tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post2052771951407021572..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: How not to compare models to data part eleventy-nine...James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65995793958008627182010-08-16T21:04:15.586+01:002010-08-16T21:04:15.586+01:00James Annan 15/8/10 1:13 AM said:
"Every extr...James Annan 15/8/10 1:13 AM said:<br />"Every extra year that does not break the 1998 HadCRUT record will be a small piece of evidence towards a slightly lower sensitivity/transient response"<br /><br />What about too little natural variability in climate models? Wouldn't recent papers about ocean heat content point to that direction? (the warming trend may have slowed down at the surface but not in the climate system as a whole (oceans)). I think this was also the view of Keenlyside et al or Swanson & Tsonis...Jesús R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08623637876422608968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68073583598964769092010-08-16T20:50:53.370+01:002010-08-16T20:50:53.370+01:00Well I agree that credentials aren't everythin...Well I agree that credentials aren't everything, but when I hear of someone being described as good at maths for a PPE graduate, my assumption is that they are being damned with faint praise (whether accidentally or not). And since despite your protestations you are still making claims about his "maths credentials" then you should realise that at least one of his antagonists (perhaps not a "main" one) has a first class maths degree and DPhil from Oxford, on top of various school and national maths prizes as a schoolboy. But I am happy to agree that McI obviously knows a fair bit of linear algebra which was never a particularly strong point of mine. The important question here of course is whether his arguments stack up, and on the MMH paper, they obviously don't.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-47327402141191947882010-08-14T23:35:48.435+01:002010-08-14T23:35:48.435+01:00You know, this "who's smarter than whom&q...You know, this "who's smarter than whom" game is pretty ridiculous. That said, quite amazing that Team partisans would try to disparage SM's intelligence. Maybe he is wrong about paleo reconstructions, but he is quite clearly a very smart, well-read guy who has had a successful career and knows mathematics very well. His math credentials are superior to those of his main antagonists. One might really lose credibilty by trying to claim otherwise.Tom Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03793192912187740419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-57367198373755289792010-08-14T21:47:01.145+01:002010-08-14T21:47:01.145+01:00@Ron
nono, your comment was not exactly forthcomi...@Ron<br /><br />nono, your comment was not exactly forthcoming. I just checked and Steve did agree he made an error, but he has promised to repost after the error is corrected. Until the error is corrected, there really isn't anything more to say on the matter. It will be interesting to see how much change there will be after the correction.<br />_____________________________________<br /><br />Well Steve acknowledged that the intra-variances were ridiculously small -- something that was obvious to me and some of other commenters at first sight.<br /><br />However, he retracted himself on the basis that he had performed the calculation up to 2099 instead of 2009, which tells me that he still haven't grasped the deeper flaws of his analysis.<br /><br />Steve seems to be convinced that if you ask 5 times an expert his forecast for GDP growth AND the uncertainty he affects to his forecast, then it's okay to throw away the uncertainties and replace them with the standard deviation of the 5 forecasts set. Since one expert is unlikely to give 5 tremendously different answers, this gives a ridicously small final error bar.<br /><br />I mean, several of us asked Steve what was becoming of the individual uncertainties in the intra-variances, and his answers were rather elusive to say the least.nononoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-22228542607801183272010-08-14T17:53:09.067+01:002010-08-14T17:53:09.067+01:00> Actually McIntyre has been recognized for his...> Actually McIntyre has been recognized for his mathematical brilliance since his days at Oxford. <br /><br />But Wikipedia says that McIntyre studied PPE at Ox, so presumably that's the opinion of some economists, rather than actual mathematicians!juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02591920483149775255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68135694152508123422010-08-14T17:13:42.423+01:002010-08-14T17:13:42.423+01:00Continuing up...
I think I agree fairly closely w...Continuing up...<br /><br />I think I agree fairly closely with Chip's assessment as stated on 14/8/10 12:12 AM, though if we put numbers to these opinions there would probably be a bit of daylight. Even so, I am probably closer to his opinion than I am to the MIT crowd who still claim that (with high probability) the models substantially underestimate the underlying rate of forced response, using methods that I regard as rather dodgy. Every extra year that does not break the 1998 HadCRUT record will be a small piece of evidence towards a slightly lower sensitivity/transient response, but this process is a slow drift in my beliefs and there is nothing very conclusive yet IMO.<br /><br />Have I missed anything else substantive?James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-52282488170562699282010-08-14T17:13:06.313+01:002010-08-14T17:13:06.313+01:00working backwards...
