What happened to global warming then?

[Archie_tect]

"How accurate is the historical record?" Ha...I didn't mean that VamP!
Untypical variations in recorded CO2 levels and related growth patterns of trees may have been attributed to local variations rather than global trends. So, basing global trends on local variations may skew statistics and may in the extreme lead to the unrepresentative prediction of trends... ie the hockey stick.

Quoted from BerkeleyEarth's paper:
"....They believe their station selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned that,
and claimed that the selection picked records with large temperature increases. Such bias
could be inadvertent, for example, a result of choosing long continuous records. (A long
record might mean a station that was once on the outskirts and is now within a city.)...."

 

[Archie_tect]

Be interesting to see the global temperature rise plotted against population rise and whether there's a similar correlation...

 

[VamP]

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.

r and r2 are completely different things. It's hard to discuss this with someone who refuses to grasp the concepts.

If WA saw no value in calculating an r2 verification, why would they have done so?

Accusations of misrepresentation and quoting out of context...

WA07 is a dog. Stop pushing it, you're not helping yourself.

 

[User482]

r and r2 are completely different things. It's hard to discuss this with someone who refuses to grasp the concepts.

If WA saw no value in calculating an r2 verification, why would they have done so?

Accusations of misrepresentation and quoting out of context...

WA07 is a dog. Stop pushing it, you're not helping yourself.

Wahl and Ammann went to a great deal of trouble to show why certain statistical techniques were inappropriate. They even went as far as calculating some of them, and plotting some nice graphs to show why they don't work. You decided to ignore all of this, and quote a table out of context.

There's no point arguing with someone prepared to quote support from a paper he believes to be rubbish, and then miss out all the stuff that tells him why he's wrong. Perhaps that's because you don't understand it.

You screwed up, and were found out. That's all there is to it.

 

[VamP]

For a bit of light relief, I am posting a piece from a review of Mann's forthcoming book, Climate Wars; dispatches from the front lines.

Barton commissioned his own study by tapping stats professor Edward Wegman of George Mason University – a man with no climate science background. The Wegman Report repeated the debunked McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) claim that the hockey stick was a mathematical artifact of using PCA conventions, while ignoring published peer-reviewed papers that refuted M&M’s claim. The more authoritative NAS review, for example, dismissed the claim that PCA conventions had any significant impact on the hockey stick results. (Currently, Edward Wegman is being investigated for plagiarism and his 2008 journal article on the subject was retracted by Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.) Mike then summarizes the two House hearings on the subject in July 2006 where Barton’s witnesses, including Wegman, were embarrassed by their own incompetence. Sadly, Wegman did not even understand the heat-trapping physics of greenhouse gases!


I can't wait to read the book


Compare with analysis of the impacts of the whole controversy by Hans von Storch, a leading German climate scientist.

...the influential network of researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their colleagues in the U.S.—whose sanctum was exposed last month when a whistleblower or hacker published e-mails and documents from the CRU server on the Internet. What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effort has not been so successful, but trying was bad enough.

 

[VamP]

I hereby declare User482 as unserious.

 

[User482]

I hereby declare User482 as unserious.

Declare away. It's no surprise that having been found out, you now wish to talk about something else.

 

[Archie_tect]

Yes, let's.

How about establishing the known and irrefutable facts about global warming, rather than all this posturing....

Difficult isn't it? since there are so few.

 

[marinyork]

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.

Although it is true that you would use some A-level topics in it (unsurprisingly, especially if you are unfortunate enough to listen to people who went to particular schools going on about Further Maths) Multivariate analysis and linear algebra are 'undergraduate' topics. They would be very roughly late first year or second year modules at an institution worth its salt or 2nd/3rd year 'specialist' option modules at a different institution. Some institutions that are fairly good institutions even package up these into a postgraduate masters degree (that's another topic in its own right). Someone in a different discipline might well have a poke at them at postgraduate level. Generations of science and engineering students have bemoaned not having a good enough grounding in the two before using them. That is not to say that they are out of the reach of anyone, Maths is after all a completely open subject open to all - in contrast to some other subjects. What is open to less than 5% of the population is as I've always said probably open to 'everyone' or rather a qualified everyone - say 30% of the population.

 

[VamP]

Yes, let's.

How about establishing the known and irrefutable facts about global warming, rather than all this posturing....

Difficult isn't it? since there are so few.

I actually don't think that there are that many areas of contention. While the paleoclimate group has suffered a serious credibility loss, this a a pretty narrow area of the field. Much of the evidence for climate change is unchallenged in any serious manner. Unfortunately, in public perception, the sins of the few have tainted the whole.

I am not sure how much reading anyone did of some thoughts by Judith Curry which I posted a link to a while back. She postulates this:

The subject of climate change is complex and important topic; the public is counting on scientists to provide the best available information. When the public saw in climategate, with “hide the decline” being its slogan, there was a substantial loss of public trust. This is not a good thing for climate science, nor for policy deliberations.
The response to climategate (of which hide the decline is the slogan) of the climate scientists and the broader climate establishment has been to say to the public “not to worry, the science is still sound, nothing has changed.” No one is standing up to acknowledge the problems and talk about addressing them so that this kind of thing does not happen in the future. Restoring trust would have been easier a year ago than it is now.

Hans von Storch said something similar recently on Deutsche Welle.

Here's a translated taster:

On the loss of credibility, climate science itself is to blame. The science has stirred up scientifically unfounded expectations, says von Storch. The demand that the public has to rapidly accept instructions on how to act in order to save the planet has blurred the boundaries between policy and science. As a result, science has not become something that has to do with “curiosity”, but rather gives the impression that it’s all about pushing a pre-conceived value-based agenda: “As scientists we have become political tools who are to deliver sought arguments to get citizens to do the right thing.”
The problem is not ‘that the public is is too stupid, or uneducated’, but that science has failed to deliver answers to legitimate public questions. Instead they have said, “believe us – we are scientists’. There are many questions among individuals and they have only gotten a ‘stroppy reply,’ Storch finds.”

 

[marinyork]

I actually don't think that there are that many areas of contention. While the paleoclimate group has suffered a serious credibility loss, this a a pretty narrow area of the field. Much of the evidence for climate change is unchallenged in any serious manner. Unfortunately, in public perception, the sins of the few have tainted the whole.

I am not sure how much reading anyone did of some thoughts by Judith Curry which I posted a link to a while back. She postulates this:

It is bad PR, but I don't buy the general idea. The public are sceptical due the low esteem of science in general and a host of lifestyle and political reasons. That and having their buttons pushed by powerful bits of a stupid media.

 

[User16625]

Seems the "experts" have changed their minds again......

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2012/01/29/are-we-facing-a-mini-ice-age/?ncid=webmail10

Will HM Government now give us all a nice refund on the taxes they whacked on to fossil fuels in the name of preventing global warming, or admit that we have all been seriously conned? No I didn't think so......

Dam right they wont. Climate change is normal and an expected part of many of the processes on our planet. Well, not just our planet. Heres another one it happens on: http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/captions/neptune/fullnep.htm

Some time later NASA takes a few more pictures of the same planet: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/solar system/neptune/2011/19/image/a/format/web/

And what do you know! DIFFERENT WEATHER! Its not proven if there are any Lamborghinis or Land Rovers on the blue planet called Neptune but due it it not having a solid surface, its unlikely auto manufactures are to blame.

And heres a picture of a storm thats apparently at least 400 years old!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Red_Spot_From_Voyager_1.jpg

This is on another planet again. This planet isnt blue tho. So there you have it, the cause of climate change is caused by the fact that earth is too blue in colour. I will email my proof that climate change isnt caused by us to the chancellor along with a fuel duty petition. I hope he just dont slap duty on water.

 

[User482]

Oh dear.

 

[iLB]

lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-johnson/climate-change-is-a-fact_b_1443826.html

 

[growingvegetables]

I will email my proof that climate change isnt caused by us to the chancellor along with a fuel duty petition.

Hmm - quite fancy being a fly on the wall on the chancellor's office when that one arrives.