|
Post by principled on Jul 12, 2011 10:55:33 GMT 1
Stu That letter in the SMH paper summed up the absurdity of the energy policy both Australia and the UK have been following. P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 12, 2011 14:14:08 GMT 1
the first question I'd ask here is if cumulative, cumulative since WHEN. Because if we just accumulate over all time...................
So WHY should there be a natural time period over which we have to accumulate?
Then if we look at the graph plotted, given that we can see the solar variability in the record anyway, just saying -- if we integrate over time, with correct weight, we can then ADD an approximately linear term, hence approximate the actual graph. From a mathematical point of view then, the fact that you can get such a nice seeming fit is totally unsurprising.
But does it MEAN anything, is there any physical plausibility behind this 'accumulation' scheme?
Reading some blogs (you can't get your hands on the actual paper, it seems, since he has submitted it to a journal -- although anonymous peer review going to be difficult with usual publicity............) there seem to be various response times in the climate system (heat capacity and all that chaps!), hence if you take general view that added solar iradiance 'takes time' to propogate through the system, then perhaps this integration does make partial sense.
but again, I'm just sceptical about the fit from 1950, because that really doesn't seem that surprising, that there is some sort of relation if you choose the accumulation scheme just right.
Mind you, NOt the death knell of AGW that some (without benefit of the actual paper, OR any positive peer review -- makes you wonder somewhat about how they judge results? Or rather it is obvious, they laud papers or idiot bloggers whose conclusions they agree with, bugger the actual science in between! Or indeed, outright errors.) would have you believe.
As regards Stockwell:
So, could be just numerical nonsense, since he doesn't seem to actually be a climate scientist.
I'm not surprised, I add again, that you get something to fit if you try hard enough, but I'd need to see a LOT more than the 1950 fit onwards before I took this as an INDICATION that we weren't modelling the solar stuff quite correctly.
Credible? Except then I'd be asking, WHY does your result NOT show that increasing levels of CO2 have an effect, since we KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? You'd have to show evidence of the absence of a CO2 effect, not just that you can fit the curves without it if you set the parameters just right.
One amusing snippet: Okay, means he got entry to the US, but hardly a resounding judgement of academic excellence!
His day job, as far as I can see, is at the San Diego SuperComputer Centre. Which highlights what I was thinking -- he is used to mucking about with data, but in standard projects you'd have the relevant scientists checking that what was being implemented, in effect, stuck to the science. I just wonder how much actual climate science is in the current paper, because If its just number slinging, no surprise, as I keep saying.
Indeed, what I'd like to see would be various simulations of the supposed solar effects, using some idea of the likely RANGE of the various parameters involved (several different timescales for different bits of the system, as I understand), because then we might find that that you ONLY get such a nice fit if you use extreme values. That would be more of an indication that perhaps there was something worth looking at here. Because seems to me that the TIME solar effects takes to percolate are PHYSICAL quantities, not just some adjustable parameters.
I note that Stockwell pops up elsewhere, for misrepresenting Hansen, and the writer of that piece says:
Which seems to accord with my scepticism about this result, assuming that IF you can get a model to fit (some of) the data somehow, that means something significant. It doesn't -- not if you'd had to tweak the values, and not when all that we have seen so far is getting a basically linear term added to the solar data, in effect.
I might add a further quote about Stockwell and Hansen:
And on Real Climate, where someone brought up the same 'paper' (all we can see is the one graph and the conclusion as posted here):
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 12, 2011 14:45:19 GMT 1
I get lots of flak about this idea of mine. Tax is necessary to run the various organs of state. I think most people would agree that. If You are of a 'type' that likes to be running and organising affairs of state, a way to that goal is to be elected as a politician. An alternative is via the Civil Service. One of the differences between these approaches is one uses overt 'power' the other, covert 'influence'. There are other differences such as pay. Having obtained such power, an MP will hope to maintain their elected status. The way to do this is to keep the electorate 'happy'. This is considerably difficult as each person in perhaps 10 to 20 thousand souls has slightly different needs. Another way to tackle this problem of keeping the electors happy is to give a portion of the money in the states coffers back to the electorate. This has been done at various times over the last 60 years. Now that these policies have proved popular, and have become part of the psyche of the country. Any politician wishing to stop these state benefits tends not to be elected. What is the elected representative to do? If the 'state pot' is left and the country carries on, then the country rapidly goes bankrupt. So more money is needed to be generated, initially this was done through petty charges of small everyday services already paid for through taxes. This eventually, through a 'thousand cuts' became an annoyance by the electorate in general. A further larger reason is then needed to 'alarm' the population into a willingness to give more donations as a preference to the spectre of a future event(s). When this 'generation of an alarm' is detected the electorate will again become annoyed, but that doesn't matter as long as that time is sufficiently in the future not to affect those in office at the present time. Think I'm totally bonkers? Good. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 12, 2011 15:03:54 GMT 1
I don't think this is as SIMPLE as you are trying to make it appear, since it assumes that people will just vote for who makes them happy -- or to be more precise, people vote for who they vote for!
