tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post3172570167336765051..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Roger RabbitJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-49691790526860934432011-08-28T21:22:24.684+01:002011-08-28T21:22:24.684+01:00I made the mistake of playing it while busy at wor...I made the mistake of playing it while busy at work and misread the probability markers a few times, putting my marks at the opposite end to the one I intended, and putting a poor ice cream seller out of business.<br /><br />I hope I didn't skew the results too much.skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-20574943428701308682011-08-28T10:09:39.811+01:002011-08-28T10:09:39.811+01:00Just listening to Material World...coincidentally ...Just listening to Material World...coincidentally we met someone who had been working on that game, when they visited Japan recently. The flash was more than a bit tedious and some bits of display were missing but I still managed to be a red-hot meteorologist of course :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29942236249827669752011-08-26T23:03:56.686+01:002011-08-26T23:03:56.686+01:00Pielke pere and John n-g are having a delightful e...Pielke pere and John n-g are having a delightful exchange over at Climate Abyss.<br /><br />http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/<br /><br />Paul MiddentsPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13742905742181959851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-44083565384551431012011-08-26T10:45:49.857+01:002011-08-26T10:45:49.857+01:00Maybe someone should send him this url:
http://ww...Maybe someone should send him this url:<br /><br />http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/weather-game<br /><br />h/t Material World on BBC - which has an article on it in the latest edition.skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-32658762948940265632011-08-24T13:01:28.405+01:002011-08-24T13:01:28.405+01:00The Curry thing...ugh, but being dissed by her is ...The Curry thing...ugh, but being dissed by her is probably preferable to being praised. I think she is currying confusion by using "scenario uncertainty" in a broader sense, but I have long since given up on expecting her to come up with anything useful (*cough* <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.html" rel="nofollow">Italian flag</a> *cough*). I will blog on the whole issue of Climatic Change some time soon.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1872734422768189582011-08-24T09:10:35.521+01:002011-08-24T09:10:35.521+01:00Many thanks JA. RP Jr. has dismissed my counter e...Many thanks JA. RP Jr. has dismissed my counter example and (moderately politely) asked me to "push off, there's a good chap", so I'll leave him to it.<br /><br />The introduction of the missing "expected" after I had pointed out the error as being blog shorthand (or words to that effect) is evidence that you are right.<br /><br />I recently read Judith Curry's paper "reasoniong about climate uncertainty", and that seemed to me to be worded in order to cast doubt, while providing no useful guidance on how it could be improved (at least not in a form that could actually be used). Some concrete examples of specific statements and how JC would have made them might actually encourage progress, but they were completely absent.<br /><br />Her comment "In the presence of scenario uncertainty, which characterises climate model simulations, attempts to produce a p.d.f. for climate sensitivity (e.g. Annan and Hargreaves 2009) are arguably misguided and misleading", was intruging. I would have thought "scenario uncertainty" would normally relate to uncertainty over the way in which future emissions/forcings would work out, but for p.d.f.s of climate sensitivity based on hindcasts the p.d.f.s sould already include the uncertainty due to the uncertainty in estimates/measurements of the forcings?<br /><br />The fact that in a paper on "reasoning about climate uncertainty" she included a footnote explaining that PDF meant "probability denisty function" was also mildly amusing!Dikran Marsupialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10676550225209602186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-8616048313688810752011-08-24T04:22:21.386+01:002011-08-24T04:22:21.386+01:00I hate to be a pedant (OK, not that much) but it w...I hate to be a pedant (OK, not that much) but it was the <i>White</i> Queen who believed the six impossible things before breakfast. The Red Queen had to keep running faster and faster to stay in the same place.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-89385314493633606332011-08-23T23:08:31.997+01:002011-08-23T23:08:31.997+01:00For the record, it was SIX impossible things:
&qu...For the record, it was SIX impossible things:<br /><br />"I can't believe that!" said Alice.<br />"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."<br />Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."<br />"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."<br /><br />http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass<br /><br />RPJr is clearly going for a new world record.Steve Scolnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11887989345192863494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65615859110196562252011-08-23T12:55:26.507+01:002011-08-23T12:55:26.507+01:00DM,
