Dana (Scooter) Nuccitelli, lead attack kid at the SkS Treehut gets schooled.
Bishop Hill writes:
Last week I ribbed Dana Nuccitelli and Gavin Schmidt over the former’s comparing the mean of the Aldrin paper to the mode of Lewis’s. Here’s the quote:
One significant issue in Lewis’ paper (in his abstract, in fact) is that in trying to show that his result is not an outlier, he claims that Aldrin et al. (2012) arrived at the same most likely [i.e. the mode] climate sensitivity estimate of 1.6°C, calling his result “identical to those from Aldrin et al. (2012).” However, this is simply a misrepresentation of their paper.
The authors of Aldrin et al. report a climate sensitivity value of 2.0°C [per the paper, the mean] under certain assumptions that they caution are not directly comparable to climate model-based estimates. When Aldrin et al. include a term for the influences of indirect aerosols and clouds, which they consider to be a more appropriate comparison to estimates such as the IPCC’s model-based estimate of ~3°C, they report a sensitivity that increases up to 3.3°C. Their reported value is thus in good agreement with the full body of evidence as detailed in the IPCC report.
I (BH) was somewhat taken aback when Nuccitelli subsequently denied having done this:
Me: @dana1981 And you can’t really duck the fact that you compared mean to mode. @ClimateOfGavin @wattsupwiththat
Nuccitelli: @aDissentient You have a strange definition of the word “fact”, but that’s not news.
Me: @dana1981 You are denying comparing mean to mode?
Nuccitelli: @aDissentient Sure. While we’re at it, I’m also denying that the moon is made of cheese.
==============================================================
It seems that Dana got taken to task by Tom Curtis at SkS, and now there’s been another one of those silent changes at SkS.
==============================================================
Bish continues:
In the comments, Tom Curtis is remonstrated about Nuccitelli accusing Lewis of misrepresenting the match between his PDF and Aldrin’s,
Dana correctly describes Lewis as claiming that the mode (most likely climate sensitivity) of his result is identical to the mode of Aldrin et al, but then incorrectly calls that claim a simple misrepresentation. It is not a misrepresentation. The modes of the two studies are identical to the first decimal point.
Now it has all changed. Look at the Skeptical Science page again
==============================================================
More here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/22/sks-quietly-withdraws-allegation.html
For those that want to learn what the difference is between mean and mode, about .com has this simple and helpful tutorial: The Mean, the Median and the Mode
Heh. How does that stinky moon cheese taste Dana?
Richard Drake nails it in comments:
Well done for plugging away at these matters. Sensitivity has a central role in the IPCC framework and argument. Although use of mode rather than mean may seem a small detail it isn’t. As we focus in on such things it’s getting harder to paint sceptics as ignorant bigots – largely because of Nic’s excellent work.
Apr 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM |
Richard Drake
Maybe Lew can do some polling of non skeptic websites to prove how Dana was right all along and those of us pointing out Dana’s improper statistics usages are just Moon Landing Deniers.
Related articles
- On Dana1981’s Meaningless ENSO Exercise at SkepticalScience (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Dana’s Planet (The Air Vent)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Larry Crowne?
All that Glowball Warming CO2 has gone to Dana’s head and reduced his limited synaptic capabilities even further.
Kind of sad, he could have had a real career instead of ending up as the butt of entry level Stats Course jokes.
Wonder if he can do basic arithmetic ?
As much as I hate SS, I now really respect Mr. Curtis. This and the Marcott nonsense has shown he has great integrity.
Somebody needs to tell Nutty’s mommy….
that she has a Fruit-of-the-Loom troll….
living in her basement.
Making mistakes in and of itself is not a big deal. We all do that. It is the denial of those mistakes that gives us insight into the person. One of the well known attributes of narcissists is the inability to admit mistakes.
Dana was a bunch of fun this weekend. I think Nic Lewis’s reply at tAV might make a good addition to the post above.
“Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes. Not a mean in sight! And it refers to the mode as the “best estimate”. Nor does Figure 9.20 (where the estimated PDFs for climate sensitivity from Forest 2006 and other studies are shown, labelled EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity) mark the means. And Forest 2006 itself only reported the mode.
So I’m not being either misleading on any count, or misrepresenting anything. But Dana is both misrepresenting my study and being misleading. What a surprise.” — Nic Lewis
They may also need to update their ‘less Artic ice caused this years cold weather in the UK’ while their at it;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cold-spring-2013
Full PDF report:- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/2/March2013.pdf
This hypothesis remains contentious, however, and there is little evidence from the comparison between the cold spring of 1962 and this year that the Arctic has been a contributory factor in terms of the hypothesis proposed above. Figure 13 shows the mid-troposphere temperature anomalies for 1962 and 2013; over the Arctic they are almost identical and reflect the negative NAO pattern. It is hard to argue that Arctic amplification had changed the equator to pole temperature in a systematic way to affect the circulation this spring.
More interesting tit-bits in the report.
“Dana Nuccitelli’s meany mode is like stinky cheese”
An insult to Limburger.
SKS is it’s own worst enemy when it tries to rewrite history like this. It’s the worst of both worlds, to implicitly acknowledge the mistake by rewriting a page and at the same time explicitly try to pretend the mistake never happened. It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that not only were they wrong and they knew it, but that they’re dishonest.
Can I just add to my comment above
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vldP9YgX6x0&w=420&h=315%5D
Is it just me? Every time I see Nuccitelli’s name, I initially think it’s Nutticelli…
I have never understood the decision to purchase a scooter instead of a motorcycle. There are 250cc motorcycles that are probably safer to ride than that scooter and get as-good gas mileage. The reason being that large-radius wheels are your friend when you’re trying to balance a 2-wheel vehicle. People on scooters also somehow convince themselves that they can get away with just a helmet. This is foolish. Scooters in traffic are doing 35-45 mph. When was the last time you fell off a bicycle at 25mph? You probably got a lot of skin abrasions from the crash. Now imagine how much skin you’ll lose trying to slow down from 45mph? People on scooters should realistically be wearing leather just like motorcycle riders. He’s also wearing a 3/4 helmet, which I’ve never understood. If you’re going to wear a helmet, you’ve essentially got two choices, protect your chin/neck or don’t. If you’re not going to protect your chin, then you might as well enjoy the wind on your face.
I swear people buy scooters purely for the FASHION of riding a scooter.
John Cook’s myopic followers (like Dana) of their imaginary cheese con$pir@cy theory are an important object lesson for skeptical intellects on how not to conduct reasoned discourse.
Skeptical protagonists should be thankful that John Cook’s blog represents an excellent example of a textbook on ‘Pseudo-Dialog for Dummies’.
John
Jeremy,
I ride both scooters and motorcycles, scooters for work and zipping around town, for all sorts of reason I won’t bore you with they are better at that.
You scooterist!
Based upon observations, SkS = Skewered Science.
@Swiss Bob
Why is a scooter better than a bike, given equal engine displacement?
2 stroke engines are EXTREMELY “POLLUTING”! That’s why we now have 4 stroke options for bikes with emissions control (EFI etc etc)!
Hooper S said:
As much as I hate SS, I now really respect Mr. Curtis. This and the Marcott nonsense has shown he has great integrity.
That. I only got to know of Tom Curtis through the Marcott paper discussions at CA and SKS. I quickly grew to respect him. I can’t help but wonder, if he wasn’t a guy running an important journal, would his against the grain comments at SKS also have been deleted?
You asked:
You don’t get oil on your suit from the chain on a scooter and please don’t start on shaft drive as that’s for losers on BMWs.
If you have a motorcycle do you really want panniers and a top box on your go faster steed? They’d look pretty rubbish on my 916. I can get virtually a complete shopping trolley’s worth of shopping on the scoot and it only has a top box.
Clothes protection apart from oil all over your suit, especially if you have a screen, this means you can wear a suit and not get covered in road crap even if it’s slightly damp.
