Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by timg56

$
0
0

Jim D,

Are you being intentionally dense?

Not every sceptic claims there is no warming or that there is no human component to it. How about responding to those who say;

that there is good reason to believe that among the human influences CO2 may not be the most dominant.

that almost every prediction / projection that gives a dire picture of the future is based only on models, whose output is diverging from observational data

that to date none of the dire things predicted to have occurred or are now occurring actually have

And if you only want to focus on “the science”, explain why certain scientists are defended so strongly when it is so clear that their work is substandard. That’s not saying all climate science is substandard, but some key portions are without doubt so. In fact I believe one of the purposes of this post is to show the problem is not limited to climate science. If it is endemic to scientific research as conducted today, why would you argue that the field of climate science is untouched by the problem.


Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jacobress

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by mwgrant

$
0
0
Hi Mosh, <i> It’s pretty standard to refer to interpolation as prediction. When we estimate the value of unsampled locations we are predicting that if you took measurements at those locations the values would be as we estimate.</i> I--myself, me--would say <i>common</i> instead of <i>standard</i>. As I noted above terms can reflect differences in backgrounds (disciplines). To wit I have Mo and Ed, Journel, Myers, and de Marsily books from my 'earthy days' on the floor and none even have the term <i>prediction</i> in the table of contents or index. However, <i>estimation</i> is the topic in multiple chapters. I would not be surprised, however, that 'geostatistics' pursed by some mathematical types and scientists/engineer working with time series may use different language. Also as AK suggests using an estimate as a predictor entails further assumptions. Use of the term <i>prediction</i> in a discussion here runs the risk of mixing the temporal element, i.e., trends--whether taken up in humor or earnest. [h/t Mike Flynn :O) ] BTW if I took measurements at those unsampled locations I would compare them with local estimates and not a global estimate. In addition global values are typically not amendable to direct measurement like local values are. What is a prediction for something that can not be measured? That is one reason why I like to refer to average global temperature as a metric or measure. It is a proxy construct and we need to remind ourselves of that continually. (Story for another day.)

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by micro6500

$
0
0

I wonder that the uncertainty is for all of those unmeasured places in their “prediction”. It’s 77,7F outside in NE Ohio, that must make it 55F in Thompson, MB Canada. Does anyone (other than BEST, NASA GISS, CRU) think that’s “better”?

Steve always points out how wrong the plain averages I use are, but the uncertainty in a plain average is a fraction of the infilled BEST uncertainty, and while the weighting of the plain average is skewed, it’s also proportional to certainty, not a bad trade off I think.
Plus if you really want to normalize weighting, I generate data on 1×1 degree cells.
Hey, but I published my code and the data I use is all available on line.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by JCH

$
0
0

Almost instantly there will be some bozo claiming a historic flood crested at a higher level. It happened when the Wivenhoe incident took place. It turned out the Wivenhoe incident was far more significant than the first reports, some of which infected Climate Etc.: not unprecedented, but far more significant than the idiotic red-bar graph that appeared early on the internet to prove climate change was not involved..

So it goes both ways.

Mitigation effect:

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Jimmy has to check with his handlers at huffpo on that one, tim. He will have to get back to you, as soon as he is refreshed on the appropriate dogma.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Kip Hansen

$
0
0

Reply to genghiscunn ==> It is certainly an odd behavior, this collegial courtesy, that in most fields would be considered “covering up for colleagues”.

I relative of mine, a practicing doctor on staff at seven Southern California hospitals, was “strung out” (addicted to) on amphetamines and sleeping pills — taking the uppers to wake up and work, and downers to sleep despite the uppers — a vicious combination. Many of his colleagues must have recognized the symptoms, they were obvious to me the moment I saw him. Not one colleague intervened with him personally, not one went to hospital administrators. I had to handle it myself — “Cold turkey, starting today, or I will report you to the state medical board.” He recovered and never relapsed. But it took family to do it, his fellow doctors would not.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Joseph

$
0
0

PA, I don’t think you know enough about the actual science to say you know the mainstream opinion is a “joke.” What are your credentials? Why is your opinion more valuable then the vast majority of people who actually what they are talking about?


Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by PA

$
0
0

The scary part is there are a number of scientific areas where the probability of a published result being valid are so low it doesn’t make sense to fund the research.

The correlation of study size with validity is another issue.

Current grant funding seems oriented at keeping researchers employed, rather than generating valid results. Funding a few large studies that might be valid makes more sense than funding a lot of small studies that aren’t.

The scientist themselves do contribute to the problem and a 5 year debarment for false results due to researcher error would reduce the number of false studies due to procedural errors.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Joseph

$
0
0
<blockquote>that to date none of the dire things predicted to have occurred or are now occurring actually have</blockquote> What dire things were predicted to have happened by now and there was a consensus around it?

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Joseph

$
0
0
I look at as if I were to go to some physicist and tell them they are doing something wrong because I heard about it on the internet and it seemed plausible to <b> me</b>,. even though I have no real background in physics. To me that seems a little ridiculous.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by PA

$
0
0
<i>micro6500 | May 29, 2015 at 10:57 am | I wonder that the uncertainty is for all of those unmeasured places in their “prediction”. It’s 77,7F outside in NE Ohio, that must make it 55F in Thompson, MB Canada. Does anyone (other than BEST, NASA GISS, CRU) think that’s “better”?</i> A more serious issue is that the actual sea surface temperature is measured but the land air temperature is measured instead of the actual land temperature. . The actual land temperature is only dimly related to the air temperature and a 1°C change in air temperature is going to have less than a 1°C impact on land temperature since the land loses about 1/2 its heat through other means.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by sciguy54

$
0
0

Just to be clear that the above s not opinion but fact, here is the actual verbiage:


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil

Its pretty clear that a method was chosen after a team had agreed upon a goal as stimulated by a common motivation. Not Science as we knew it once upon a time.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Mw of course you compare the local with the local. However when I say the global is 9.5c what that means is this. Select a random sample of unsampled locations. 9.5c is the best prediction you can make that will minimize the error. If however you ask me to predict a certain location then you compare the prediction with the local value.
Note that the dullards who demanded a more precise discussion have left.

