On 8/11/09 14:02, in article 3rfdf5t6ctm5tatl098p1ei9au4jcp1...@nntp.frankenexpress.de, "Peter
Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote: > As evidenced in the past, you can feed the Hockey Stick model with random > nuimbers and it will always spew out an oh so scary hockey stick.
Please cite.
You make a statement but did not back it up with a citation. I am not sure what a nuimber is.
On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input
The point being made with Figures 4.6 and 4.7 is that if there are hockey sticks in the underlying data and if they are decentered, then the CFR methodology will selectively emphasize them. Similarly, if there are ‘hockey sticks’ in the data series and the remainder of the data are uncorrelated noise, then the CPS method will also emphasize the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
Earl Evleth wrote: > On 8/11/09 18:09, in article 7localF3e4ag...@mid.individual.net, "Falcon" > <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Not really. Tingley and Huybers 2009 looks more like a rehash of already >> suspect material.
> Suspect by whom?
Don't you find it at all suspect? The authors did not address the Yamal issue which used by so many similar papers over the last nine years. They simply ignored the incredibly small sample size and used it anyway. (Melvin showed that Yamal creates a hockey stick out of a sample with no signal and produces an upward bias in the modern period). Tree ring proxies like Yamal are hard to correlate confidently with temperature. There's a liberal sprinkling of Jones and Mann (2004) and MBH98-99 in there too, as well as Osborn and Briffa (2006). So, I find myself wondering: what's new?
What's also missing is a link between warming and CO2.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:32:23 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote :
> On 8/11/09 17:11, in article pan.2009.11.08.16.11...@provider.net, > "Sirius" <Sir...@provider.net> wrote:
>> On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre
> So the recent work will have dealt with that.
Maybe, maybe not. The controversy between AWGers and non AGWers is far from being settled, and many AWGer never admitted the critics against Mann's hockey curve.
So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
I am not in a professional position, nor is anybody who posts on this group to make that judgment. The article has been submitted for review, those who review it are in a position.
>The authors did not address the Yamal > issue which used by so many similar papers over the last nine years.
If your comments are valid the referee will bring them up.
> What's also missing is a link between warming and CO2.
Why include that? This was about warming, not the cause of the warming. As a referee I would object to that inclusion.
By the way, how many papers have you refereed?
I have published over 100 peer reviewed papers and refereed at least that many. But not in the climate area. I suspect that of all the people who post on this group there are not more than several who have extensively published and review submitted papers.
On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On 8/11/09 19:28, in article 7logtmF3etrk...@mid.individual.net, "Falcon"
> <fal...@invalid.net> wrote: > > Suspect by whom?
> > Don't you find it at all suspect?
> I am not in a professional position, nor is anybody who posts on this > group to make that judgment.
Speak for yourself, retard.
> The article has been submitted for > review, those who review it are in a position.
So, by your own admission this article has not beeb reviewed yet? Right?
> >The authors did not address the Yamal > > issue which used by so many similar papers over the last nine years.
> If your comments are valid the referee will bring them up.
Not if he wants to keep his job.
> > What's also missing is a link between warming and CO2.
> Why include that? This was about warming, not the cause of > the warming. As a referee I would object to that inclusion.
Considering your dimwittedness I'm surprised you are not a referee.
> By the way, how many papers have you refereed?
> I have published over 100 peer reviewed papers and refereed > at least that many. But not in the climate area.
Cite?
> I suspect that of all the people who post on this group > there are not more than several who have extensively published > and review submitted papers.
Earl Evleth wrote: > On 8/11/09 19:28, in article 7logtmF3etrk...@mid.individual.net, "Falcon" > <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Suspect by whom?
>> Don't you find it at all suspect?
> I am not in a professional position, nor is anybody who posts on this > group to make that judgment. The article has been submitted for > review, those who review it are in a position.
Yet you do not have the slightest interest in how it reached its conclusions. Interesting. I appreciate your candour, but I don't think you're in a position to judge any contributors qualifications or credentials.
