What good is a consensus among scientists who publish unreproducible research?
Comment on The conceits of consensus by GaryM
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Richard Arrett
Ah snap. You guys are right.
That is what I get for writing something off memory – I got it backwards!
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Don Monfort
You are a silly little dude, hockeypuck. The 100’s of atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, physical chemists, etc. who produced the US Standard Atmosphere and International Standard are not peddling the crap you are peddling. Name 200 of them who are running around climate blogs making fools of themselves like you are. You are flying with the Skydragons. Birds of a feather doo-doo together. Keep cranking, little dude.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Richard Arrett
catweazle666:
It is my understanding that it is not that the temperature is warmer in urban versus rural.
For UHI it is that the anomaly rises over time in the same location as that location turns from rural to urban (i.e. population density increases at a spot over time).
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by micro6500
” For UHI it is that the anomaly rises over time in the same location as that location turns from rural to urban (i.e. population density increases at a spot over time).”
Isn’t that a given?
The airport where the city’s temps were measured for as long as I remember, 30-35 miles away is a couple to about 5F warmer than my backyard, which is different from the small towns 5 miles away.
In fact on a motorcycle you can feel the temps drop riding under a tree.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by mwgrant
Brandon
I understand that. I think part of the problem is just that most people don’t realize how much effect adjustments have on BEST’s results.
Of course I do not know, but I would not be surprised. None of the material is casual and adjustment appears [to me anyway] the much tougher topic to get into. Even with equations folks have intuitive and maybe visual ideas about interpolation, sample coverage, etc. You know the effort needed for crawling thru both. Was it more difficult to look at the adjustment aspects than the interpolation? Does ‘adjustment’ overshadow ‘smoothing’ as a problem?
Rhetorical questions just for thought: How important is any individual methodology for a temperature or anomaly plot? Is the collective behavior or failure adequate in the policy realm?
I hope we move beyond them…maybe sensitivity?
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by mwgrant
Danny Thomas
Do you think it would make any difference in the perception issue if BEST created a ‘base’ of stations which are utilized year over year and analysed via the same method?
I think that people worry to much about BEST. It has interesting technical aspects so I really enjoy posts or comments on those aspects, but based on my perceptions of the climate ‘debate’ it is not a critical in moving toward resolution.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
micro6500 and Danny Thomas, you guys might want to try looking at the definition you claim to be using again, because I’m pretty sure you weren’t using it. You said BEST was infilling things, but your definition says:
Material that fills or is used to fill a space or hole
That’s a noun, not a verb. You can’t, “Material that fills” missing spots. And even if you could, some random dictionary definition is a terrible thing to use when we’re talking about a specific field of work where words are generally used in particular ways which dictionaries are not going to capture.
And regardless, what would it even mean if you say no infilling under this proposed definition? What was said was:
Do you think it would make any difference in the perception issue if BEST created a ‘base’ of stations which are utilized year over year and analysed via the same method? All while continuing their normal processes of adding new stations and ‘in-filling’ (via evolving methods) on an independent track.
If you mean to include any sort of interpolation when you say infilling, then how in the world do you propose anyone create a global temperature record without infilling anything? We don’t have data for every part of the globe, so interpolation is always going to be necessary. There’s no getting around it.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by hockeyschtick
Don, two Einstein quotes couldn’t better describe you:
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
“”Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
Donnie, best you read up on elementary/high school physics first to find out why photons don’t behave like your steel balls as you laughably & pathetically claimed.
Donnie thinks Maxwell/ Clausius/ Carnot/ Boltzmann/ Feynman/ US Std Atmosphere physicists are all “skydragons”
Although way beyond your grade level, here’s Feynman deriving the atmospheric temperature profile for a PURE N2/O2 atmosphere from gravity/mass/pressure and without ONE single radiative transfer or GHG calculation whatsoever. How’d he do that Donnie, magic?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=feynman
And here’s the 100’s of physicists, meteorologists, physical chemists, rocket scientists who derived the US Standard Atmosphere without ONE single radiative transfer or GHG calculation whatsoever, and which completely removed CO2 from their mathematical model of the atmosphere. How’d they do that Donnie, magic?, or was it with your steel ball theory?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+US+Standard+Atmosphere
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by micro6500
” I think that people worry to much about BEST. It has interesting technical aspects so I really enjoy posts or comments on those aspects, but based on my perceptions of the climate ‘debate’ it is not a critical in moving toward resolution.”
