Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Climate models used by GWers suck


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#91    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 April 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

you have it backwards
You are a statistician now :w00t:

You could have fooled me.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#92    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 April 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:


Little Fish  - the data is telling you its is to noisy to draw a meaningful trend over your chosen interval. You are using stats to perform your analysis, and yet you are not using stats because you refuse to test your conclusion.

You are abusing stats to your agenda.

Br Cornelius
i did not set out the test - the modelers did. take it up with them.
all i see you doing is obfuscating.


#93    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:31 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 April 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

i did not set out the test - the modelers did. take it up with them.
all i see you doing is obfuscating.

Let me repeat this - you have not established the test has been demonstrated due to the signal to noise ratio. You have not understood the test.

Even simple linear trends must be tested for significance. When did you perform that test ??? Show me how you tested the significance of your analysis.

I have demonstrated in non-statistical ways why the signal to noise level is to high in a 15 year sequence using this data - but you refused to answer the direct questions which provided ample proof of that fact. Data analysis is not about picking the data which confirms your thesis, and it is not about exceptions disproving the generality - its about looking at the data in the most comprehensive and robust way in order to understand its deep underlying pattern. You are concentrating on outliers to the exception of the greater dataset and therefore you conclusion is not meaningful.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 April 2013 - 05:40 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#94    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:37 PM

you are on record stating that ANY 15 year period will not have significance, therefore under your understanding the test cannot EVER be carried out successfully.
it is you that has misunderstood the test.


#95    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:39 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 April 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

you have it backwards
Who's the one with the biometry degree?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#96    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:42 PM

who's the one who defended the marcott paper, when even the author has backed away from his uptick.


#97    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:47 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 April 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

you are on record stating that ANY 15 year period will not have significance, therefore under your understanding the test cannot EVER be carried out successfully.
it is you that has misunderstood the test.
If you analyze at least 30years of data (preferably all of the data you have) you can look at the significance of any 15 year segment within that data. You have failed that test by only looking at the data over 15 years. The test can be applied over a hundred and fifty different 15 year sequences given the dataset you have access to.
The analyzes you use to treat the data should have as its primary objective to minimize the influence of extreme outliers - the analysis you have chosen does exactly the opposite in that it emphasizes the extreme outliers.

You can perform your test over your chosen 15 year period, but only if you analyze at least the 15years before it as well. Even then you must apply a significance test to establish if the trend is robust enough, and if there are to many outliers you may still fail to demonstrate the significance of your thesis.

If you fail to apply this rigour to your analysis you can end up with the esculator where all segments show a downward trend within the overall dataset which shows an upward trend.

No modeller could be held to a trend which has not been shown to be statistically significant and robust.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 April 2013 - 05:55 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#98    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:38 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

who's the one who defended the marcott paper, when even the author has backed away from his uptick.
Me.  And I haven't seen Marcott publishing a retraction anywhere, so if you know of one, please post the link.


After looking over that sediment core data, I note there are some in there that do show an increase during the 20th century.  There are also some that do not even get to the 20th century.  And a couple that squeeze 200,000 years into ten (or fewer) observations.  There are some problems with the data, no doubt about it.  A lot of what those proxies can show is going to depend on the time span between observations.  You're probably safe using a century scale; in which case, you can forget about the twentieth century.  To show that, you will need finer resolution - like decadal.  And there are some cores in there that have decadal resolution.

What do I conclude from that?  Marcott's twentieth century reconstruction isn't what any of us would like it to be, but it's still reliable as far as recording warmer sea temperatures go.  Would you like to do the analysis?  I think it would be fun, but it would also take a lot of time.  Maybe this summer?

So, let's see that link.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 04 April 2013 - 07:39 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#99    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:42 AM

What I like is everybody on here is cherry picking.  Those who say ygbv

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#100    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rivenspire

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:14 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...s-say.html?_r=0

I guess the warmists were out there with battery powered hair driers.

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#101    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:56 PM

View Postdanielost, on 05 April 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

What I like is everybody on here is cherry picking.  Those who say ygbv
That's why we have extensive reviews before a paper gets published.  Before you even get to formal "peer-review" the study has been reviewed many times.  When you submit a proposal, either for funding or to a research committee, it gets checked to see that the data sources aren't biased.  Then, as you do the study you make progress reports and there is always somebody around asking:  why are you doing it that way?  What about this over here?  So-and-so didn't find that; why the difference? Then you write the paper and in our case, it gets internal peer reviews (six of them) before it is submitted to a journal.  The journal then does its own reviews (usually two).  In tree ring ice storm research, that means nearly every researcher in the field has seen your paper before it goes to press and has had a chance to question you about it.

The people on my research committee are:  a forest biometrist, a forest ecologist, a forest manager and a geographer.  The two remaining internal reviewers are selected after the paper is finished.  The journal will select its own, but I can sort of guess who they will be:  one is now an editor of a research journal (He used to do ice storm research.) and the other is a dendroarcheologist who has branched into climate studies and several of whose data sets I am using.

And then the study gets published and reviewed by the profession as a whole.  Besides that, there are lectures and PowerPoint presentations and professional meetings at which your work gets questioned.  And these are experts who know where to look for cheating, or (more likely) mistakes, or just weaknesses.

There is a great deal of effort expended to get it right and avoid bias of any kind, but especially that induced by "cherry-picking."
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 05 April 2013 - 04:01 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users