>> The authors did not address the Yamal >> issue which used by so many similar papers over the last nine years.
> If your comments are valid the referee will bring them up.
>> What's also missing is a link between warming and CO2.
> Why include that? This was about warming, not the cause of > the warming. As a referee I would object to that inclusion.
> By the way, how many papers have you refereed?
> I have published over 100 peer reviewed papers and refereed > at least that many. But not in the climate area. > I suspect that of all the people who post on this group > there are not more than several who have extensively published > and review submitted papers.
Is it your contention that if a paper is 'peer-reviewed' (whether or not you reviewed it) its conclusions must be true?
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote: > Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote: > > Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > > > Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > >> to see the graph you'll have to get the Scientific > > >> American for this month. I receive it and > > >> the "new" hockey stick looks like the old one.
> > >> Now let the gnashing of denier teeth begin
> > >> Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph > > >> A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures
> > > Promotion and popup ads charged unilateral k00ksite.
> > Peter the Windmill doesn't know that SciAm is a monthly periodical with > > a history going back over 150 years, lol.
> And that makes it exactly what?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
My father used to subscribe to Scientifc American, and I used to enjoy the articles. In the late 1980s , under a new publisher, the magazine gradually switched from publishing scientific articles to publishing liberal propaganda- A. McIntire
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:19:49 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote :
> > On 8/11/09 14:02, in article > > 3rfdf5t6ctm5tatl098p1ei9au4jcp1...@nntp.frankenexpress.de, "Peter > > Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> >> As evidenced in the past, you can feed the Hockey Stick model with > >> random nuimbers and it will always spew out an oh so scary hockey > >> stick.
> > Please cite.
> > You make a statement but did not back it up with a citation. I am not > > sure what a nuimber is.
> Those citations are not very hard to locate. Here are some. Enjoy your > reading.
> On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a > paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the > methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey > Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[16] > They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to > obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 > percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input
> The point being made with Figures 4.6 and 4.7 is that if there are hockey > sticks in the underlying data and if they are decentered, then the CFR > methodology will selectively emphasize them. Similarly, if there are > ‘hockey sticks’ in the data series and the remainder of the data are > uncorrelated noise, then the CPS method will also emphasize the ‘hockey > stick’ shape.
So M & M are your cites. Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences has already shot that down.
On Nov 8, 1:28 pm, "Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote: > > On 8/11/09 18:09, in article 7localF3e4ag...@mid.individual.net, "Falcon" > > <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >> Not really. Tingley and Huybers 2009 looks more like a rehash of already > >> suspect material.
> > Suspect by whom?
> Don't you find it at all suspect? The authors did not address the Yamal > issue which used by so many similar papers over the last nine years. They > simply ignored the incredibly small sample size and used it anyway. (Melvin > showed that Yamal creates a hockey stick out of a sample with no signal and > produces an upward bias in the modern period).
>Tree ring proxies like Yamal > are hard to correlate confidently with temperature. There's a liberal > sprinkling of Jones and Mann (2004) and MBH98-99 in there too, as well as > Osborn and Briffa (2006). So, I find myself wondering: what's new?
> What's also missing is a link between warming and CO2.
No, what's missing is basic intelligence on your part and a refusal to believe the science.
> On Nov 8, 11:11 am, Sirius <Sir...@provider.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:19:49 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote :
>> > On 8/11/09 14:02, in article >> > 3rfdf5t6ctm5tatl098p1ei9au4jcp1...@nntp.frankenexpress.de, "Peter >> > Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>> >> As evidenced in the past, you can feed the Hockey Stick model with >> >> random nuimbers and it will always spew out an oh so scary hockey >> >> stick.
>> > Please cite.
>> > You make a statement but did not back it up with a citation. I am >> > not sure what a nuimber is.
>> Those citations are not very hard to locate. Here are some. Enjoy your >> reading.