My complaint is that all of the surface temp trends all diverge from the satellite data, and they diverge from the actual surface data that is much closer to the satellite trend, the common factor is all of the processing the surface series use (as opposed to the surface station records ).
And if we go by the satellite trend, there’s nothing to worry about.
Which is critical to the debate.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by micro6500
” If you mean to include any sort of interpolation when you say infilling, then how in the world do you propose anyone create a global temperature record without infilling anything? We don’t have data for every part of the globe, so interpolation is always going to be necessary. There’s no getting around it.”
My point is there is no way to produce a GMT that means anything. But you can use the trend at the stations that have good data, and aggregate those trends. This is what I do.
Thus has physical meaning, and you can do out of band testing, the others don’t.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
mwgrant:
You know the effort needed for crawling thru both. Was it more difficult to look at the adjustment aspects than the interpolation? Does ‘adjustment’ overshadow ‘smoothing’ as a problem?
Well, until recently, BEST hadn’t published results which let people see how much effect its adjustments had on its results, so you couldn’t tell what effect its adjustments had unless you ran its code with and without them. On the other hand, you couldn’t really tell what effect Kriging had without running its code either, so I’m not sure either was more difficult than the other to look into if you wanted to quantify things.
Most people haven’t seemed to try to quantify things though. If you’re not going to try to figure out the effect of things, then neither problem is particularly difficult to look at. Of course, if you’re not going to try to look at how much effect these things have, I don’t know what the point of talking about them is.
Rhetorical questions just for thought: How important is any individual methodology for a temperature or anomaly plot? Is the collective behavior or failure adequate in the policy realm?
No clue really. That depends on the policy argument, which is a hairy subject. On the one hand, many people like to say our estimates of climate sensitivity won’t change by a meaningful amount based on pinning down the details on the temperature record. On the other hand, we’ve seen a significant effect on the policy debate due to the “pause,” so clearly, small differences matter quite a bit to at least some people. If not, papers like the recent Karl et al one by the NOAA wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Personally, I think it matters quite a bit because a solid temperature product should be a key foundation to good climate science. I don’t see how you convince policy makers to rely on things like GCMs if there are not insignificant questions about the temperature record. And that’s not just about the global record, but also regional results. Even if you get perfectly accurate global results, if your regional results are way off, leaders of countries can’t rely on your work. If they can’t rely on your work as to what has happened in the past, they can’t rely on projections as to what will happen in the future.
But am I right about that? Well…
I hope we move beyond them…maybe sensitivity?
Some people want to boil the policy debate all down to a single climate sensitivity value. I think that’s terrible. I don’t think a good policy maker would go for it. I think a good policy maker will say, “That may be true for the planet, but what about for my country? What will be the effect on my people?” If you can’t answer that question, and answer it with reasonable accuracy, I don’t think you can expect any resolution on the policy debate.
Which is why right now I believe all we’ll see is political theater. I don’t think there are that many policymakers who are really looking to implement policies to combat global warming because they think we need policies to combat global warming. I think most of it is just your typical self-serving politicians hijacking a popular cause to advance their own agendas. Which isn’t to say there is no truth to their concerns about global warming, but I doubt it is the driving factor for many of them.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by mwgrant
micro6500
What else can you expect? We have arrived where we are today in a purely ad hoc manner.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by PA
http://www.academia.edu/11797234/Comment_on_Scientists_Views_about_Attribution_of_Global_Warming_
Duarte delivers a stinging slapdown.
It has become obvious that there is not a majority of scientists that believe in CAGW. If 97% of scientists believed in CAGW there would be honest surveys reporting it. The lack of honest surveys is pretty telling.
