What happened to global warming then?

[Linford]

I think it should be pretty clear by now that people use this expression to refer to those parts of the planet's environment on which we depend. Obviously the planet itself will survive, but no-one says otherwise. The risk of a massive deterioration in our planet's ability to feed our population and provide us with an acceptable quality of life is plenty to worry about, is it not? And yes, there are other environmental problems, but they tend to be more localised.

Where do we set the bar in consideration to an acceptable quality of life though ? One which a 1st worlder lives with with all the toys, personal travel, and conspicuous consumption, or that of a 3rd worlder who is happy to be able to feed themselves and their dependents, and access to clean water which they don't have to walk 5 miles each day to get ?

 

[Danny]

Danny,
VamP is not denying climate change... nor is he challenging the methodology... he's questioning some massve assumptions and manipulation of data.
....as should we all.

No-one has commented on the validation of the recording of the statistical data as yet, I have grave doubts aboyt the validity of the local temperature/ growth ring/ percentage analysis of the daily records and source material which are forming the inputs from which the the 'hockey stick' projections are being created.

He claims, but offers no proof, that there has been manipulation of data.

It seems to me that scientists have gone to enormous lengths to find valid proxy indicators which can be used to reconstruct temperature trends over decades and centuries. No one has claimed the process is perfect but there is no evidence that there has been systematic manipulation of data.

 

[MacB]

Don't you think............?

Jonesy, I don't know and have not claimed to know, I am merely scoring this on the debate here on this thread. If someone trots out, what they claim is, mathematical evidence indicating that it would have been nigh on impossible for something to have been 'accident/oversight'. Then, if they are wrong, it should be straight forward to prove that via the same sort of maths.

While your bit about 'science not being finance and my lack of caution in assumptions' sounds impressive, it's just more flannel. It doesn't say anything, it barely even registers on the scale of meaning and woefully fails as the putdown you probably imagined it to be. I reiterate I am making no assumptions just scoring the debate as I'm reading it and you're not doing so well.

Face it, VamP is making an allegation based on XYZ and apparently also understanding XYZ, you and User482 refute this based on...what someone else says...and without being able to understand XYZ.

Like I say, for all I know VamPs XYZ is total balderdash but I can't prove that and I'm not about to attempt the necessary study to equip myself. But it's not me that's flat out calling him a bullshitter.

 

[Maz]

What's happened to global warming? It starts tomorrow!
Temperatures will reach a balmy high of 8 Celcius!

 

[User482]

Jonesy, I don't know and have not claimed to know, I am merely scoring this on the debate here on this thread. If someone trots out, what they claim is, mathematical evidence indicating that it would have been nigh on impossible for something to have been 'accident/oversight'. Then, if they are wrong, it should be straight forward to prove that via the same sort of maths.

While your bit about 'science not being finance and my lack of caution in assumptions' sounds impressive, it's just more flannel. It doesn't say anything, it barely even registers on the scale of meaning and woefully fails as the putdown you probably imagined it to be. I reiterate I am making no assumptions just scoring the debate as I'm reading it and you're not doing so well.

Face it, VamP is making an allegation based on XYZ and apparently also understanding XYZ, you and User482 refute this based on...what someone else says...and without being able to understand XYZ.

Like I say, for all I know VamPs XYZ is total balderdash but I can't prove that and I'm not about to attempt the necessary study to equip myself. But it's not me that's flat out calling him a bullshitter.

It doesn't really matter what you are able to prove. As per my previous post, consider what VamP is asking you to believe and decide if you think it's remotely likely to be true.

 

[Linford]

It doesn't really matter what you are able to prove. As per my previous post, consider what VamP is asking you to believe and decide if you think it's remotely likely to be true.

If you don't understand the workings of it, what you believe or not doesn't really carry much relevance does it ?

 

[User482]

If you don't understand the workings of it, what you believe or not doesn't really carry much relevance does it ?

It's a quote from a paper VamP has already dismissed as garbage. I think if we to take his claim seriously, he needs to produce his own analysis rather than cut and paste a supposedly worthless extract.

 

[Linford]

It's a quote from a paper VamP has already dismissed as garbage. I think if we to take his claim seriously, he needs to produce his own analysis rather than cut and paste a supposedly worthless extract.

I agree with this point that if he has just cut and pasted someone elses work without understanding it, but that still doesn't get around the fact that if he were to do as you ask, and you still don't understand what he is saying because your grasp of the knowledge doesn't run that deep, your opinion is still irrelevant as he might as well be presenting it in Mandarin.
I don't profess to understand what he is saying, and as such aren't trying to argue the toss over it.

 

[User482]

I agree with this point that if he has just cut and pasted someone elses work without understanding it, but that still doesn't get around the fact that if he were to do as you ask, and you still don't understand what he is saying because your grasp of the knowledge doesn't run that deep, your opinion is still irrelevant as he might as well be presenting it in Mandarin.
I don't profess to understand what he is saying, and as such aren't trying to argue the toss over it.

I understand what he is saying, but I am unable to calculate r^2 from first principles, I guess like most people who did this sort of thing at undergraduate level.

