back concerning this issue coming forward again, for the umpteenth time. Mea culpa if you took it personally)

Not at all - I hear it from both sides that these perennial discussions constitute 'trolling' but the mods seem to see it, rather, as entrenched debate and as long as one side continues to bring it up, I will too. I spent a lot of time looking into this, finally deciding that there was no there to the there there, ie. claims of corruption and incompetence were overstated.

And if someone eventually makes up their mind but disagrees with you, well some will see you as having sold out, being stupid, or never having an open mind in the first place. Some. Including present company, I suspect. We're human beings so objective data has to go through a subjective human - therefore we're cursed to only see things through our own lens.

[waldo]

I invite Waldo and IimG to point out if I have misstated anything here as it has been awhile since I read through the minutae of that paper.

oh noooos... just saw this - so I need to retract my mea culpa! Seriously, this issue (on this forum) will never be resolved. TimG has a view of his blog world - others look to the positioning of outstanding papers to be a representative delimiter. My concern here, as before, is this issue has hit so many MLW threads in the past, that it completely derails them (yes, I'm as much to fault as anyone). And, of course, at the end of the day, the issue means nothing other than to continue to be used as a vehicle by TimG to attempt to skewer a prominent scientist, and more broadly, climatologists and climate science at large.

[Bonam]

Moving on.I don't know that I said this. The thing about 95% to me is the fact that newspapers quote it as though Climate Scientists picked that number. It comes from statistics and the problem I have is when tabloids trumpet commonly misunderstood ideas in misleading ways.

Of course they "picked that number". It doesn't "come from statistics" as some fixed unmodifiable constant like e or pi come from calculus and geometry. A scientist can choose to do their research to any confidence level they choose, 95%, 99%, 50%, 99.9999%, 2%, whatever, it's up to them.

I'll

restate: these are models, multivariate models wherein an understanding

of the physical process is - yes - central to creating the model.

However, the process is not 'rooted' in physical science, it's rooted in

data and statistical method, which are used to examine the validity of

the theory to a confidence level.

No. Disagree. This ignores the scientific method.

Step 1: hypothesis. You need to have a hypothesis, backed by physical understanding, of how you think the phenomena of interest (say temperature and sediment densities) are related.

Step 2: experiment. Gather the data you need to check the hypothesis.

Step 3: check if your hypothesis was right. The data, given its error bars, should show the correlation you predicted in your hypothesis. If it does, your hypothesis is now a "theory", and has a little bit of evidence supporting it, and other people can try to falsify it by getting additional data and trying their own experiments against your theory. If, on the other hand, it doesn't match, you don't simply get to say, oh, well, I guess the correlation must have been totally different, who cares about the physics?

It is important to follow the scientific method to get valid results. If one simply takes datasets and does statistical analysis on them, one can find correlations where there is no actual relevant relationship between the phenomena. Consider the graph of global warming vs pirates that circulates around on the internet constantly.

Maybe that's a quibble with

TimG's assessment, but I don't think it is. He's an engineer so he seems

to think that applied physical science should somehow trump all methods

at work here. The scientists used the data differently, and I have read

rationales of that that make the case for both sides.

As far as I can tell, TimG is arguing for the proper use of the scientific method, rather than blindly plugging things into statistical models without any understanding.

In any

case, the criticism was made - how many years ago - and science doesn't

seem to think that this is some kind of golden dagger to the heart of

Climate Change theory.

Oh, and let's zoom in to why this paper

was done in the first place: to construct temperature proxies over time

for those who reject tree rings as a data source because they diverge

from actual temperatures (which we know) in modern times. And ... nobody

seems to be actually disputing whether temperatures are going up

anyway, even TimG.

So this one issue about one set of data in one

paper of many to support a theory already supported in hundreds of

papers - this one use of data disagreed upon by two scientists who used

parts of the data differently - is supposed to be evidence of some

pervasive corruption, all done in an forum where papers are (and were)

criticized and debated ?