The number of scientists that are CAGW believers might be in the 20-30% range (the % of neoluddites and environmentalists in the general population).
This is means it is a religious belief and has nothing to do with science.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
mwgrant:
<blockquote>I think that people worry to much about BEST. It has interesting technical aspects so I really enjoy posts or comments on those aspects, but based on my perceptions of the climate ‘debate’ it is not a critical in moving toward resolution.</blockquote>
I originally was just interested in a couple small technical points regarding the BEST methodology. I never planned to spend much time on it. I hadn't spent much time on any of the other modern temperature records because I don't think the issues with any of them are large enough to be that big a deal. I have some questions I'd like resolved, but nothing so serious I'm too concerned about them.
But the more I looked into BEST, the more troubled I was by it. Part of it was just that I couldn't get answers to a couple simple questions, but a larger part was that BEST does shady things like deletes previous results and keeps no record of them (or at least, no public record of them).
Now, that's bad enough, but then BEST even changes its methodology and doesn't disclose the change anywhere. In fact, it left a description of its old methodology up on its website for some time. This caused me some confusion when BEST started talking about its new methodology as I couldn't figure out why its description didn't match what it had said before and what it was (at the time) saying on its website. When I tried to resolve the confusion, all I got was abuse and insults from Steven Mosher. After I finally figured out what was going on, Mosher shut up. Then some time later, BEST secretly changed its website to remove all the descriptions of its old methodology, leaving no trace and making no note of the change, proving I was right. Naturally, I received no apology or acknowledgment.
Because things like that happened over and over and over, I've kept interested in BEST. If BEST had just, you know, done what it said it would do and been open and transparent, I never would have spent more than a couple hours looking at it. My favorite one though, was when BEST decided to publish a guide on how to be a skeptic. Their "Skeptic's Guide to Climate Change" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. You should check it out, just for laughs. <a href="http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2014/07/best-wants-you-to-be-stupid/" rel="nofollow">It's hilariously bad</a>.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Jim D
It turned out that the ones in the highest quartile of climate publications were also the most likely to give a >100% attribution to GHGs despite Duarte’s hoped for lack of expertise. I think he was just blowing smoke.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
micro6500:
My point is there is no way to produce a GMT that means anything. But you can use the trend at the stations that have good data, and aggregate those trends. This is what I do.
Thus has physical meaning, and you can do out of band testing, the others don’t.
That sounds like a terrible approach. If you don’t account for spatial distribution, your results will be completely skewed.
But if you did somehow do account for spatial distribution, then your approach woud be mathematically no different than if you interpolated. Whether you map your interpolation onto a 2d map or a 2d matrix is irrelevant since interpolating over 2d map is just mapping the data to a 2d matrix with weighting functions.
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Jim D
You can see how many actual climate scientists of the WG1 type were in the survey from Verheggen’s paper (more than half). It doesn’t match up with the impression Duarte wants to give, or he did not read it carefully enough. The paper clearly showed that the non-scientists tend to bring the attribution down which may be opposite to Duarte’s attempted point.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es501998e
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Don Monfort
You are a persistent little joker, hockeypuck. Please provide citations showing that Einstein/ Maxwell/ Clausius/ Carnot/ Boltzmann/ Feynman/ and hundreds of US Std Atmosphere physicists support your BS story of a gravito-thermal greenhouse effect. I know you can fabricate a story by misrepresenting little cherry-picked tidbits from various sources, but produce some actual quotes of those folks discussing the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect that agree with the BS that you are yammering about incessantly. Or just stop the spamming and go back to your lonely blog and yammer to yourself. And you should be nice to me. Nobody else will converse with your little silly self.
I Googled it:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22gravito-thermal+greenhouse+effect%22
1,040 results
I don’t see anything from Einstein, Maxwell, Feynman et al. Just hockeypuck BS.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Don Monfort
The little hockeypuck should have been back by now with his Maxwell portfolio. And then there’s prof. Claes Johnson, of the skydragon school of physics.
↧
