Can somebody here evaluate the stochastic model used in the original paper?
What is it called, and how does it work? Before this is done the debate here is pretty much pointless isn't it?
Lets see some formulas guys!
Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 7. (Read 7367 times)
I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.
One paper? Out of many thousands.
I have a question for you: why do you not know anything about the Arctic ice?
I don't know anything about the arctic ice because I haven't spent the time to learn about it.
So you're basically out of the loop, essentially not seeing the forest for the trees, eh? Feel free to prove through your analysis of a few papers that warming isn't happening, while the world warms around us.
This isn't my position at all. My position is that the degree of uncertainty we have given the data available is many orders of magnitude greater than what is presented in the news, much greater than what was claimed by the authors of the paper I analyzed, and probably greater than what is commonly assumed by researchers in the field (here I extrapolate from my own field and evidence from the one paper).
I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.
One paper? Out of many thousands.
I have a question for you: why do you not know anything about the Arctic ice?
I don't know anything about the arctic ice because I haven't spent the time to learn about it.
So you're basically out of the loop, essentially not seeing the forest for the trees, eh? Feel free to prove through your analysis of a few papers that warming isn't happening, while the world warms around us.
The data is not different. When analyzed normally by most statisticians it is very easy to find the climate change. This author has used ECONOMIC analysis instead and the way he did it he did not find the climate change. His paper is probably valid and does NOT contradict people who use other more scientificly accepted methods to analize the data. Unfortunately for him and his paper it is most probably a tragic misapplication of that analysis model.
Read this paper. It is very accessible.
Quote
It is not unusual that (e) this ad hoc
challenging of auxiliary hypotheses is repeated in the course of a series of related
experiments, in which the auxiliary hypothesis involved in Experiment 1 (and challenged
ad hoc in order to avoid the latter's modus tollens impact on the theory)
becomes the focus of interest in Experiment 2, which in turn utilizes further plausible
but easily challenged auxiliary hypotheses, and so forth. In this fashion a zealous
and clever investigator can slowly wend his way through a tenuous nomological network,
performing a long series of related experiments which appear to the uncritical
reader as a fine example of "an integrated research program," without ever ,once refuting
or corroboratings o much as a single strand of the network. Some of the more
horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive
efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships
of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher,
undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the
"exactitude" of modern statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication
list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to
the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything. His
true position is that of a potent-but-sterile intellectual rake, who leaves in his merry
path a long train of ravished maidens but no viable scientific offspring.2
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~janusonis/meehl1967.pdf challenging of auxiliary hypotheses is repeated in the course of a series of related
experiments, in which the auxiliary hypothesis involved in Experiment 1 (and challenged
ad hoc in order to avoid the latter's modus tollens impact on the theory)
becomes the focus of interest in Experiment 2, which in turn utilizes further plausible
but easily challenged auxiliary hypotheses, and so forth. In this fashion a zealous
and clever investigator can slowly wend his way through a tenuous nomological network,
performing a long series of related experiments which appear to the uncritical
reader as a fine example of "an integrated research program," without ever ,once refuting
or corroboratings o much as a single strand of the network. Some of the more
horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive
efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships
of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher,
undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the
"exactitude" of modern statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication
list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to
the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything. His
true position is that of a potent-but-sterile intellectual rake, who leaves in his merry
path a long train of ravished maidens but no viable scientific offspring.2
I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.
One paper? Out of many thousands.
I have a question for you: why do you not know anything about the Arctic ice?
I don't understand why you think there can't be a huge number of faulty papers all supporting each others conclusions in a field, it is definitely possible... I don't know anything about the arctic ice because I haven't spent the time to learn about it.
I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.
One paper? Out of many thousands.
I have a question for you: why do you not know anything about the Arctic ice?
Also, to give some perspective on these temperature changes that are averages of averages of averages. Here is the graph of the raw 10 minute interval data going back to 1984 (first year available). Upper is points colored by month (starting in january 1984), lower is lines overlayed with the annual average fit in that paper.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
So the Arctic ice didn't reach record lows this summer? And that's because you have taken some data from some sensor and made some charts?
I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.
