Don’t kid me, stevie. I know you are not stupid. Anyway, it’s way too cold.
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@MM: Doesn’t “business as usual” refer to the future of CO2?
That’s an excellent point, Matthew. If I understand you correctly, instead of “assuming business as usual” I should have said “assuming stationarity.”
I’d been meaning to drop the portion of Figure 7 after 2012 from the paper anyway since
(a) it plays no role in the description of HadCRUT3, which only goes up to 2012;
(b) stationarity is a strong assumption especially given that rapidly increasing warming, whether of natural or anthropogenic origin, appears to lead to increasingly chaotic climate; and
(c) even an R2 fantastically close to 1 is no guarantee at all of future behavior, as evidenced by my favorite example of this, namely a curve that’s an equally good fit to the peak of a Gaussian and the peak of a sine wave. Modeling it as the former predicts convergence to zero. Modeling it as the latter predicts oscillation between plus and minus 1. These barely distinguishable curves have dramatically different futures!
As a case in point for (c), the least-squares fit of SAW+AGW to HadCRUT3 implicitly entails a fit to the Keeling curve with an R2 of 99.56% (which incidentally is better than Goodman’s “triple-exponential” fit which only achieves R2 = 98.98%, which I’ll comment on later this evening in a reply to Greg’s long-neglected Jan. 2 comment). However an even better R2 of 99.84% is achievable by taking preindustrial CO2 to be 270 instead of the 287.4 in my poster. Extrapolating this to 2010 gives CO2 = 963 ppmv instead of the 1227 ppmv in my poster. The corresponding temperature extrapolation is then 0.3 C lower, quite a decrease.
While this is not quite as unstable as the Gaussian-vs-sinusoid example, it’s a practical working example of what can go wrong in extrapolating what on the face of it seems to be a fantastically accurate fit.
Not quite as bad as the long-since-deceased Amazon butterfly responsible years later for the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Sandy, but the same general idea.
Concerning these R2 figures, I’m about to reply to Greg about CO2 fitting, which you can find by searching for xyzzy in a comment by me on this thread other than this one.
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by Peter Lang
Yep, and the state is the rustbucket state of Australia. The Greens have ruined their economy, and are now trying to do it to the rest of Australia. the leader of the Greens said the bush fires were caused by the coal miners.
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by Peter Lang
Woops, sorry JC, my comment is OT. My apologies.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
<i>The corresponding temperature extrapolation is then 0.3 C lower, quite a decrease.</i>
Ooops, that should have been 1 C lower. I typed log (decimal log) where it should have been lb or log2 (binary log). A more serious difference!
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@PL: Expert (definition): a drip under pressure.
Is Peter Lang disclaiming any expertise in his area? This would be useful to know.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Brandon Shollenberger
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-285258" rel="nofollow">This</a> may be a new low for this blog. A user, Michael, claims a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044771/abstract" rel="nofollow">study</a> got the "same results" as Michael Mann's iconic hockey stick. Mann's hockey stick, as most will remember, gets results like:
<blockquote>Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.</blockquote>
The study linked to by Michael gets results like:
<blockquote>We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.</blockquote>
Obviously, "incoming intermediate Atlantic water" and the northern hemisphere are very different things. Despite this, Michael says the paper:
<blockquote>gets the same rsult (HS – unprecedented recent warming wihtin the last 1000 yrs)</blockquote>
That's right. He claims the results of Mann's hockey stick are that there was unprecedented warming... somewhere. His argument requires the location and spatial coverage of any warming not matter. In other words, Mann's work would have been equally meaningful if he had only examined one part of the hemisphere. Mann could have just looked at 5% of the hemisphere, and his paper would have the same results.
Or so Michael claims. Me, I think part of a paper's results are the extent of the results. I don't think it's the same thing to look at a local temperature record as it is to look at a global temperature record. I don't think one can analyze the temperature record for the UK and claim it is the same as if you analyzed the entire planet's temperature record. Michael's response to this viewpoint is to say:
<blockquote>Does Brandon, like a good sceptc operating with good faith, ‘ oh, you’re right Michael – my mistake. Let me re-evaluate my position given my ‘respect for the evidence’.
Ha!!
No , he just sticks to his prior belief, and quibbles, pointlessly.</blockquote>
I'm curious what Michael Mann would say if he was told the results of his temperature reconstruction are the same as the results of a study that examines only a single region. I suspect he'd be insulted and "pointlessly quibble."
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by gbaikie
“gbaikie seems to disagree with my assessment of the Appendices as a useful resource for the lay reader. In reality however, the Appendices are indeed representing the status of climate science and while I agree with his critique of their depiction of the GHG effect, I still find that the Appendices contain much useful information for the lay reader. ”
I agree that if we suppose that adults were involved writing this stuff and as a serious attempt of “representing the status of climate science” that this should be eye opener for many lay readers.
I guess both you and Judith Curry see this similarly, in terms of value to the public good.
So for many people as possible to exposed the current status of climate science is indeed useful.
Though perhaps many readers might still imagine that despite being in a somewhat official looking format, that there *must* be a more serious version out there.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
A good argument has a good premise and a good conclusion. Don Monfort has neither: his premise is that his opponent is dumb, which is news to no one (has he <i>ever</i> assumed otherwise?), and his conclusion is nonexistent because he had to stop after running out of breath, or perhaps quarters for his neighborhood portal to cyberspace.
Monfort's sole objective on this thread is to discredit its content by ridiculing it. This technique predates the Neanderthals. Were Senator Proxmire still alive today he would present his famous Golden Fleece award to researchers <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/online-comments-hurt-science-understanding-study-finds-ib88cor-185610641.html" rel="nofollow"> Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele</a> for their very recent astounding discovery that ridicule works. (To her credit Brossard admits she was "not surprised.")
To be fair I must admit that I myself was in some doubt about the value of ridicule before seeing this study. However baffling Monfort may find the intricacies of modern climate research, I can see he's well ahead of me on the value of this ridicule thing. Even Neanderthals could have shot my arguments down that way. (No, of course I'm not saying Monfort is a Neanderthal, give me a break.)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Edim
The AGW convinced very often (when it suits them) forget that the AGW started roughly in the mid 20th century. Anything else is simply physically implausible. I think this is not controversial at all, except when the convinced get into this state of cognitive dissonance.
So the AMO (and other ‘modes of variability’ and climatic patterns) – it’s just a SST(A) of the North Atlantic and de-trending it to remove the AGW signal (which didn’t start before 1960s) is fooling oneself.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/key_figures/index_amo.png
Why not de-trend the global temperature indices and call it GMO (global multi-decadal oscillation)?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/hadsst2gl
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
That conversation is still where it was;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-285258
No need for re-hash it here.
Come back and I’ll explain consilience to you.
↧
Comment on Laframboise on the IPCC by play online for money
This piece of writing will assist the internet viewers for building up new weblog or even
a weblog from start to end.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@GG (Jan 2) I’m saying actually fitting an exponential to the MLO data without placing constraints on the constant base level provides a much better fit to that data than imposing a speculative base level and only using two points from the whole MLO data set. In that respect my fitted exponential better characterises the MLO data than your AGW model. That much is clear for all to see in the first graph I presented. http://i48.tinypic.com/snouvl.png
(Sorry to be so slow in replying. The necessary programming kept getting interrupted by departmental obligations, car insurance forms, xyzzy, etc.)
Besides Rossander, Greg, you’re the only other one taking the trouble to offer detailed concrete alternatives, which I really appreciate.
Presumably you’re comparing the yellow plot in your chart http://i48.tinypic.com/snouvl.png labeled “exponential fit [1975:2005] to summed emission data” with the magenta plot labeled “Pratt’s Law” (more accurately, Hofmann’s Law with Pratt’s parameters—and I would similarly call yours Manacker’s Law with Goodman’s parameters).
I wonder where the yellow went. It shows up weakly on my monitor, and disappears entirely in the interval 1960:2010.
I also wonder what the formula is for your yellow plot. For my magenta plot it is 287.4 + 1.02518^(y – 1823.6). I couldn’t find the formula you used for your yellow plot so I made one up that seems to fit well, namely 1.00452^(y – 588.8), corresponding to a CAGR of 0.452%.