You can use bus and cycle lanes even on a 250 scoot, motos tend not to be treated so leniently, you very, very rarely get stopped on a scoot unless you lunch it.
In summary they’re good for commuting and shopping in urban areas where it’s difficult to park, motorcycles are good for going very fast from A – B and having lots of fun, er that’s it.
I was taken aback by the claim above that the IPCC doesn’t talk about the mean value of climate sensitivity, just the mode and median. At least in Chapter 10 they do talk about the mean.
Admittedly, it is sloppy to use the word “mean” for a normal distribution (which is also its median and mode), but use median of the lognormal in the same sentence. Maybe they should have said median for the normal.
In regard to what I believe as habitual misuse of uniform priors in Bayesian work on sensitivity estimates, I had to laugh at the next sentence in the referenced quote:
“Equally credible” ?!? OK, guys. Go ahead and unleash your Bayesian Analysis using a uniform prior on the credibility of the ensemble of models against the last 20 years of observations. Let’s use the non-uniform posterior result to “cull the herd.” It is long past time to retire the “equally credible” hoax.. Egalitarianism has no place in honest science.
That photo probably tells us everything we need to know about Nucci’s thought processes an
ethical beliefs : the tiny scooter to emit tiny carbon footprint, carrying him to his undoubtedly tiny little house (covered with mostly govt and state subsidized solar panels) , furnished with sustainable or recycled materials, where he conjures up his tiny little theories about climate change, which is the only thing in his world which isn’t tiny. His whole life is devoted to making sure no one can detect that he ever lived one. Which, of course, he hasn’t.
Typical scooter advantages (in addition to suiseebob’s excellent comments):
CVT transmission (no gears, no clutch) makes it handy for “twist and go” driving in town. And because its far easier to learn to drive its easier to pass the exam. You might not even need a motorcycle license. If your arthritis is kicking in, you don’t need to lift your leg over the bike. Electric start is more common on scooters. Steering at slow speeds can be more precise, especially for newer drivers. And say goodbye to motorcycle annoyances like slippery pegs, noisy engines, and grease on your dress pant leg. The big scooter disadvantage is that almost all of the weight is centred over a small rear tire. And for some reason that makes you look more European (or is that an advantage?).
Oh, and the physics of human skin shredded by pavement at velocity is pretty much the same either way.
The sickness is called Skeptical Science Syndrome.
The only cure that has been proven effective is reality.
Stephen Rasey says:
“I was taken aback by the claim above that the IPCC doesn’t talk about the mean value of climate sensitivity, just the mode and median. At least in Chapter 10 they do talk about the mean.”
What I wrote was “Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes.”
So what the IPCC said in Ch.10 (about AOGCMs) is not relevant to my assertion.
@ur momisugly suissebob and dremilson
1) Manual Transmission is actually a safer way to drive. It focuses the mind on the task of driving, you can’t drive a manual and not be paying attention to what you’re doing, it minimizes distracted driving.
2) I’ve seen people have more trouble controlling a scooter than a bike, I’ve watched this happen.
3) If you have arthritis that bad, you should probably get and use a bicycle.
4) Electric start is almost universal on all road-intended 2-wheeled vehicles at this point
5) Slow speed steering is only useful when lane-splitting to get to the front at a red-light.
6) Noisy engine is all contained in choice of bike.
7) Slippery pegs are likely just as common as a slippery footwell.
8) If you are getting grease on your pant leg, you need to take better care of your bike.
Other scooter disadvantages
1) Small wheel radius, this leads to less inherent stability at speed. It means it is easier for the front wheel to get thrown into an oscillation that throws you off the scooter at low speeds.
2) Less lean capability in turns. Again this means less stability while turning, not more.
3) Smaller tire cross-section in contact with pavement than motorcycles. This means smaller patches of slick road can be significantly more dangerous than on a larger bike.
4) Noisy engines actually improve your “visibility” to drivers around you, again improving your safety factor.
/enough threadjacking.