>> On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a >> paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in >> the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the >> "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component >> method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they >> were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal >> component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used >> as input
>> The point being made with Figures 4.6 and 4.7 is that if there are >> hockey sticks in the underlying data and if they are decentered, then >> the CFR methodology will selectively emphasize them. Similarly, if >> there are ‘hockey sticks’ in the data series and the remainder of the >> data are uncorrelated noise, then the CPS method will also emphasize >> the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
> So M & M are your cites. Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences has > already shot that down.
Here you see a very good example of argument of authority. Erschrödinger wants you to believe that just because he says so.
If you verify in the NAS report itself, you will see something much more balanced. The report says : "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. *and this newer supporting evidence*, the committee finds it *plausible* that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
Quote : "This research received wide attention, in part because it was illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, that many interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change. [...] Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. [...] The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change."
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:55:38 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote :
> > On Nov 8, 11:11 am, Sirius <Sir...@provider.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:19:49 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote :
> >> > On 8/11/09 14:02, in article > >> > 3rfdf5t6ctm5tatl098p1ei9au4jcp1...@nntp.frankenexpress.de, "Peter > >> > Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> >> >> As evidenced in the past, you can feed the Hockey Stick model with > >> >> random nuimbers and it will always spew out an oh so scary hockey > >> >> stick.
> >> > Please cite.
> >> > You make a statement but did not back it up with a citation. I am > >> > not sure what a nuimber is.
> >> Those citations are not very hard to locate. Here are some. Enjoy your > >> reading.
> >> On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a > >> paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in > >> the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the > >> "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component > >> method.[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they > >> were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal > >> component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used > >> as input
> >> The point being made with Figures 4.6 and 4.7 is that if there are > >> hockey sticks in the underlying data and if they are decentered, then > >> the CFR methodology will selectively emphasize them. Similarly, if > >> there are ‘hockey sticks’ in the data series and the remainder of the > >> data are uncorrelated noise, then the CPS method will also emphasize > >> the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
> > So M & M are your cites. Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences has > > already shot that down.
> Here you see a very good example of argument of authority. > Erschrödinger wants you to believe that just because he says so.
> If you verify in the NAS report itself, you will see something much more > balanced. The report says : > "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. > *and this newer supporting evidence*, the committee finds it *plausible* > that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of > the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding > millennium."
And "plausible" in this context means, as they say, a 2:1 chance.
> Quote : > "This research received wide attention, in part because it was > illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, that > many interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent > climate change. > [...] > Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods > were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and > procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. > [...] > The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just > one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes > presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but > rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate > change."
> On Nov 8, 5:29 am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > to see the graph you'll have to get the Scientific > > American for this month. I receive it and > > the "new" hockey stick looks like the old one.
> > Now let the gnashing of denier teeth begin
> > Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph > > A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures
that temperatures for the tree at the top of the picture were higher than temperatures at the bottom: ring widths are higher at the top.
How can any sane person think there is a way to weed out effects like heavy rain/drought, competiton from nearby trees for sunlight, shortages or abunances of nutrients in the soil, bug infestations, and get a temperature proxy? Haven't any of you grown trees in your own yard and noticed diffrences due to shade, drainage, etc?- A. McIntire
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:50:37 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote :
>> > So M & M are your cites. Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences has >> > already shot that down.
>> Here you see a very good example of argument of authority. >> Erschrödinger wants you to believe that just because he says so.
>> If you verify in the NAS report itself, you will see something much >> more balanced. The report says : >> "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. >> *and this newer supporting evidence*, the committee finds it >> *plausible* that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few >> decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the >> preceding millennium."
> And "plausible" in this context means, as they say, a 2:1 chance.
This definition of plausible is your own invention. Plausible means : which hasn't been proven false. Possibly true.
