by Ryan O’Donnell via Climate Audit
For those who are not mathematically inclined and did not entirely follow the discussion about Eric’s reconstruction in the previous post, well, a picture is worth a thousand words.
This is what happens to Eric’s reconstruction when you:
Top row: Add the designated trends to the Peninsula stations
Second row: Remove the designated trends from the Peninsula stations
Third row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya
Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and remove the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya
Please note how Eric’s reconstruction responds quite well to changes in the Peninsula . . . except it teleconnects them to the Ross Ice Shelf and the south pole.
Please also note how Eric’s reconstruction does not respond at all to changes in the only two West Antarctic land stations they used: Russkaya and Byrd.
Anything that he “got right” . . . as I said before . . . was by accident.
I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend tens of pages during a review making claims without bothering to check. I am quite tired of people who are willing to spend a couple of hours writing posts about how they “got it right” and I “got it wrong” without bothering to check.
Eric . . . feel free to confirm this for yourself. I assume you have your own code handy.
UPDATE: Bishop Hill takes this essay and further reduces it in the crucible of truth. His end paragraph really sums it up well.
James Delingpole also sums it up nicely here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your written explanation of the fourth row is confusing as it appears to be exactly the same as the third row.
Does this make me a “critic”???
Superb! Never have a few pictures so succinctly summarized many thousands of words. Thank you.
BJ,
Check out the signs of the numbers at the top of each frame.
The peninsula is the little finger on the right Byrd is in the upper red dot in the map of Figure 1 in this post:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/antarctic-warming-the-final-straw/
text should say removing?
REPLY: commenter should give a clue as to where?
All trends are equal.
Some trends are more equal than others.
AWG Farm
“Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya”
Bold should read “remove” and “from” (I guess).
Anthony, if you could edit the “Fourth row” description to say “remove” rather than “add” the trends, I would appreciate it.
Thanks to the commentors who noticed. 😉
REPLY: done
Should say left
The peninsula is the little finger on the left Byrd is in the upper red dot in the map of Figure 1 in this post:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/antarctic-warming-the-final-straw/
I really have no idea what I am looking at here (bad eyesight) but it appears to me that in the first two series; the adders, and the subtracters; the is a progressibe change in features, as you go from left to right.
In the lower two series, I see virtually no change from left to right, and since the numbers are doubled in the lower two, that makes the lack of response even more striking.
I only vaguely recall, what this discussion was originally about; other than Jeff iD took Steig to task for some reason that made sense at the time. Was this the situation that Judith Curry got involved in in some way.
In any case, I would simply add that the Nyquist Sampling Theorem, is a strict Monitor, and trying to make data where there isn’t any is a fruitless task.
What Jeff has been trying to do with the paucity of observations in this part of the globe; probably tells us some things we otherwise wouldn’t know; but I somehow doubt that some statistical mathematics prestidigitation is going to ultimately determine whether we are going to burn or freeze.
But Jeff is right to try and hold Steig to some rational process.
To match the text to the figures, it appear that the text: “Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and add the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya” should be: “Fourth row: Treat Byrd as a single station, and remove the designated trends to Byrd and Russkaya.”
Dr. Trenberth (once again) said it shortest and best:
‘It is hard to make data where none exist’ … UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth.
Hard? It’s a frogging travesty.
While Ryan is producing excellent pictorial illustrations of his discoveries, over at the Bishop’s, Shub has been engaging in climatological predictions:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/josh-76.html
These predictions concern what will be said next by Steig over at Real Climate. So far, reality is tracking the forecasts (sorry possible illustrations of how the future might unfold) quite well! Who said that climatology was devoid of testable hypothesis?
“Please also note how Eric’s reconstruction does not respond at all to changes in the only two West Antarctic land stations they used: Russkaya and Byrd.”
========================================================
I thought it bore repeating. It is really all that needs stated or in this case, illustrated. Wonderful job, Ryan!
Now that we’ve determined that Steig doesn’t know squat, can we move to the ethical issues that have risen from this case? There are many. I already knew climate alarmists are a bit slower than most, and we know from experience their ethics are lacking in both conscience and convention, but I think it important to show the world the type of people who are behind all of the alarmism.
S09 looks like a classically overfiltered data set. It’s unnaturally smooth with broad spreading of localized features. Having done a lot of resampling (for scientific visualization, motion capture**, image and data post processing), output like this would (has) sent me scrambling to find fix bugs and find better filtering algorithms. The sensitivity/independence analysis is a fatal blow to the approach.
Dr. Steig’s fixation on defending the work against all critique strikes me as very odd. Admittedly, I think Hansen et. al.’s persistent defence of inflling (across a *pole* of all things) tops that for *odd*.
** motion capture of a baseball pitch when over processed is amusing and wrong 🙂
Ahem. This fable might help some to understand the problems with much of published climatology:
Once upon a time there were three climatologists who went rabbit hunting together. As the trio walked along a dirt road through some woods they came upon a clearing just as a rabbit sprang from the brush on their right and raced across the open ground. The first climatologist jerked his shotgun up and fired: BLAM! But he was too quick on the trigger and the shot hit the dirt below the rabbit. The second climatologist sighted along the barrel of his gun and BLAM! But his shot went over the rabbit’s head. The third climatologist jumped up and down while waving his arms and shouting “We got him! We got him!”
Guess I’ll make some more popcorn 🙂
The map in figure 1 of the post that Jeff Id refers to at:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/antarctic-warming-the-final-straw/
in fact shows the locations of both Byrd and Russkaya stations in West Antartica. Byrd is the upper red dot, Russkaya is the lower red dot.
Fraud is the only word to describe this. Bishop Hill does an excellent job of explaining it.
Forget Big Oil… let’s talk about the corruption of climate science due to Big Government.
Note to all who have attempted to run the code:
The pesky line has been removed. Code should work fine now for everyone.
If you Google “Eric Steig” now, the Delingpole article and Josh’s cartoon of him tops the entries, even above his Univ. of Washington faculty web page listing. Yay Google.
Yes, well, I’ll have my 80,000 word rebuttal prepared shortly but here’s the Abstract:
“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no… “
It would be helpful to indicate on the maps which stations are being added to or subtracted from in each set of maps. It makes the point about smearing the heat signal clearer.
“”””” Crusty the Clown says:
February 8, 2011 at 11:44 am
Ahem. This fable might help some to understand the problems with much of published climatology: “””””
Are you insinuating, that on average nothing much happens ?
So how the hell does Trenberth’s cartoon energy budget come up with 24 W/m^2 of thermals, transporting via convection, “heat” into the upper atmosphere, when the whole planet is isothermal at 288 K Temperature; corresponding to 390 W/m^2 for surface emitted (BB like) LWIR radiation ?
Just asking