Steve McIntyre writes: IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”
The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.
The publisher stated that the rejected Bengtsson manuscript (which, as I understand it) had discussed the important problem of the discrepancy between models and observations had “contained errors”.
But what were the supposed “errors”? Bengtsson’s “error” appears to be the idea that models should be consistent with observations, an idea that the reviewer disputed.
The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”:
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
Later he re-iterated that “no consistency was to be expected in the first place”:
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Read Steve’s entire post here: http://climateaudit.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/
==========================================================
Wow, he’s basically saying “models have no inconsistency with reality”. Damn, I guess we just aren’t as qualified as members of the sacred order to read graphs like these:
Ross McKittrick writes in comments at CA:
I have no idea if Bengtsson et al. is a good paper, not having seen it. But the topic itself is an important one, and notwithstanding those attempts at gatekeeping mentioned above, there’s no stopping the flow at this point because the model/observational discrepancies are so large and growing. A few recent examples in print include:
– Fyfe, J.C., N.P. Gillett and F.W. Zwiers, 2013: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3, 767-769, doi:10.1038/nclimate1972
– Swanson, K.L., 2013: Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, DOI: 10.1002/grl.50562.
– McKitrick, Ross R. and Lise Tole (2012) Evaluating Explanatory Models of the Spatial Pattern of Surface Climate Trends using Model Selection and Bayesian Averaging Methods. Climate Dynamics DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1418-9.
– Fildes, Robert and Nikolaos Kourentzes (2011) “Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change International Journal of Forecasting 27 968-995.
– Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis & N. Mamassis (2010). “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data.” Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(7) 2010.
– McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Sets”. Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.290
And I know of another one nearly accepted that continues the theme. It may be that Bengtsson et al. had some flaws, though I agree that the reviewer didn’t point to any. Instead the reviewer tries to argue that models and observations are not meant to be compared, and the editor swallowed this nonsensical argument, no doubt happy for a straw to clutch at.
But nobody should be surprised that ERL has the slant that it does: This is a journal with Peter Gleick, Stefan Rhamstorf and Myles Allen on its editorial board:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
You can’t advertise a hard-line editorial stance any better than that. Well, maybe they could: they list as their #1 Highlight publication of 2013… Cook, Nucitelli et al.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Highlights-of-2013
Strangely, they really seem to be objecting that the Times had the nerve to run the story after all the work that’s been done to convince the press about the supposed dangers of “false balance”:
With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.
Evidently they too subscribe to that editorial position: don’t print anything that might give the impression there’s actually a range of scientific views out there.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Friends:
I wrote saying to Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg has replied saying in full
QED
Hopefully this thread now can and will return to sensible discussion.
Richard
richardscourtney:
At the end of your post, I find the abbreviation Q.E.D. The presence of this abbreviation implies that you have proved an assertion. In your post, however, I find neither an assertion nor a proof. Is this lapse indicative of a cavalier attitude toward logic? I think so. It is this characteristic of your posts that makes logical discourse with you impossible.
Terry Oldberg:
I said I hoped this thread could return to sensible discussion because you said you had left it. My hope was forlorn because your claim to have left was a falsehood.
Your post at May 18, 2014 at 10:45 am also fails to define what you mean by “event” which emphasises I was correct to say you cannot define it.
As I said “QED”. This is abreviation for quod erat demonstrandum which is Latin for “was to be shown or proven”. Your post I am now addressing also shows I was right to say you cannot define what you mean by “event” so provides additional QED (in addition to demonstrating your lack of logical capability).
Of course, you could refute the conclusion of QED by providing a clear and succinct definition of what you mean by “events” which are needed but do not exist; however, and sadly for you, you cannot do that.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Your assertion then is that I cannot define what I mean by “event.” As I can define what I mean by “event” and have already done so on numerous occasions, this assertion is false. That it is false implies “Q.E.D.” to be a false as well.
I erred. In the last sentence of my previous post, please strike “a false” and replace it with “false.”
Terry Oldberg:
No, your error in your post at May 18, 2014 at 11:12 am was your assertion that
.