So, SOME people vote because of a complicated political ideology, some on much simpler grounds (bash the benefit scroungers, bash the argies, defeat terrorism), but I don't think you can reduce the whole of politics to just 'happy'.
Or just redcues to -- what will encourage people to vote for them isn't necessarily the 'best for the country' -- but it's a damn sight better than any other system!
SOME voters, believe it or not, do manage to convince themselves that they make their choices based on more than, how much money am I taking home each week......................................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 12, 2011 16:58:41 GMT 1
I'd save your breath STA for when (IF) the paper is ever published! Then we will all know the details.
You're no "climate scientist" either, just a mouthpiece for the consensus, but you expect us to heed YOUR blather so show the same courtesy to someone else, please. How does your CV read, by the way? Let us know just for a laugh!
As for "WHY should there be a natural time period over which we have to accumulate?"
Why should the impact of solar changes be assumed to be instantaneous rather than cumulative? The concept of a lag is nothing new in equilibration, is it? Nor is the fact that the temperature of one period influences the temperature of the next. Isn't that called "autocorrelation"? Perhaps Stockwell's hypothesis is on those lines.
Anyway, let's wait and see how he fleshes out his argument, eh?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 12, 2011 17:29:18 GMT 1
That's rich coming from you, since YOU considered it interesting enough to post the link! What is it, you LIKE links when it looks as if they might disprove AGW, but we're not ALLOWED to comment on the fact that they might be crap?
Damn sight better than yours!
I'm not a climate scientist, but that means that I haven't got the gall to try and publish papers claiming to show that the whole of climate science has been talking bollocks for ages! Strange that when statisticians, or various geologists, or just plain ole bloggers publish blogs claiming that climate science is all crap, you're keen enough to publicise those!
As I thought, it's your usual bollocks of look at the conclusion, rather than the CONTENT or the qualifications when they're on your side, whereas anything is allowed when you ASSUME they're not.
I have given PLENTY of reasons why I think this paper looks suspect. If he didn't want people commenting without seeing the paper, he shouldn't have posted this grandiose ' I can show all climate scientists are wrong' claim in the first place. But he did. I'm not impressed by the graph he DID paste, I'm not impressed by his qualifications for writing such a paper, AND I gave my reasons.
(Rude bit deleted, that was rude, I'll admit!)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 12, 2011 18:35:29 GMT 1
Since no-one knows the content of this paper apart from a brief outline of conclusions we cannot yet judge whether he has a reasonable argument.
EVEN RealClimate cannot know and they think they are Climate Gods!
I only mentioned the paper as a bit of advance publicity. If it is accepted and published will be soon enough to criticise it, unless, of course, you want to get your criticism in first! How very "scientific" of you.
And lets see YOUR CV just for a larf, STA!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 12, 2011 18:48:31 GMT 1
"I don't think this is as SIMPLE as you are trying to make it appear" No, it's not quite that simple, had I made it more complex, then anyone trying to read this might have thought it too involved. I did want people to read it.
"but I don't think you can reduce the whole of politics to just 'happy'." I needed a word to encompass all those devices needed to advance, aid and assist the engagement of sufficient electors to successfully carry forward an idea or policy. 'happy' is used as a 'token' much like Basic did.
"Or just redcues to -- what will encourage people to vote for them isn't necessarily the 'best for the country' -- but it's a damn sight better than any other system!"
Let me take the last bit 'but it's a damn sight better than any other system!' first. From that I perceive that You my see me as some 'subversive' willing to over throw the 'Status quo'. No, just trying to understand the 'raison d'être' of the participants. As with any system, it's who runs it that decides its appearance.
"Or just redcues to -- what will encourage people to vote for them isn't necessarily the 'best for the country'" That's the nub of it, is what they are doing, or proposing to do, undesirable/prejudicial in the interests of the nation (UK). Do some of those words sound familiar to You?
"SOME voters, believe it or not, do manage to convince themselves that they make their choices based on more than, how much money am I taking home each week......................................"
Yes, that must be so, for some, the others are more worried about the financial aspects, re: my mate the white van man, missus, 2 kids, £7.30/hr. If, say, the politicos were to suggest removal of Child Benefits, it would affect that family more than those 'SOME voters'. So if it was proposed, apart from any hardships, from the rough figures, they'd be out on their ears.
"About 7.7 million families with children currently get child benefit, costing about £12bn a year." 29,691,780 votes cast in 2010 election. 7.7 suggests 15.4 for two parents.
So, that stays [child benefit], and other monies are also subject to similar logic. So, more money needed, more tax, but we already work till beginning of June for the Exchequer. What's to be done?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 12, 2011 18:54:23 GMT 1
I see. So it's okay for you to trumpet it's conclusions but no-one is allowed to criticise it before publication.
Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy here?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 12, 2011 19:49:32 GMT 1
STA I believe that your post 31 should be addressed. So are you suggesting he did a "Mann" in order to get the correlation he wanted? Could it be that the overall CO2 effect is not as large as had been anticipated? We're not talking about a controlled lab experiment where we can apply with absolute accuracy the theoretical physics, we're talking about a complex and not entirely understood system of interactions. Well, it's a bl..dy sight more significant than the current models that DIVERGE from what we are actually experiencing! And from one of your quotes: That's as maybe, but the insinuation here is that climate scientists FULLY understand climate, that's blatanty untrue. If they really knew how it all worked then their models would fit past and PRESENT climates, without the need for "tweaking". This "dissing" before a paper is published seems to be the way that members of the scientific consensus club try to demolish scientists who have different viewpoints to their own. Post publication analysis will tell whether this scientist's hypothesis is correct or not, I'll keep my powder dry until then. By the way, it may help to read this article from 2007 to see how the "diss brigade" were working then. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.eceP
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 13, 2011 16:02:11 GMT 1
Not so. Put in enough twiddle parameters, and you can fit almost anything, especially since the graph he presented just looks like a linear term added to the solar data, with maybe a bit of a lag.
Except it wouldn't NEED dissing if the author wasn't trumpeting -- I can show climate scientists are wrong, I can explain current warming using just solar variation -- all over the place.
Criticising papers is what scientists DO, either in terms of the actual paper, or being critical of the approach taken based on the abstract. It's NOT just a different viewpoint (not that all opinions are equally valid in science anyway!), but whether or not an approach is VALID before you start wasting time doing it. Or what you'd also need to include to make it valid. As others have said:
1) Not surprising that he can get it to fit given what he's fitting 2) Where are the errors on the fit anyway? 3) you'd still have to answer the 'why no Co2 effect AT ALL' point.
and finally:
Arbitrary mucking about with data by non-specialists in the field doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING AT ALL. It's not usually a senisible way to proceed, because you need to distinguish between a purely numerical model (i.e., just plug in some likely looking functions and a few parameters, and fit away), versus a model that you can justify in some sense based on the actual PHYSICS of the system involved.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 13, 2011 19:33:21 GMT 1
STA
We know that very well from what Mann did. So are you saying that he "did a Mann"? If so, then he'll be found out post-publication. I note that another study (from a link by Stu on another post) has concluded that the hockey stick is not supported by the proxy data used
.
1) So he's hyped it a bit. He probably looked at how the IPCC and Greenpeace do their press releases to get a headline and felt he wanted some of that. Who can blame him, it's not easy to swim against the tide! 2) The (1) above is a high risk strategy both for those who "diss" the paper before they've read it as it could be his hypothesis is proved correct, or risky for the author if his paper reveals poor science and his conclusions are erroneous.
How do we know whether in his full paper there isn't a rational explanation?
I note you choose your words carefully using the phrase:"doesn't necessarily mean", and leave the gate open. Just because it doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, doesn't mean that it doesn't!
P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 13, 2011 20:38:12 GMT 1
Well, I've an ISI h-index of 10, if you know what that is, it was enough to get me my last promotion. And there is one paper we have written that has clocked up 163 citations last time I looked.................
Nope, because as I understand it part of the Mann question was a fairly complicated statistical question as regards the application of PCA, NOT the same as the criticism I'm concerned about here.
As regards the temperature proxies, the issue is that the error-bars in effect, MAY be a lot larger than was originally thought, NOT that the whole attempt to find and use such proxies as fundamentally flawed, or not a scientifically valid course of research.
I'm worried that the fits that MIGHT have been done here AREN'T of any scientific importance because the whole attempt is flawed, it's a different issue.
that's just the way scientists SPEAK.
Look, I've looked carefully at what the author CHOOSE to present, and given my considered opinion of what he did as regards publicity, and a careful assessment (based on the limited evidence that he choose to provide) of whether I (or anyone else) should bother waiting for this paper, or bother reading it if it does come out. Okay, so that's it, the evidence is out there, my analysis and reasoning is out there.
Disagree if you wish, but DON'T try playing silly 'bad as Mann' games and trying to twist my words -- frankly very boring.
No it's not, what RISK am I incurring? None. Jeez, I'm just taking an interest, and making an evaluation as to whether or not I'll bother following it at a later date. You can ignore my assessment and my arguments, and do what the hell you like, no skin off my nose.
Plus I'd diss it anyway -- a numpty for making such gradiose claims given where he is coming from and the detail he choose to release. It's NOT the sort of behaviour that you'd expect from a serious scientist, but exactly the sort of behaviour I've unfortunately come to expect from some in the skeptic gang............................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 16, 2011 10:00:37 GMT 1
An interesting looking conference at the Royal Society in October: royalsociety.org/events/warm-climates-of-the-past/Warm climates of the past - a lesson for the future?In several periods in Earth's history, climate has been significantly warmer than present. What lessons about the future can be learnt from past warm periods? The answer depends on the quality of reconstructions of past climates, our understanding of their causes, and the validity of climate models which aim to reproduce them. This meeting will address these exciting and challenging issues. bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/16/warm-climates-of-the-past.html--------- Just so long as they make perfectly clear, to pacify the simple minded like nickrr and Louise, that what made it warmer in the past is not what is making it warmer today (IF it is getting warmer, today, that is!)
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 16, 2011 10:49:33 GMT 1
Excellent! At last something is getting through!
|
|