PolyisTCOandbanned, yes you ...working backwards...<br /><br />PolyisTCOandbanned, yes you are right on the money on this.<br /><br />SteveF and Bloom and Ron Cram, actually I am indeed as clever as I think I am. However this may well not be quite as clever as some people think I think I am :-) I am well aware of many limitations in my understanding of various things, but on the subject of ensembles, it is clear that in a matter of months Jules and I have recently developed some insights that have eluded all the climate scientists - and indeed a much broader set of researchers - who have been pondering over these questions for several years. It's all about bringing a fresh perspective.<br /><br />As for "Ross on panel regressions", well he seems to have put his foot firmly in his mouth by talking about testing models-obs equivalence, since we *know* the models are not equivalent, therefore they cannot possibly all agree with the obs. Talk about a nil hypothesis... Also, we hardly have to work to "build in" any idea of model heterogeneity, it is apparent at first glance just from looking at them. Any test that pretends otherwise is plainly silly.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-42432717667881604232010-08-14T17:12:24.223+01:002010-08-14T17:12:24.223+01:00working backwards...
PolyisTCOandbanned, yes you ...working backwards...<br /><br />PolyisTCOandbanned, yes you are right on the money on this.<br /><br />SteveF and Bloom and Ron Cram, actually I am indeed as clever as I think I am. However this may well not be quite as clever as some people think I think I am :-) I am well aware of many limitations in my understanding of various things, but on the subject of ensembles, it is clear that in a matter of months Jules and I have recently developed some insights that have eluded all the climate scientists - and indeed a much broader set of researchers - who have been pondering over these questions for several years. It's all about bringing a fresh perspective.<br /><br />As for "Ross on panel regressions", well he seems to have put his foot firmly in his mouth by talking about testing models-obs equivalence, since we *know* the models are not equivalent, therefore they cannot possibly all agree with the obs. Talk about a nil hypothesis... Also, we hardly have to work to "build in" any idea of model heterogeneity, it is apparent at first glance just from looking at them. Any test that pretends otherwise is plainly silly.<br /><br />I think I agree fairly closely with Chip's assessment as stated on 14/8/10 12:12 AM, though if we put numbers to these opinions there would probably be a bit of daylight. Even so, I am probably closer to his opinion than I am to the MIT crowd who still claim that (with high probability) the models substantially underestimate the underlying rate of forced response, using methods that I regard as rather dodgy. Every extra year that does not break the 1998 HadCRUT record will be a small piece of evidence towards a slightly lower sensitivity/transient response, but this process is a slow drift in my beliefs and there is nothing very conclusive yet IMO.<br /><br />Have I missed anything else substantive?James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-88959923398015033132010-08-14T13:19:39.654+01:002010-08-14T13:19:39.654+01:00The whole thing is silly. The Denialists (and sin...The whole thing is silly. The Denialists (and since I am one, I can use the term) are using the wrong method for showing variability in "model space". When challenged, they say, "but the models differ a lot from each other, in some cases more than within model run to run". Duh. then they have this whole, "we'll admit X, but then you need to admit Y" thing going on. It's the same crap that was going on wrt Douglas in the blogs. <br /><br />First, they needed to put their logic for their too tight whiskers into their paper (just so others could discount or debate it). This is the Feynmanian ideal of showing where you "might be wrong". But instead they hid it, larded on a bunch of matrices and algebra to confuse people. And shopped around for 2 years to try to slide their paper through.<br /><br />Second, they're wrong. We don't even USE models in the way that the MMH method would assume. When we think about the century-long temp rise, we don't report a super-tight point estimate. We recognize the structural uncertainty.<br /><br />And yes, granted, a wide spread of models or adding nonsense models can make it easier to pass a more open or range-based view of the ensemble...but...see the paragraph preceding!<br /><br />Add onto that, the paper is just poorly done. Look at table one: they list the average trend and standard deviation of the models. But they call it standard deviation in one spot, standard error in another. They list a standard deviation for single run models! (must be some time series thing, not a classic sampling statistic, but is NOT EXPLAINED in the table).<br /><br />Now they are flailing around trying to do damage control in the blogs. And messing those up as well. What a mess.<br /><br />2 years spent on this crap.<br /><br />It's also funny how close they kept this thing to the vest, before putting it out. McI often justifies his blog as a "lab notebook" when challenged on either it's usefulness or its accuracy. But it really seems like a PR organ. They didn't share the in review copies for instance of MMH.PolyisTCOandbannednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65187189404036883342010-08-14T10:28:48.085+01:002010-08-14T10:28:48.085+01:00My favourite blogger is smarter than your favourit...My favourite blogger is smarter than your favourite blogger so ha!SteveFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74937040445009432582010-08-14T08:03:13.399+01:002010-08-14T08:03:13.399+01:00Steve Bloom,
You are doing your best to misinform ...Steve Bloom,<br />You are doing your best to misinform people. A number of boats have made through the Northwest Passage in the 20th century. In 1944, the captain left a tad early but he sailed the last 2,000 miles in just a few days. <br /><br />In 1937, Scotty Gall sailed through the Northwest Passage in a wooden boat. You can see picture of it here.<br />http://tiny.cc/3uvk7Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-83348137424079533922010-08-14T07:49:39.555+01:002010-08-14T07:49:39.555+01:00Steve Bloom,