My poster uses the Keeling CO2 values for 1975 and 2005. However it could just as well have used the values for 1960 and 2010.
After much futzing around I eventually came up with these four charts. The top row makes all the plots pass through the Keeling values of CO2 for 1975 and 2005, as done in my poster. The bottom row instead uses the endpoints, namely 1960 and 2010. Visually there’s a big difference, but from a statistical standpoint as measured by R2 the differences are relatively small.
The left column in these four charts shows the fit of three models to the Keeling curve, while the right column exhibits the corresponding derivatives or slopes showing the year-to-year increases in CO2 measured in parts per million by volume or ppmv.
The three models are:
red: as in my poster, based on 287.4 as preindustrial CO2
green: 270 for preindustrial, which fits the Keeling curve better
blue: 0 for preindustrial, i.e. purely exponential, as proposed by Max Manacker a year ago and adopted by Greg last month.
When 1975 and 2005 are used as the points to fit these three models to, as in the top row, the differences are not at all clear. Using 1960 and 2010 (the bottom row) gives a clearer picture in the left column.
The R2′s are as follows, starting with the best using the two points 1975 and 2005.
Green (Hofmann 270): R2 = 99.84%
Red (Hofmann 287.4 as per my poster): R2 = 99.56%
Blue (Manacker/Goodman): R2 = 98.98%
With the two points 1960 and 2010, R2 improves slightly for blue while worsening slightly for red and green.
Where the difference really becomes obvious is in the slope of the data and that of the models, shown in the right column. Taking the derivative of CO2 instead of its log as done by Goodman gives a very different picture that I would argue makes for a clearer separation than with logs.
In the right or derivative or slope column, regardless of which two points the model is forced to pass through, whether 1975-2005 or 1960-2010, the green curve is the best fit. The red curve is a bit steeper. However the blue curve is way too shallow to be plausible.
Greg said my red curve (from the poster) was “totally unsuitable” and proposed his blue curve instead. This analysis arrives at a different conclusion.
I may well have “botched” this analysis as Greg likes to say. If so I would be very interested in seeing his “unbotched” version.
The MATLAB/octave functions producing these four graphs can be found as FitKeel.m and FitDerKeel.m in http://clim.stanford.edu/
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by vukcevic
Gates
I think you may have won this one.
However, may not be a complete story. I take a regular look at the jet stream. In mid December indeed a hole appeared over Himalayas, not known for warm air (hm, .. rising from Indian Ocean), but at the same time JS was giving wide berth to Kamchatka.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_norhem/1212/12121500_jetstream_norhem.gif
Reviewing the JS again, day by day and looking at your animation, I wonder if there is possibility that the volcanic eruptions creates a puncture in the tropopause, triggering whole process. Volcanic eruptions (going back to 1970s) in Kamchatka and the SSW events may be purely coincidental, or on the other hand eruptions may be an essential trigger for whole sequence. If so it could explain lack of SSW events in the Antarctica.
In the final analysis it is the behaviour of the jet stream which is of fundamental importance to the NW Quarter-sphere, and that is most likely ‘controlled’ by the Icelandic Low pressure system.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@MJ: <i>But first I would like to endorse comments by oneuniverse and others, calling for civility.</i>
Thanks, Mike, I appreciate that. I too would like to endorse those comments.
<i>Thus Vaughan Pratt has confirmed that the poster started with SAW being created as temperature minus AGW.</i>
Poster? You said nothing about a poster when you stated flatly "The sawtooth was created as the difference between Hadcrut3 and AGW." It was indeed: I detrended the temperature (as many have done before me) and then worked on the problem of finding a hypothesis that might account for the detrended temperature (as again many have done but not with my resulting hypothesis).
You've now rephrased what I responded to as something I would have flatly denied. In fact I would have said it was not even wrong because the concept of <i>defining</i> SAW as HadCRUT3 − AGW doesn't even make sense as far as I can tell.
Taken literally, it would result in Figures 6 and 8 and the top two curves of Figure 11 being perfectly flat, which would be nonsense.