That is three falsehoods. You cannot define it, you have not defined it, and you have not defined it “on numerous occasions”.
Cite it, quote it, and state it.
Or
Desist from making assertions based on the definition which you cannot provide.
Either of these will end your interminable interruptions of threads with your nonsense.
Please note that I am not bothering to respond to any more of your posts on this thread because your posts are now exposed as being nonsense.
Richard
richardscourtney:
In the third paragraph of my post of May 18 at 7:47 am I describe how a climatologist would go about defining the events underlying a climate model. In the first paragraph of his post of May 18 at 8:03 am, David A asks me to define “event.” Note that his post follows mine in time. As I have already defined “event,” In my post of May 18 at 8:34 am I inform David A of this state of affairs and offer to clarify if needed. In my post of May 18 at 9:52 am, I point out to you that I have already defined “event.” Additionally, I point out to you that as “event” is a commonly used term in the literature of mathematical statistics it needs no redefinition by me. Do you now admit that the Q.E.D. under your post is a falsehood?
Friends:
Please note that Terry Oldberg has still not provided a definition of what he means by an “event”. In his post at May 18, 2014 at 11:45 am he says
But he still does not – because he still cannot – provide a definition.
Everything he says is illogical and meaningless because it is all based on the use of whatever it is that he thinks is an “event”, but whatever that is it has no meaning because he cannot say what it is.
In future, if he yet again attempts to derail a thread with his twaddle then this thread can be cited and the matter left at that.
Richard
Given that I have described what I mean by “event” in this very thread and cited the places where this occurs, Mr. Courtney’s claim that I have not done so is obviously false..
Pilots call “flying by wire” Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). We old, non-bold pilots think of deviant Warmists, Klimat Kooks, also as navigating by IFR– not by calibrated instruments, but by Invisible Flying Rabbits, straight down their looking-glass Rabbit Holes. Faugh.
Richard says…His claims are entirely accurate.
here, I wrote this…David A says: May 18, 2014 at 8:03 am
“Please define “events” vs “evaluations”. Two or three examples of both should suffice to both define and differentiate between them.. (all of the above within the field of climate studies please)
If you are willing to further demonstrate, respond to my earlier response to your assertions that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity”. ( see David A says: May 18, 2014 at 1:43 am )”
Let me add, clearly by my use of your terms I read your earlier post, which did not give the examples I requested to enable communication. Clearly I was asking for .clarification.
Your response was… “I’ll be happy to clarify if necessary.” What the hell do you think I was asking for.
Further more my post of David A says: May 18, 2014 at 1:43 am, was in response to your assertion that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity” Your response was that we are incapable of measuring “climate sensitivity”. This is an entirely different matter, and not responsive to your assertion that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity.
Richard C warned me to stay away as you would not speak in plain language. Richard is himself a scientist, despite this he is capable in speaking in terms a layman such as myself can comprehend.
My layman questions to you were short and succinct, to the point. I simply asked for …”Two or three examples of both should suffice to both define and differentiate between them.. (all of the above within the field of climate studies please)”
This you did not provide. Richard, in warning me, was himself pulled into the vortex of a fruitless attempt to communicate.
BTW, I have disagreed with Richard several times on some issues. Each time I found clear communication possible, and disagreement yet amiable and rational.
David A:
It sounds as though the two of us are the joint victims of missed communication. The history is as follows. I defined “evaluation” in my post of May 18 at 7:47 am, 3rd paragraph 1st sentence. I defined “event” in the same post, 4th paragraph.
In your post of May 18 at 8:03 am, you responded with a request for me to “please define ‘events’ vs ‘evaluation’.”. As I had already defined both terms, I needed more information from you in order to respond. Thinking that you had overlooked what I had already written, in my post of May 18 at 8:34 am I referred you to the text in which I had provided these definitions and offered to clarify this response if necessary. In your post of May 19 at 1:30 am, you ask “What the hell do you think I was asking for?” (question mark added). I didn’t have a clue as you had provided none to me..
I gather from your most recent post that your background in mathematical statistics is slight. Thus, reading between the lines of this post, you wish for a more tutorial approach then I have thus far taken in attempting to bring you up to speed on elementary statistical concepts. Lacking more complete information from you on your state of knowledge, I’ll proceed on the assumption that you are a beginner but are equipped with ideas ordinarily learned in elementary school.
In school, you may have constructed a histogram. This histogram would have had a set of bars. Each such bar would have had a height. Each height would have been proportional to the count that a statistician would call a “frequency.” A frequency is a count of events that have been observed.
A flip of a coin is an example of an event. Suppose you have flipped a coin eight times and observed the outcome. In three of these events the outcome was heads while in five of them the outcome was tails. The frequency of heads is then three while the frequency of tails is five. From these data one can construct a histogram having two bars. The height of the bar corresponding to heads is three units while the height of the bar corresponding to tails is five units.
When the frequency of heads is divided by the count of the events, the result is an example of a “relative frequency.” The idea of a relative frequency is closely related to the idea of a probability. Probabilities play a leading role in logic. In particular, in logic a proposition has a probability of being true.
For the climate models the things that one counts in assigning a numerical value to a frequency, the events, do not exist. As these events do not exist, they cannot be counted. Thus, for the climate models there is no such thing as a frequency, a relative frequency or a probability.
Ordinarily, in testing a model, one compares the numerical values of the probabilities of the outcomes to the numerical values of the relative frequencies of the same outcomes. If there is a match, the model is said to be “validated.” Otherwise, it is said to be “falsified.” For the climate models there are no frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities; thus they cannot be tested in this way.
To fill this gap, climatologists of the IPCC invented the idea of an “evaluation.” In an “evaluation,” one plots projected and observed global temperatures versus time and compares the two. In the construction of an “evaluation,” there is not the need for the missing frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities. The periodic IPCC assessment reports provide examples of evaluations. They provide no examples of validations or falsifications.
For many bloggers, an “evaluation” appears to satisfy the need for testing a climate model. However, there is something seriously wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that the model is insusceptible to being falsified or validated by the evidence. Falsifiability is a requirement of the scientific method of investigation. Validation is a requirement of a scientific theory.
Something else is wrong. This is that the associated model conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. Information is, however, a necessity if the climate is to be controlled.
Regarding the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS), the existence that it lacks is scientific existence. TECS is a ratio, the numerator of which cannot be measured. Thus, when a specific value is asserted for TECS this assertion is insusceptible to being falsified by the evidence. As it is insusceptible to being falsified, TECS is unscientific. Related to this characteristic of TECS is that knowing the magnitude of the denominator of this ratio (the numerical value of the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration) conveys no information to a policy maker about the magnitude of the numerator (the change in the numerical value of the global temperature at equilibrium) thus being useless for the purpose of making policy. Not realizing this characteristic of TECS, policy makers are currently attempting to control the climate using the numerical value of TECS as the basis for it.
Regarding Mr. Courtney, where possible I steer clear of introducing the characters of my opponents into my arguments over scientific issues. I do so because the characters of my opponents are unrelated to the truth or falsity of the conclusions that my opponents draw from their arguments. Sadly, Mr. Courtney frequently proves himself to be my opposite in this respect. A result is for him to frequently disrupt ongoing debates by introducing irrelevancies into them. Often these irrelevancies are fantasies that he has constructed regarding my degree of competency in mathematical statistics or logic. In these fantasies, I virtually always play an incompetent. In addition to being unfair, this tactic is illegal under the defamation laws of the UK and the US.
David A:
I write to ask you to read all of the recent post from Terry Oldberg which is at May 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm.
I recognise that you may think my request is for you to waste your time reading such tripe, but there is a purpose. The embarrassment of reading Oldberg’s self-destruction will assist you to ignore his posts and thus save you much time in future.
Oldberg’s post consists solely of falsehoods, but I am convinced that he believes his own nonsense: simply, he is delusional. For example, he writes saying to you
Of course, he has provided no such definition and he cannot.
The important point to note is that he really does think saying he has defined it means he has defined it!
Richard