That was my point. They demand a conversation they refuse to have

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by You Believe the Science? What “Science?”| al fin next level


Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Mw this may help you

Station observations are commonly used to predict climatic variables on raster grids (unvisited locations), where the statistical term “prediction” is used here to refer to“spatial interpolation” or “spatio-temporal interpolation” and should not be confused with “forecasting.” In-depth reviews of interpolation methods used in meteorology and climatology have recently been presented by Price et al. [2000], Jarvis and Stuart [2001], Tveito et al. [2006], and Stahl et al. [2006]. The literature shows that the most common interpolation techniques used in meteorology and climatology are as follows: nearest neighbor methods, splines, regression, and kriging, but also neural networks and machine learning techniques.”

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by micro6500

$
0
0

A more serious issue is that a fraction of the actual sea surface temperature is measured

Fixed it.

The actual land temperature is only dimly related to the air temperature and a 1°C change in air temperature is going to have less than a 1°C impact on land temperature since the land loses about 1/2 its heat through other means.

Actually what we have here is a land – space sandwich, with the atm stuffed between them, if you’re measuring Tsky in IR you should measure the ground as well, concrete and grass cool very very differently at night, as well as asphalt and concrete warming a lot differently during the day.

I can imagine when we’re all done 90% of the warming is land use and jet contrails, and what are we going to do when we figure that out? Do you really think Al will stop flying around?

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by douglasroctor

$
0
0

“Nowhere does there seem to be any incentives to actually get the right answer, attempt to reproduce and criticize a peer’s paper, and generally to behave with integrity.”

This is a problem of our obsession with newness and novelty: what happened yesterday or if we already spoke of it, is not important. It is also a problem of accountability. If you are not accountable, what you said yesterday doesn’t matter.

For “correctness” to be valued, for someone to be accountable, looking backward AND calling to task another party for mistakes have to be socially supported activities. Al Gore and Michael Mann continue to use slides and say things from years past that have been discredited or, at a minimum, shown to be exaggerations or inappropriate. They shrug off criticisms because they can. They are not held accountable by society or their professional alliances.

But the problem is much, much greater than that. George Bush lied/misinformed/disinformed about the presence of biological, chemical, nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in order to frighten the world into attacking that country. The lie brought in Britain. It was a lie known as a lie at the time, and attempts by Valerie Plame to bring truth to the fore were ruthlessly stopped. Obama says outrageously incorrect things these days about the certainty of terrible damage and the criticality of immediate, punitive, regulatory actions by the American (and other) governments. But there is no come-back. They are not accountable.

As long as there is no accountability for gross errors, integrity will be challenged in the scientific – and all other! – fields. The solution is to demand accountability, but how is that to be done?

I have had a long career in the profit-based oil and gas business. And I have a lot of experience to back my statement that accountability is not high. Bonuses are paid, termination packages are paid even when the company falls down through egregious risk-taking and internal deceit. Should we mention Wall Street and Goldman Sachs here, or General Motors and Chrysler, where absolute self-interest ruled right through the economic crisis of 2008? Where was the accountability when the American taxpayer bailed out the rich for their flagrant disregard of their taxpayer shareholders?

Accountability. Ms. Curry, you write well on ethics and integrity, the philosophical issues of science, and I am with you ever step of the way. But I despair. Like you, I see the worms in the apples sold in the market. But how are we to rid ourselves of those rotten apples if we won’t go back to the owners of the orchards and tell them to clean up their act or we’ll stop buying their product?

The dilemma lies in the breakdown of the social contract we have between ourselves and those claiming to speak for us. Fix the contract and these problems will go away either by not happening or by being fixed in a timely fashion.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Ak
“Interpolation” as “prediction” is based on an often unwarranted assumption. Presumably everybody who uses this approach is aware of what that assumption is, and justifies using it in their particular case. Oh, wait…
#########
And they are often based on warranted assumptions.
It is a stupid pet trick to note that assumptions may be unwarranted. Maybe unicorns. The burden you have is to
A. Find the assumptions
B. Show that they are important
C. Show how better assumptions change the answer

Note I assume you are intelligent.
Note I assume that physical laws accepted today operated in the past
There are always assumptions
Demonstrating that an assumption is unwarranted is different than asserting the mere possibility of it’s existence. And more importantly an unwarranted assumption often proves useful.

Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2

$
0
0

I’m having trouble understanding how the uncertainty can be so low for BEST. Modern day weather station thermometers have a +/- 0.75 C spread. Older thermometers might have had a +/- 2 C.

But then, given the huge daily variation in temperature, the error introduced by Tobs stands to be huge. The daily variation in temperature is in the range of 10-20 C. The uncertainty introduced by Tobs correction will tend to be large. Perhaps another +/- 5 C.

In a lab experiment, the temperature might be determined 5 times in the same system in roughly the same state. It’s straightforward to apply statistical techniques in this scenario.

For surface temps, there are no repetitions for a temperature measurement. Each thermometer is in a unique environment, not measuring the same point above the surface. Applying statistics in this situation is not straightforward at all.

It’s difficult to understand how the final product can have such a small uncertainty.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images