People send me stuff. In this case I have received an embargoed paper and press release from Nature from another member of the news media who wanted me to look at it.
The new paper is scheduled to be published in Nature and is embargoed until 10AM PDT Sunday morning, July 20th. That said, Bob Tisdale and I have been examining the paper, which oddly includes co-authors Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky and Dr. Naomi Oreskes and is on the topic of ENSO and “the pause” in global warming. I say oddly because neither Lewandowsky or Oreskes concentrates on physical science, but direct their work towards psychology and science history respectively.
Tisdale found a potentially fatal glaring oversight, which I verified, and as a professional courtesy I have notified two people who are listed as authors on the paper. It has been 24 hours, and I have no response from either. Since it is possible that they have not received these emails, I thought it would be useful to post my emails to them here.
It is also possible they are simply ignoring the email. I just don’t know. As we’ve seen previously in attempts at communication with Dr. Lewandowsky, he often turns valid criticisms into puzzles and taunts, so anything could be happening behind the scenes here if they have read my email. It would seem to me that they’d be monitoring their emails ahead of publication to field questions from the many journalists who have been given this press release, so I find it puzzling there has been no response.
Note: for those that would criticize my action as “breaking the embargo” I have not even named the paper title, its DOI, or used any language from the paper itself. If I were an author, and somebody spotted what could be a fatal blunder that made it past peer review, I’d certainly want to know about it before the paper press release occurs. It is about 24 hours to publication, so they still have time to respond, and hopefully this message on WUWT will make it to them.
Here is what I sent (email addresses have been link disabled to prevent them from being spambot harvested):
===============================================================
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:01 AM
To: james.risbey at csiro.au
Subject: Fw: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Hello Dr. Risbey,
At first I had trouble finding your email, which is why I sent it to Ms.Oreskes first. I dare not send it to professor Lewandowsky, since as we have seen by example, all he does is taunt people who have legitimate questions.
Can you answer the question below?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
—–Original Message—–
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:48 AM
To: oreskes at fas.harvard.edu
Subject: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Dear Dr. Oreskes,
As a climate journalist running the most viewed blog on climate, I have been graciously provided an advance copy of the press release and paper Risbey et al. (2014) that is being held under embargo until Sunday, July 20th. I am in the process of helping to co-author a rebuttal to Risbey et al. (2014) I think we’ve spotted a major blunder, but I want to check with a team member first.
One of the key points of Risbey et al. is the claim that the selected 4 “best” climate models could simulate the spatial patterns of the warming and cooling trends in sea surface temperatures during the hiatus period.
But reading and re-reading the paper we cannot determine where it actually identifies the models selected as the “best” 4 and “worst” 4 climate models.
Risbey et al. identifies the 18 originals, but not the other 8 that are “best” or “worst”.
Risbey et al. presented histograms of the modeled and observed trends for the 15-year warming period (1984-1998) before the 15-year hiatus period in cell b of their Figure 1. So, obviously, that period was important. Yet Risbey et al. did not present how well or poorly the 4 “best” models simulated the spatial trends in sea surface temperatures for the important period of 1984-1998.
Is there some identification of the “best” and “worst” referenced in the paper that we have overlooked, or is there a reason for this oversight?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
WUWT
============================================================
UPDATE: as of 10:15AM PDT July 20th, the paper has been published online here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase
Abstract
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
of interest is this:
UPDATE2: rebuttal has been posted
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Crowbar of Daintree says: “Guys, this is “Climate Science” TM. You need to think inside the box.”
Thanks. That made me laugh.
Steven Mosher seems to have a rather odd understanding of statistics and averaging, Recently on Judith Curry’s site he claimed that if you use a scale which measures weight to the nearest pound to weigh a rock ten times, then if weight shows as 1 four time and 2 the other six times, the “best estimate” of the weight is 1.6 pounds. That’s false and rather silly. It assumes, without justification, that the scale randomly selects a weight with a probability based on the proportion of the weight from the lower and higher values. By his reasoning, if the rock measures 2 nine out of ten times, the “best estimate” of the weight is 1.9. Assume the scale actually behaves a follows (which is, I’d bet, much more like an actual scale): objects weighing less than 1.49 pounds always show as 1; objects weighing more than 1.51 pounds always show as 2; objects between 1.49 and 1.51 pounds show up as either 1 or 2, with a probability proportional to the distance from 1.49 and 1.51. Under that assumption, the weight of any object that gives both 1 and 2 for multiple weighings would be well-estimated as 1.5.
In Jan 2012 over twenty people lost their lives in the Brisbane floods…..this is from the Sydney Morning Herald (a mostly Green/Left publication)
“Releases from Wivenhoe Dam raised water levels in the Brisbane River by up to 10 metres during January’s flood, a panel of independent hydrologists has found.
The hydrology report, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and published yesterday, ruled the Brisbane flood to be a “dam release flood”.”
The Wivenhoe damn was built in 1974 for the purposes of flood mitigation…it couldn’t do its job in 2012 because it was full…why was it full?
Because ‘Climate Models’ and loonies like Tim Flannery predicted that long term rainfall was in decline and the authorities were hoarding water!!!!
Climate Models are not simply failed academic projects….life and death/economic/and policy decisions are being every day based on their worthless out-put.
Just take 18 climate models and program them to project anything from an Ice Age to the Cretaceous Hothouse and all the bases are covered.
And then one can conclude since 1 or 4 models got it right, all of them are accurate or the average of them is accurate (as Mosher concludes).
Sounds a little illogical but that has been done 50 times in climate science already and appears to get to 51 times when this paper is published (in Nature no less which is turning into a prostitute).