No, obviously, the one paper is of minor significance in itself. I don't know why it has been discussed here with such fervor so many times.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Bonam

[waldo]

It seems to me that people are throwing data and graphs around without really understanding them.

yes - clearly... I thought I might tweak some meaningful discussion on a broader level with the following post (extract, tailored to project anonymity):

- what does it say about someone, choosing a dynamic that categorically refuses to accept science.

- what does it say about someone, who will blindly gravitate to some unknown internet blog, created by some unknown person, and just openly accept anything/everything hosted on that website... and put it forward as factual with such absolute certainty? What does it say about someone (you) who will do this, while at the same time knowing nothing whatsoever about the underlying issues and supporting framework?

- what does it say about someone, who will do all of the above while at the same time posturing (from ignorance)?

[Michael Hardner]

oh noooos... just saw this - so I need to retract my mea culpa! Seriously, this issue (on this forum) will never be resolved. TimG has a view of his blog world - others look to the positioning of outstanding papers to be a representative delimiter. My concern here, as before, is this issue has hit so many MLW threads in the past, that it completely derails them (yes, I'm as much to fault as anyone). And, of course, at the end of the day, the issue means nothing other than to continue to be used as a vehicle by TimG to attempt to skewer a prominent scientist, and more broadly, climatologists and climate science at large.

I INVITED you to critique my post only for errors. You can simply decline the invitation. The issue is alive until it's dead, or in a coma as usually happens.

[waldo]

Are you sure this is still an issue ? I remember this from years ago, but as I recall they had to negotiate with the source providers of data for the right to release them. As the data came out, we heard less about this presumably because there was nothing to the concerns expressed

I completely disagree with this dismissive approach.....the complete (and I mean complete) data set should be made available as part of peer and public review. Meta data and summaries are not good enough. I am particularly interested in 'outliers' or 'noise' that are excluded and the criteria for doing so.

The absence of such data only invites suspicion and criticism. In most cases, the data were collected with public research dollars. The only real constraint is procedural access across organizations and data set size.

This sort of data regimen is not specific to the global warming circle jerk....it applies to any field of study. Show us the data, and how it was obtained or derived....methodology....bias....etc. before telling me to tax the world for carbon emissions.

you're partially correct Michael. There were ownership and contractual arrangements with the data in question - owned by others (e.g. other country government agencies). Those miscreants intent on manufacturing an issue over this were advised they could get the data by asking the owners directly for it.

[waldo]

I INVITED you to critique my post only for errors. You can simply decline the invitation. The issue is alive until it's dead, or in a coma as usually happens.

then, as before... my suggestion was to pick a dedicated thread... and play it out there. You know how many threads have already been taken over with this nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course they "picked that number". It doesn't "come from statistics" as some fixed unmodifiable constant like e or pi come from calculus and geometry. A scientist can choose to do their research to any confidence level they choose, 95%, 99%, 50%, 99.9999%, 2%, whatever, it's up to them.

Yes, but they wouldn't have picked 94% or 96% - the number comes from stats not climate science is my point.

No. Disagree. This ignores the scientific method.

We're saying the same thing, IMO. I don't deny that you start with the knowledge, but the experiment is the statistical process is the point. It's not 'rooted' in physical science "experiments" which aren't happening - the experiment in questino is a purely mathematical exercise which needs to be understood as much as the physical science here, or you can get wacky results.

As far as I can tell, TimG is arguing for the proper use of the scientific method, rather than blindly plugging things into statistical models without any understanding.

Strawman - I never said anything about blindly plugging in models.

No, obviously, the one paper is of minor significance in itself. I don't know why it has been discussed here with such fervor so many times.

It's cited by TimG, which prompted a detailed reading and many hours on my part way back when. When I came to a conclusion that disagreed with his, I was "in on it" from that point on.

I don't think you've added much to what I posted, this part of the discussion is at a standstill in my mind.

[Michael Hardner]

then, as before... my suggestion was to pick a dedicated thread... and play it out there. You know how many threads have already been taken over with this nonsense.

Fair enough - actually as faciliatator I should be noticing when we go off topic, mea culpa for me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough - actually as faciliatator I should be noticing when we go off topic, mea culpa for me.