One might try instead defining SAW as F3(HadCRUT3 − AGW). But that makes no sense either as it would have the opposite effect: MRES would be far bigger because that definition of SAW would be seriously distorted by F3 and R2 would be much smaller.
I simply can't think of <i>any</i> sensible way to define SAW as "temperature minus AGW" that could be reconciled with either my poster or what I've said so far in this thread.
I suspect you may be confusing the notion of hypothesis with the notion of residual. SAW is one possible hypothesis out of many for the residual HadCRUT3 − AGW (necessarily without F3). RES1 (column AN of the spreadsheet) is the further residual resulting from subtracting my <i>hypothesized</i> SAW to yield
HadCRUT3 − (SAW + AGW),
which the multidecadal filter (MRES FILTER in the poster, F3 in the post) transforms to MRES in column AB.
You can see all this by following the logic of the spreadsheet as laid out in rows 45-47. Auxiliary functions like BoxFilt4 and Window4 are defined in the last sheet of the workbook labeled "17 NAMES". No use of Visual Basic Apps, VBA, by the way, that would have been a big mistake.
Furthermore that SAW hypothesis is made <i>before</i> parameter estimation via multiple regression. At the time of making the hypothesis there was no commitment to any particular values of the parameters: the best fit could have made the period of the sawtooth 1000 years and ClimSens 0.273 C/doubling for all knew or cared.
Contrary to the impression many here seem to have, I have neither an agenda, an axe to grind, or even a penny from any taxpayer's pocket. I would if I applied for and got a grant to do this stuff from NSF or NOAA, so from that standpoint Heartland or David Koch would be a safer source of funding, but then Greenpeace would judge me as being as evil as Stanford which takes money from Exxon.
I just want to know the <i>real</i> answer, not the answer people on both sides of this furshlugginerly interminable debate keep trying to foist on me. Especially since they're not the same answer.
Since the skeptical CE denizens are obviously troubled by <i>some</i> problem with the reasoning that's leading to the obviously false conclusion that ClimSens is way up where the taxpayer-fleecing ideologues have pegged it, I may be able to help.
Picture me exactly as Peter Lang does, a consummate liar with a put-upon conscience trying desperately to get out. Got that? Easy, wasn't it?
Now picture my conscience having an out-of-body experience floating above me and exposing my evil plot to the world as follows. (Think Ghostbusters and plasma.)
(shrill voice) "The evil professor below me is trying to dupe you into believing that the part of climate that correlates badly with the rising CO2, call it the natural part, is a sawtooth. Why would he pick a sawtooth, of all things? The reason is obvious: <i> that shape will drag down the natural part at the right in order to artificially inflate the artificial part, AGW.</i>"
Oddly, in nearly six weeks no one, not even CE's resident physicist Pekka P, has thought to raise that as a serious complaint.
Whoa, what is the average IQ of CE?
Speaking as someone who was originally trained not as a computer scientist but as a physicist, <i>that</i> is the sort of rational complaint I could take seriously.
And no, that was not my conscious conscience speaking but its subterranean counterpart, my subconscience if you will, that hangs out with my subconscious, about whose motives I have not hitherto thought to inquire. Maybe my subconscience knows that my subconscious has an evil twin, in which case I may need to get in touch with them both and tell them to <i>cut it out</i>. (For a Linux-related body of ancient history on that, google the phrase "my mind and my body keep playing tricks on each other" in quotes.)
To quote David Springer, HAHAHAHAHA. (Oh do shut up, evil subconscious.) By the way, David, your hair is green. Did you know that?
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by tonybclimatereason
Bob
10 years is less than a full stop whereas the MWP is a period. There is no comparison.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by vukcevic
Gates
Take a good look at 22-23 December, the SSW process appears to be initiated above the Kamchatka volcanic area.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.shtml
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
Brandon,
As i said, there are many others.
Let’s refresh Brandons memory again.
What did Brandon ask for? – “provide any reference”.
Now he has it (Jim gave another).
And Brandon runs – “that conversation is over…..I don’t intend to engage you on them further.”
Brave Sir Brandon ran away, bravely ran away away……
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by kim
Relax. If we’ve warmed the earth up, it’s been a good thing.
=============
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
