tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post2105376316391007688..comments2018-06-10T08:45:29.133+01:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Watt's up with Pat Frank?James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-48888511189997463602017-11-19T09:47:33.006+00:002017-11-19T09:47:33.006+00:00Same old same old is the answer I expected, and wi...Same old same old is the answer I expected, and will suffice. Just wanted to be sure.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-6282978155001809602017-11-18T16:42:45.930+00:002017-11-18T16:42:45.930+00:00Yeah I could have mentioned Nic Lewis though I'...Yeah I could have mentioned Nic Lewis though I'm a bit bored of the same old same old about priors. Which I have <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/objective-probability-or-automatic.html" rel="nofollow">dealt with before</a>.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68112275656399946712017-11-18T09:47:26.673+00:002017-11-18T09:47:26.673+00:00Maybe it's just rose-tinted specs on my part, ...<i>Maybe it's just rose-tinted specs on my part, but for various reasons I was thinking of Steve Schwartz recently and although he might not like the label of sceptic it was actually quite interesting to explore the reasons why his time scale analysis failed. Chylek was another. </i><br /><br />Yes, there's clearly a difference between being wrong in some kind of interesting way, and being wrong in some trivially obvious way. The latter seems to now be the norm, unfortunately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4197814207797780472017-11-18T00:03:57.532+00:002017-11-18T00:03:57.532+00:00Yet more proof, a if we needed it, that wrongness ...Yet more proof, a if we needed it, that wrongness is exponential. (Sorry.)<br /><br />I thought Frank was some sort of chemist?<br /><br />Appeal upheld meaning...? In US usage that would mean Frank gets his review, but perhaps you meant the other thing?<br /><br />Schwartz and Chylek, but no Nic? Sad. (Although now that you're back, will you be doing something on his latest?)<br /><br />What's the cat situation these days? This is still the internet, you know, notwithstanding the dearth of coherent "skeptics."<br />Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-54196188495308556712017-11-17T19:56:13.548+00:002017-11-17T19:56:13.548+00:001e9 should be 1e8 and 2e6 should be 2e5.
I can...1e9 should be 1e8 and 2e6 should be 2e5.<br /><br />I can't even count. :(Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-9073776239423855882017-11-17T19:51:51.296+00:002017-11-17T19:51:51.296+00:00y = a*sqrt(t) and y' = a/(2*sqrt(t)) You can ...y = a*sqrt(t) and y' = a/(2*sqrt(t)) You can take powers of 10 for t (say 1e-307, 1e-306, ... 1e307, 1e308 (double precision range that Excel can handle)) and plot both y and y' on a log-log plot, where you get a great big X).<br /><br />Of course y' = infinity at t = 0 (largest propagation of error occurs for small t).<br /><br />Code for numerical proof ...<br /><br /> program odrw<br /> integer*4 i,j,k,sum,times(8)<br /> real*4 number(0:99999999)<br /> call random_seed<br /> open(7,file='1D_Random_Walk.txt',status='unknown')<br /> open(8,file='1D_Random_Walk.dat',status='unknown')<br /> do j=0,199999,10000<br /> call date_and_time(values=times)<br /> write(8,'(9i8)')j,times<br /> write(*,'(i9)')j<br /> do k=j,j+9999<br /> sum=0<br /> call random_number(number)<br /> do i=0,99999999<br /> if(number(i).lt.5e-1)then<br /> sum=sum-1<br /> else<br /> sum=sum+1<br /> endif<br /> enddo<br /> write(7,'(i6,1x,i6)')k-j,sum<br /> enddo<br /> enddo<br /> close(7)<br /> close(8)<br /> end program odrw<br /><br />You can deal with a (constant) and i = t (where i = t = any fractional positive real value) after the fact (this one goes 1e9 integer steps into a 1D random walk (only tracks final step distro), takes ~48 hours per instance (on my CPU) for 2e6 random walks (change conditional to +1 or 0 (sum does not change) to mimic a one sided binomial distro, I probably should do this as it reduces the integer arithmetic by one half).<br /><br />There are several ironies involved here, PF has been pitching this idea for almost a decade now (Skeptic article written/published in early 2008 (Shermer of RAAM infamy)), doesn't apply this error into his own linear model of historical GMST evolution vs forcing time series, does not appear to understand the concept of bias offsets and their contribution to the total rmse calculation (file that one under all models are wrong but some are useful) and given a chance to reach equilibrium, that these models would approach an asymptotic solution.<br /><br />It is as if he were integrating weather and not bothering to describe the climate in the form of statistical moments and distributions.<br /><br />I might also say that I don't know what I'm talking about, so whatever.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1820904444245013162017-11-17T15:26:18.801+00:002017-11-17T15:26:18.801+00:00Maybe it's just rose-tinted specs on my part, ...Maybe it's just rose-tinted specs on my part, but for various reasons I was thinking of <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/comment-on-schwartz.html" rel="nofollow">Steve Schwartz</a> recently and although he might not like the label of sceptic it was actually quite interesting to explore the reasons why his time scale analysis failed. <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/comment-on-aerosol-radiative-forcing.html" rel="nofollow">Chylek</a> was another. This Frank guy though is just a nutter who's so far off the Dunning-Kruger scale that it's impossible to even communicate meaningfully with him.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-46244541370279275682017-11-17T12:05:28.338+00:002017-11-17T12:05:28.338+00:00Are there not any interesting sceptics around thes...<i>Are there not any interesting sceptics around these days?</i><br />Where there ever interesting sceptics around in the last 20 years? Sceptisim about the basics of climate change may have been interesting in the 1960s (and probably not even then), but since then only nut-jobs will argue against the fundamentals of our scientific understanding.<br /><br />And the hardcore denialosphere like on WTFUWT is far away from even agreeing about those basic science.reasonablemadnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02663563207255711832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-19177154180645752692017-11-16T20:34:00.723+00:002017-11-16T20:34:00.723+00:00Are there not any interesting sceptics around thes...<i>Are there not any interesting sceptics around these days?</i><br />No, I can't think of any. If anything, it does seem as though the whole blogging landscape has become a bit boring. I think that might partly because the "skeptical" blogs have gone so bonkers that it's not really worth even bothering. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-20349122647870372072017-11-16T14:30:48.207+00:002017-11-16T14:30:48.207+00:00If you want to compare the average height of a gir...If you want to compare the average height of a giraffe to the average height of a human you would have to argue giraffe and human are dimensionless. Or something like that. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-79149834846121064712017-11-15T21:03:12.423+00:002017-11-15T21:03:12.423+00:00I must remember next time I try to compare the ave...I must remember next time I try to compare the average height of a giraffe to the average height of a human, that it cannot be done because the units are incompatible.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-49985797299789442262017-11-15T16:51:04.623+00:002017-11-15T16:51:04.623+00:00One interesting thing about Pat Frank is that in a...One interesting thing about Pat Frank is that in a recent exchange with the preternaturally patient Nick Stokes over at WUWT, he stated that "Statistical averages are of dimension (property average)/(unit averaged). The average height of people in a room is meters/person, not meters."<br /><br />And he is, or was, a physicist. Amazing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com