I don't know that VamP is, either, as he's shown no evidence of original work thus far.

With regard to the information he presented, the paper he quoted from gives a lengthy explanation of why it's an inappropriate measure, and offers alternative statistical validation techniques instead. For example:

"validation statistics that isolate interannual information are considered inappropriate for use in the verification period in this paper. This judgment arises because the analysis presented has the primary purpose of gauging multi-decadal reconstruction performance"
"This measure, although commonly used in comparison of fitted and actual values, presents
specific problems in the context of the purposes of this paper.""
"can lead to incorrect assessments of reconstruction fidelity"
"Panel “b” illustrates the potential for false negative rejection of climate reconstructions based on verification period performance at the interannual time scale measured by r, even though the reconstructions accurately represent multi-decadal mean information."

I suggest you have a look for yourself (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf page 60)
Ask yourself why VamP is misrepresenting and quoting out of context from a paper he's already dismissed as rubbish.

 

[VamP]

I agree McB. VamP has been coy about his job but he seems to know his stuff.

In particular "principle componenet analysis"

I was involved in a research project which pertained to use this and got published.

The principle author (and me) didn't understand it. It's massively complicated and I believe only an expert mathmatician would understand it

I think VamP has been very balanced on this thread.

I'm a long-standing fan of User482 and jonesy generally, but I don't think they've really answered VamP's question.

I suspect Vamp's knowledge of principle component analysis - if real - implies he has genuine knowledge in this area.

User482, jonsey and FM all declared their positions on this - ie above average knowledge but not professionls in the field.

It would be nice if VamP declared his position too

I don't think people should be evaluating the issues in hand based on perceived qualifications of the posters here. It has been alluded that I 'appear' to be giving the impression of being in possession of some 'greater knowledge'. I am not, but then this is an old debate, and the relevant evidence is all out in the public domain.

It's only fair that I set the record straight, in case some reading this are assuming that I am a working climate scientist. I am not.

I have a science degree and a business masters degree. I read a lot of papers. I have a genuine interest in the area. I do understand the math, though I would not have been able to carry out the analysis that MM did. I suspect that I would not have made the errors in applying the math that Mann made though.

I don't think people need to be 'expert mathematicians' to follow the maths, I would guess that A level mathematics, supplemented by some statistics reading should allow most to follow the debate.

Edit: edited first sentence for grammatical clarity.

 

[MacB]

It doesn't really matter what you are able to prove. As per my previous post, consider what VamP is asking you to believe and decide if you think it's remotely likely to be true.

You see, you're doing what Jonesy was, arguing with the Peanut Gallery, ie me. All I've been expressing is my view from my section of the Peanut Gallery. There is no point in either of you directing stuff at me as I'm not equipped to handle it.

I believe our activities on this planet are making matters worse for ourselves, but my only certainty is at a 'you don't foul your own nest' level. VamP is not negating that view and actually supports it, he just has an issue with a specific scientist and, what he sees as, his cohorts/inner circle.

So that made this a very different global warming type thread as it has become something other than the usual pro/anti circular nonsense.

 

[User482]

You see, you're doing what Jonesy was, arguing with the Peanut Gallery, ie me. All I've been expressing is my view from my section of the Peanut Gallery. There is no point in either of you directing stuff at me as I'm not equipped to handle it.

I believe our activities on this planet are making matters worse for ourselves, but my only certainty is at a 'you don't foul your own nest' level. VamP is not negating that view and actually supports it, he just has an issue with a specific scientist and, what he sees as, his cohorts/inner circle.

So that made this a very different global warming type thread as it has become something other than the usual pro/anti circular nonsense.

I'm not arguing otherwise. The issue is that VamP has consistently failed to support his assertions. The maths he has quoted does not support his argument, as the paper he quoted from makes very clear.

 

[VamP]

Danny,
VamP is not denying climate change... nor is he challenging the methodology... he's questioning some massve assumptions and manipulation of data.
....as should we all.

No-one has commented on the validation of the recording of the statistical data as yet, I have grave doubts aboyt the validity of the local temperature/ growth ring/ percentage analysis of the daily records and source material which are forming the inputs from which the the 'hockey stick' projections are being created.

An interesting (separate) question. How accurate is the historical record?

I tend to believe that the work done by Richard's Muller team in this regard is pretty well founded and probably the most authoritative yet. As an interesting sidenote, it's worth looking up Muller's position on MBH98 and Mann in general.

 

[VamP]

It doesn't really matter what you are able to prove.

Yep, that's how science works.

 

[User482]

Yep, that's how science works.

If you think that science is about proof, you don't understand it very well.

An interesting (separate) question. How accurate is the historical record?

I tend to believe that the work done by Richard's Muller team in this regard is pretty well founded and probably the most authoritative yet. As an interesting sidenote, it's worth looking up Muller's position on MBH98 and Mann in general.

I see what you've done there:

1. Call Mann a liar and a cheat and fail to support your accusation.
2. Switch to calling Mann's data garbage and fail to support your accusation (btw selectively quoting and misrepresenting reports is very naughty).
3. Switch to questionning the historical record.

It's quite clear you have a problem with Mann, and nothing is going to change your mind.