No...not fair enough, just more of the same dodge we get whenever methods and/or biases are challenged to present and critique the underlying data sets and methodology, as if that is an assault on an already established conclusion (i.e. 'the science is settled').

I would agree that this forum format is not conducive to an arcane analysis of the data layer, but it can't be dismissed as well intentioned "mistakes" or "errors". Those in academia or climate change research don't get to change the rules that the rest of us have to live by in industry, applied physics, and other disciplines.

[Guest Peeves]

Having read most of these opinions before, I have come to the conclusion that debating or arguing with a 'Greener", is akin to debating an alternative with a Creationist,. When blinders go on,walls get built and beliefs are fixed in stone, it's a waste of time.

A dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance, has no opening to any but their own reasoning.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Peeves

[waldo]

then, as before... my suggestion was to pick a dedicated thread... and play it out there. You know how many threads have already been taken over with this nonsense.

Fair enough - actually as faciliatator I should be noticing when we go off topic, mea culpa for me.

No...not fair enough, just more of the same dodge we get whenever methods and/or biases are challenged to present and critique the underlying data sets and methodology, as if that is an assault on an already established conclusion (i.e. 'the science is settled').

is that what you were doing? Challenging? I thought you were simply blindly parroting your anonymous denier guy's blog... you're going to get to your described "underlying data sets and methodology"... at some point, right! Nice to see you trot out the 'science is settled' meme .

I would agree that this forum format is not conducive to an arcane analysis of the data layer, but it can't be dismissed as well intentioned "mistakes" or "errors". Those in academia or climate change research don't get to change the rules that the rest of us have to live by in industry, applied physics, and other disciplines.

??? aside from the bluster, this applies to what being discussed?

[waldo]

Having read most of these opinions before, I have come to the conclusion that debating or arguing with a 'Greener", is akin to debating an alternative with a Creationist,. When blinders go on,walls get built and beliefs are fixed in stone, it's a waste of time.

A dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance, has no opening to any but their own reasoning.

nice drive-by. You're new here, right? Unfortunately, without any reference points to compare your contributions/arguments, one can only ascertain your conclusion is predicated upon... a dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance; that you're not open to any reasoning but your own.

[Michael Hardner]

No...not fair enough, just more of the same dodge we get whenever methods and/or biases are challenged to present and critique the underlying data sets and methodology, as if that is an assault on an already established conclusion (i.e. 'the science is settled').

I would agree that this forum format is not conducive to an arcane analysis of the data layer, but it can't be dismissed as well intentioned "mistakes" or "errors". Those in academia or climate change research don't get to change the rules that the rest of us have to live by in industry, applied physics, and other disciplines.

I invited you to provide an example - and the invitation is still open.

[Shady]

Having read most of these opinions before, I have come to the conclusion that debating or arguing with a 'Greener", is akin to debating an alternative with a Creationist,. When blinders go on,walls get built and beliefs are fixed in stone, it's a waste of time.

A dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance, has no opening to any but their own reasoning.

Agreed, and well said.

[TimG]

HE didn't produce coefficients, the model did.

That like saying he did not kill that man - the gun did... nonsense.

.

.

I don't think statistical meat-grinder numbers should be accepted as is, in fact that's the first lesson of multivariate analysis, that the numbers alone can't be considered.

You apparently have not learned the lesson very well because you have absolutely refused to acknowledge my arguments about why Mann's numbers are nonsense if you look at the physics of the proxies. To this day you have not once provided any counter argument to that line of argument. You simply wave your hands and say 'physics doesn't matter' and claim that Mann's numbers are as good as any other number.

.

.

A far stretch from corruption or conspiracy. Even the fact that we're arguing this issue down to this level should be an indicator of that.

This is really an issue of trust. Climate scientists are making many claims that cannot be proven. They are asking us to trust them. Can you give me any reason why I should trust them given the fact that they have repeatedly allowed junk science produced by Mann to go uncorrected?

.

.

BTW - this discussion is on topic for a thread labelled "The Great Green Con #1". It keeps coming up because it is symbolic of the entire climate debate. waldo does not like it because I suspect he knows he wrong and he wants to change the topic.

Edited March 29, 2013 by TimG