Actually McIntyre has been recognize...Steve Bloom, <br />Actually McIntyre has been recognized for his mathematical brilliance since his days at Oxford. I have spoken to climate scientists who think James is smart but not nearly as smart as he thinks himself to be. We shall see if James has grasp the point Ross has made or not.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-38660955367687277592010-08-14T07:48:21.841+01:002010-08-14T07:48:21.841+01:00The comment at 12/8/10 9:17 PM is rankly deceptive...The comment at 12/8/10 9:17 PM is rankly deceptive and ought to be deep-sixed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-67929696811912936062010-08-14T07:45:06.279+01:002010-08-14T07:45:06.279+01:00nono, your comment was not exactly forthcoming. I...nono, your comment was not exactly forthcoming. I just checked and Steve did agree he made an error, but he has promised to repost after the error is corrected. Until the error is corrected, there really isn't anything more to say on the matter. It will be interesting to see how much change there will be after the correction.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-43638704640438854492010-08-14T07:24:17.219+01:002010-08-14T07:24:17.219+01:00Just so folks are clear, the NWP wasn't open i...Just so folks are clear, the NWP wasn't open in the 1940s. IIRC a Canadian boat did get through in 1944, but painfully. Picking through the floes while taking months to get through isn't "open." Also, what's been opening recently is the northerly deep-water route suitable for navigation by large vessels, in contrast to the southern route that's useless for such purposes.<br /><br />Denialists are such idiots.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65115725604283339572010-08-14T07:21:07.066+01:002010-08-14T07:21:07.066+01:00Eli: Well Ron, want to tell Eli how many years in ...Eli: <i>Well Ron, want to tell Eli how many years in the past decade the NW Passage and the Northern Route have been open? A few more than in the 1940s eh?<br /></i><br />It's not like people have been tracking how often it was open between then and now.<br /><br />Do you have numbers by decade? I doubt they exist.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-72373192162097043762010-08-14T06:41:08.370+01:002010-08-14T06:41:08.370+01:00Now, now, it's only been 7 years...Now, now, it's only been 7 years...Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-85135365916927381612010-08-14T05:30:01.952+01:002010-08-14T05:30:01.952+01:00Well, at least he admitted that he made a major mi...<i>Well, at least he admitted that he made a major mistake. Awaiting a correction.</i><br /><br />I think people should spend the next ten years analysing and re-analysing that mistake and wondering how he could be so incompetent that the question of fraud must he hinted at, but not mentioned specifically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76347864659263304952010-08-14T04:23:27.846+01:002010-08-14T04:23:27.846+01:00Well, at least he admitted that he made a major mi...Well, at least he admitted that he made a major mistake. Awaiting a correction.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-16290364728125262392010-08-14T02:40:03.290+01:002010-08-14T02:40:03.290+01:00Well Ron, want to tell Eli how many years in the p...Well Ron, want to tell Eli how many years in the past decade the NW Passage and the Northern Route have been open? A few more than in the 1940s eh?EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-8090546679897823582010-08-14T00:06:55.791+01:002010-08-14T00:06:55.791+01:00The intra-variances Steve calculated were ridiculo...<i>The intra-variances Steve calculated were ridiculously small, and he had to retract himself. Now the thread is closed.</i><br /><br />Closed it? I want to see the emails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-23493886323448911532010-08-13T21:53:36.032+01:002010-08-13T21:53:36.032+01:00@Ron "Even better, see the boxplot on Steve M...@Ron "Even better, see the boxplot on Steve McIntyre's post at http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/11/within-group-and-between-group-variance/<br /><br />That should quickly clear up for you any misunderstandings you may have about climate models being physical. There is absolutely no internal climate variability. We all know the arctic sea ice melted and the Northwest Passage opened up in 1944 and the sea ice came roaring back in the following years. That was repeated in 2007. The current models don't even come close to showing that kind of variability."<br /><br />Talking about a self-ownage...<br /><br />The intra-variances Steve calculated were ridiculously small, and he had to retract himself. Now the thread is closed.nononoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-51626685389001876342010-08-13T19:00:55.910+01:002010-08-13T19:00:55.910+01:00I would say, Ron, that McI would want to stay rath...I would say, Ron, that McI would want to stay rather distant from smartness comparisons with James.<br /><br />"We all know the arctic sea ice melted and the Northwest Passage opened up in 1944 and the sea ice came roaring back in the following years."<br /><br />Denialist mantras of this sort are a dead giveaway as to your own lack of smartness, BTW.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76166181292771513412010-08-13T18:58:35.529+01:002010-08-13T18:58:35.529+01:00I for one am sure that insulting our blog host wil...I for one am sure that insulting our blog host will prove conducive to productive dialogue.SteveFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-43151493914782072142010-08-13T16:31:54.017+01:002010-08-13T16:31:54.017+01:00Steve McIntyre has an new guest blog post by Ross ...Steve McIntyre has an new guest blog post by Ross McKitrick this morning. See http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/13/ross-on-panel-regressions/<br /><br />I asked the simple question "Do you think James Annan is smart enough to understand this point?" <br /><br />Evidently Steve McIntyre is too nice a guy to call you out on this because he moderated out my comment. So I will do it. What do you say, James?Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.com