Usage: Plausible denotes that which seems reasonable, yet leaves distrust in the judgment. Specious describes that which presents a fair appearance to the view and yet covers something false. Specious refers more definitely to the act or purpose of false representation; plausible has more reference to the effect on the beholder or hearer. An argument may by specious when it is not plausible because its sophistry is so easily discovered. [1913 Webster] (I know, a 1913 dictionnary is completely out of date, language has much improved from then, now 'plausible' has a completely different meaning in paleoclimate sciences ; 'very likely' too.)
I read this report from begining to end. And I found nowhere a place from where this 2:1 supposition of yours could come.
Quote : "This research received wide attention, in part because it was illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, that *many* *interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic* causes of recent climate change. [...] Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. [...] The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change."
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:50:37 -0800, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote :
> >> > So M & M are your cites. Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences has > >> > already shot that down.
> >> Here you see a very good example of argument of authority. > >> Erschrödinger wants you to believe that just because he says so.
> >> If you verify in the NAS report itself, you will see something much > >> more balanced. The report says : > >> "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. > >> *and this newer supporting evidence*, the committee finds it > >> *plausible* that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few > >> decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the > >> preceding millennium."
> > And "plausible" in this context means, as they say, a 2:1 chance.
> This definition of plausible is your own invention. > Plausible means : which hasn't been proven false. Possibly true.
> Usage: Plausible denotes that which seems reasonable, yet > leaves distrust in the judgment. Specious describes > that which presents a fair appearance to the view and > yet covers something false. Specious refers more > definitely to the act or purpose of false > representation; plausible has more reference to the > effect on the beholder or hearer. An argument may by > specious when it is not plausible because its > sophistry is so easily discovered. > [1913 Webster] > (I know, a 1913 dictionnary is completely out of date, language has much > improved from then, now 'plausible' has a completely different meaning in > paleoclimate sciences ; 'very likely' too.)
> I read this report from begining to end. And I found nowhere a place from > where this 2:1 supposition of yours could come.
> Quote : > "This research received wide attention, in part because it was illustrated > with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, that *many* > *interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic* causes of recent > climate change. > [...] > Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods > were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and > procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. [...] > The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one > step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) > a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of > many independent lines of research on global climate change."
"Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right."
>> Quote : >> "This research received wide attention, in part because it was >> illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, >> that *many* *interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic* >> causes of recent climate change. >> [...] >> Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods >> were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and >> procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. [...] >> The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one >> step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes >> presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but >> rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate >> change."
> "Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from > that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right."
And they, very wisely, omitted such a personal estimate in their report because it would be very difficult to give it a scientific meaning. Apparently you only read comments on the report, not the report itself.
> >> Quote : > >> "This research received wide attention, in part because it was > >> illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve, > >> that *many* *interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic* > >> causes of recent climate change. > >> [...] > >> Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods > >> were flawed, that the choice of data was biased, and that the data and > >> procedures used were not shared so others could verify the work. [...] > >> The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one > >> step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes > >> presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but > >> rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate > >> change."
> > "Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from > > that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right."
> And they, very wisely, omitted such a personal estimate in their report > because it would be very difficult to give it a scientific meaning. > Apparently you only read comments on the report, not the report itself.
Throughout this book I’ll use a rough 2-to-1 odds range to quantify a plausible range.
>> And they, very wisely, omitted such a personal estimate in their report >> because it would be very difficult to give it a scientific meaning. >> Apparently you only read comments on the report, not the report itself.
> Throughout this book I’ll use a rough 2-to-1 odds range to quantify a > plausible range.
The problem is not with the 2:1 value. It comes from the undefined sample space.
And if you carefully read the NAS report itself, not what you were told by others about it, you will discover that : - it does not *validate* Mann's hockey stick curve - it does not 'debunk' what is said in the Wegman report about the statistical flaws in the hockey stick. - it states that whether temperatures where higher or lower than now during the warmth medieval period, is very uncertain. - it endorses nowhere the idea of a man made global warming.
|