Also, to give some perspective on these temperature changes that are averages of averages of averages. Here is the graph of the raw 10 minute interval data going back to 1984 (first year available). Upper is points colored by month (starting in january 1984), lower is lines overlayed with the annual average fit in that paper.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
So the Arctic ice didn't reach record lows this summer? And that's because you have taken some data from some sensor and made some charts?
Also, to give some perspective on these temperature changes that are averages of averages of averages. Here is the graph of the raw 10 minute interval data going back to 1984 (first year available). Upper is points colored by month (starting in january 1984), lower is lines overlayed with the annual average fit in that paper.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/
If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.
These issues are obvious and take no expertise to understand. They actually note that the trend is due to those years in the paper and spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what may have caused the jump without success.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
I'm speaking about your angle on all this in general, not this specific post of yours.
These issues are obvious and take no expertise to understand. They actually note that the trend is due to those years in the paper and spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what may have caused the jump without success.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
I actually took the time to reanalyze the data from this paper:
Don't tell me! Tell NASA, NOAA, and all the thousands of scientists out there in the field! I'm sure you're right and none of this stuff is worth a shit. It's sad they're all lacking your special insights.
Please, for all of us, get in contact with these organizations and the scientists, and explain to them how to do it right. I know that your analysis is so spot on and unbiased (and fully cognizant of the entire context with which it all depends on) that you can overturn all these findings with your quickie (but keen eyed) observations.
Again, please, get out there in the world and show these guys how to do it.
I actually took the time to reanalyze the data from this paper:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0
It seemed like a good idea since it was about raw data from a single station and therefore there was a minimum of historical context and technical stuff to understand.
If you plot the monthly temps and not just the annual average you can clearly see the entire trend since 1960 is accounted for by 1988-1990. What happened in 1989? The sensor stopped working in 1988 and was replaced in 1990. The data in between is interpolated. They then found various problems with the new sensor and adjusted all the temperatures (without saying exactly how, but upward) starting in 1990. Doesn't it seem like a plausible explanation that this "trend" (at least for this site) is actually caused by inaccurate sensor readings? I find it difficult to trust the conclusions drawn from data as noisy as this.
With interpolation:
Without Interpolation:
They also adjusted downwards 1.5 C for a calibration error found for the 2002-2011 data. It makes one wonder how many other sensors miscalibrated by a few degrees are collecting data out there. I'm not claiming there is fraud, just a systematic underestimation of uncertainty I find common in my own field.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0
It seemed like a good idea since it was about raw data from a single station and therefore there was a minimum of historical context and technical stuff to understand.
If you plot the monthly temps and not just the annual average you can clearly see the entire trend since 1960 is accounted for by 1988-1990. What happened in 1989? The sensor stopped working in 1988 and was replaced in 1990. The data in between is interpolated. They then found various problems with the new sensor and adjusted all the temperatures (without saying exactly how, but upward) starting in 1990. Doesn't it seem like a plausible explanation that this "trend" (at least for this site) is actually caused by inaccurate sensor readings? I find it difficult to trust the conclusions drawn from data as noisy as this.
With interpolation:
Without Interpolation:
They also adjusted downwards 1.5 C for a calibration error found for the 2002-2011 data. It makes one wonder how many other sensors miscalibrated by a few degrees are collecting data out there. I'm not claiming there is fraud, just a systematic underestimation of uncertainty I find common in my own field.
The data is not different. When analyzed normally by most statisticians it is very easy to find the climate change. This author has used ECONOMIC analysis instead and the way he did it he did not find the climate change. His paper is probably valid and does NOT contradict people who use other more scientificly accepted methods to analize the data. Unfortunately for him and his paper it is most probably a tragic misapplication of that analysis model.
The links explain your errors.
They would more efficiently be delivered by putting them all in one post. By splitting it up like that, you are attempting to flood the thread, drowning out the post you disagree with. Textbook disinfo tactics.
The links explain your errors.
Are you done?
Do you really think that spamming the thread with posts will encourage me to click the show links?
And since you're clearly trying to drown this out...
Do you really think that spamming the thread with posts will encourage me to click the show links?
And since you're clearly trying to drown this out...
Jump to: