Steve McIntyre writes about what he considers another “completely worthless” exercise in statistical data mining, writing:
===============================================================
In today’s post, I will look at a new Naturemag climate reconstruction claiming unprecedentedness (h/t Bishop Hill): “Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the past millennium” (Abram et al Nature 2014, pdf). Unfortunately, it is marred by precisely the same sort of data mining and spurious multivariate methodology that has been repeatedly identified in Team paleoclimate studies.
The flawed reconstruction has been breathlessly characterized at the Conversation by Guy Williams, an Australian climate academic, as a demonstration that, rather than indicating lower climate sensitivity, the recent increase in Antarctic sea ice is further evidence that things are worse than we thought. Worse it seems than previously imagined even by Australian climate academics.
the apparent paradox of Antarctic sea ice is telling us that it [climate change] is real and that we are contributing to it. The Antarctic canary is alive, but its feathers are increasingly wind-ruffled.
A Quick Review of Multivariate Errors
Let me start by assuming that CA readers understand the basics of multivariate data mining. In an extreme case, if you do a multiple regression of a sine wave against a large enough network of white noise, you can achieve arbitrarily high correlations. (See an early CA post on this here discussing example from Phillips 1998.)
Read the entire post here: http://wp.me/p6iHb-50Y
===============================================================
For information on the Southern Annular Mode, see this:
http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter5_node6.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And you’ve supposedly experienced or witnessed this? Can you point/link to a specific example?
In the years I’ve been reading Climate Audit I’ve yet to witness anything like what you are claiming.
There have been occasional troll types who show up, ask far lower than High School education questions and then get snotty that they’re not being catered to. I doubt you would be one of those.
There are also occasions where specific topics of physics, regression analysis or similar have been discussed ad nausea in prior threads and comments; many of the regular visitors do not desire wasting time nor space on the discussions again. A quick search can not only take to the relevant Climate Audit threads, but also find other internet postings on the subject.
From ATheoK on June 17, 2014 at 7:39 pm:
Shut mouth, look up.
Sun & SAM
Sunspot Integral & Southern Annular Mode (SAM)
Kadaka:
Another way to look at it is as the fault of selecting data that supports your theory and rejecting data that does not. The rejected data can be used to refute the conclusions of the study, and so the whole study is fruitless.
The language at Climate Audit may be more arcane than the way I have put it, I will agree, but it is the terms of statistical analysis. I think, that if you reflect, you will admit that much good work has been done at Climate Audit. Climate Audit is solely responsible for the exposure of the pseudo-science and the scam science of some of the paleo-climatologists such as Mann, Briffa, Gergis, and others. This is a service of inestimable value, a service to science and to the rest of the world.