Well I'm not a fan of maxent for starters...DM,<br /><br />Well I'm not a fan of maxent for starters. But I'm also not a fan of the IPCC confusion over confidence in probabilities (especially when they end up with low confidence in high probabilities). That seems an unhelpful level of recursion to me, especially noting that most of the authors are basically physicists who struggle with the concept of probability as an expression of a degree of belief in the first place (eg statements about "the full range of uncertainty"). It seems that the IPCC approach only encourages this, by enabling them to thnk they can pigeonhole the "subjective" bit in the confidence and convince themselves that the "underlying" probability is somehow real. So I'm not going to defend them over that.<br /><br />But principally, I think it's important to realise that Roger's blizzard of posts is a very straightforward smokescreen to bury the car crash of his original claims. His goal is to get everyone to agree that it's all far too complicated and even experts disagree. But they can't disagree on whether his original idea is credible, because it's obviously nonsense to think that the correctness of a probabilistic claim can be determined solely on the observed outcome. Which is where I came in :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1613641848023182962011-08-22T16:24:21.565+01:002011-08-22T16:24:21.565+01:00Ta! FWIW, I think Rogers problem is caused by the...Ta! FWIW, I think Rogers problem is caused by the difficulty in reasoning about the probability of a probability, and is confusing the expectation of a probability (after having maginalised over its uncertainty) with the probability itself. However at the current time my comment on that is still in moderation, so it may not be avaliable just yet.Dikran Marsupialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10676550225209602186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80113850885247095492011-08-22T14:52:49.434+01:002011-08-22T14:52:49.434+01:00Ned, I did wonder about this, but based on the num...Ned, I did wonder about this, but based on the numbers presented I suspect that Roger turned the few "(v) unlikely" statements around, ie counted them as 66/90% "correct" predictions of the inverse. Or else he could even have just ignored them, there actually aren't enough of them to materially affect the results anyway. Which at least avoids this one particular avenue of stupidity.<br /><br />I wasn't trying to trap Roger into an accidental slip, merely leading him along the path to realising that his idea was irredeemably broken...<br /><br />DM, will do....James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-22346107924483738552011-08-22T14:37:58.811+01:002011-08-22T14:37:58.811+01:00Roger's most recent post suggests to me that h...Roger's <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-fun-with-uncertainty-guidance.html" rel="nofollow">most recent post</a> suggests to me that he doesn't realise that the IPCC statements he is interested in can be viewed as specifying a p.d.f. is a subjectivist Bayesian sort of a way (and are not even intended to provide the basis for falsification of the theory, but to provide a rough indication of what might happen that is relevant to impact studies). I'd be very grateful if you could pop over and check my comments re. MAXENT etc., just to make sure I am being fair/reasonable.Dikran Marsupialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10676550225209602186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80649736241157427192011-08-22T14:32:50.098+01:002011-08-22T14:32:50.098+01:00Thanks for the update on this, James. I read the ...Thanks for the update on this, James. I read the original post at RP's place, and a few of the comments, but was insufficiently interested to keep following it. <br /><br />The asteroid example you cite would seem to be actually related to the content of the paper. That is, the IPCC AR1 <i>does</i> include predictions of things that are unlikely, very unlikely, etc. I wonder how RP handled those in the paper.<br /><br />I had been assuming that there was no way in hell that RP could be stupid enough (or deceptive enough) to handle a case where AR1 says "X is only 33% likely to occur" by counting that as a prediction for which AR1 will be wrong 67% of the time. <i>Surely</i> he can't possibly have done that ... right?<br /><br />Please tell me I'm misunderstanding something here.<br /><br />Perhaps someone should corner Roger and make him assign probabilities to a long list of highly improbable events. Then we can look forward to a blog post <b>"Over 99% of Roger Pielke Jr's Predictions are Incorrect"</b>.Nedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09266537661797164304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-33877603996501051582011-08-22T03:04:08.129+01:002011-08-22T03:04:08.129+01:00But where, oh where, is Jessica?But where, oh where, is <b>Jessica</b>?David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-49755880946341076662011-08-22T01:15:32.637+01:002011-08-22T01:15:32.637+01:00Yes, it was the Red Queen and impossible things.Yes, it was the <b>Red Queen</b> and impossible things.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-27519776609182044532011-08-21T19:57:03.098+01:002011-08-21T19:57:03.098+01:00Hank:
Wasn't the ability to believe 3 impossib...Hank:<br />Wasn't the ability to believe 3 impossible things before breakfast important behind the looking glass.<br /><br />Brings Eric May to mind somehow.<br /><br />Rumleyfipsrumleyfipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03346146988416679423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-6232559596108595792011-08-21T15:12:04.903+01:002011-08-21T15:12:04.903+01:00There's glory for you!'
'I don't...There's glory for you!'<br /> <br />'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. <br /><br />Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you.'Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-32534717645466922092011-08-21T13:25:11.649+01:002011-08-21T13:25:11.649+01:00I think you are almost right - arguing about proba...I think you are almost right - arguing about probability is probably a waste of time.Shibuihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06536833424201383029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74414330297479613022011-08-21T11:39:32.778+01:002011-08-21T11:39:32.778+01:00I find it likely that Roger will eventually figure...I find it <i>likely</i> that Roger will eventually figure out he is very wrong about this. I also find it <i>very likely</i> that he will not have the ability to admit his mistake. Hey Roger, try to prove me wrong!Robert Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13073312717965390770noreply@blogger.com