Just finished reading an article by J. Risbey where the host of this website gets a personal mention. To Risbey’s credit, he strictly adheres to the use of the c-word, instead of the favorite term of his two prominent co-authors. That’s nice.
But apparently, all the skeptic’s arguments have been refuted. Already in 2010.
The contrarian critique is mostly devoid of new content and lacks the usual quality control procedures that help produce substantive arguments. Their critique has very little implication for understanding of climate change science.
So far it has uncovered a handful of disputed studies and sloppy citations in a vast sea of literature on climate change. The rest of the contrarian critique is, in the main,a mix of old or weak arguments and non-sequiturs that have long been examined or refuted.
The Straw Men of Climatology
When the contrarian du jour tells you about the latest errors in climate science and their radical implications, think about the vision of the science they are selling. It’s not what we do.
“How much for that vision, Mister?”
That’s my point. Folks here are condemning Lew’s and Ore’s roles in the paper without knowing what those roles are. I’m sure there are a few logical fallacies involved.
When they say the models could simulate ocean temperatures, they can, just not correctly…
1. No theory. pure fact. If you take the mean of the models you get a better fit. why? dunno.
just a fact.
=====
because they are all so bad/wrong/worthless………….even the averaged “fit” is so wrong it’s embarrassing
Steven Mosher says: “Simple fact is that the avergae of models is a better tool than any given one. deal with it.”
Strewth!
I hope you never do anything mission critical, like work on bridges or airliners.
Or even mouse cages, come to that.
And then you wonder why climate scientists are rapidly becoming a laughing stock out here in the real world, where we are held accountable for our work.
So YOU deal with THAT.
If this flaw is real, the paper could not have been properly peer reviewed and thus should be pulled immediately. If true, all reviewers should be banned from doing reviews going forward.
Actually, hunter, most of the criticism of Mosher is directed towards his absolutely inadequate understanding of statistics, which is particularly vexing given the sway he seems to hold over many in the blogosphere. I agree with him frequently as well, however, his repeated misuse of statistics needs to be emphasized to prevent the spread of further misunderstanding. Finally, for someone that spends so much time preaching scientific principles, it is troubling that he never bothers to actually respond to pointed refutations of his statements.
There is no argumentum ad hominem in that, or do you likewise need instruction on logic?
Mark
Those dismissing ensemble testing out of hand should consider thinking carefully:
http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Introduction_to_turbulence/Statistical_analysis/Ensemble_average
And William Briggs posted this on ensemble forecasting in 2013 referring to a WUWT post, of all things:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8394
And if I had to choose between a Math book used at Stanford and posters here…….
http://www.google.com/webhp?nord=1#nord=1&q=ensemble+averaging+failures
With this excerpt:
“An ensemble average is a convenient theoretical concept since it is directly related
to the probability density functions, which can be generally obtained by the theoretical
analysis of a given physical system.”
Now there are conditions of when and when not to use ensembles, and that is worth exploring. But dismissing the study simply because it is an ensemble is not useful.
Dismissing it because it turns out to be more Lew-style cherry picked garbage dressed up as science is quite another reason.
Let’s see how it turns out.
July 19, 2014 at 12:38 pm | Steven Mosher says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:02 pm | Harry Passfield says:
…
Harry … this is “democracy” in the socialist vein … like the old German Democratic Republic where you were free to do and say, and vote, as you liked except that you were provided with the approved script. Funny, isn’t it, how the socialists always used the term “democratic” to avert attention from the restrictive intent of the regime.
July 19, 2014 at 6:18 pm | catweazle666 says
…
Cat, you can appreciate how low the job description “scientist” has fallen … I know politicians with more intelligence.
Mark T,
Mosher was being renamed “Kosher” and other inflammatory names up thread.
As to his lack of statistical skill, hmmmmm……not sure if I am with you on that one.
He seems to be in alignment with McIntyre more times than not, and I seriously doubt if anyone is going to credibly deconstruct him as a stats lightweight.
And, if you read the links in my post just above you will see that Steve’s assertion on ensembles being useful is accurate, in context.
[Note: I’ve been gone all day, and I think that was accidental, as M and K are near each other on the keyboard, I’ve done similarly stupid fat-fingered things, so I’ve fixed that spelling – Anthony]
Steven Mosher says:
Simple fact is that the avergae of models is a better tool than any given one.
deal with it.
Same with hurricane prediction in some cases.
ROFLMAO! The computer illiterate Mr. Mosher makes more ridiculous comments on subjects he does not understand and has no background in. These sort of comments is what happens when English majors try to understand computer systems without a proper education.
Why the obsession with averages, it’s because the think they can average out chaos. The simple fact is weather is an instance of climate, weather is chaotic, therefore climate is chaotic, yet Climatologist treat it deterministically and they are failing because of it.
[snip – you don’t like Mosher, we get it, no need to put your dislike in bold. Dial it back please – Anthony]
Dude, are you incapable of reading? My tablet was auto-correcting so I reposted with errors corrected. Don’t be stupid when you pretending to be smart.
Also, regardless of what you may think you know, if the the models are a representative sample of the actual physical system they are modeling, they will fulfill the ensemble requirement. In other words, it is necessary, though not sufficient, to show they are an ensemble. If the models are not, then you cannot know whether the mean is located within the space spanned by the models.
Mark
So this comment had to be snipped? Seriously?
Mr. Mosher’s computer illiterate logic, averaging wrong answers is more accurate than a single wrong answer.
Anthony,
Yes you run a successful blog. Yes people send you stuff. Yes there are people within the scientific who treat you poorly. Why this grandstanding though?
A prior example – when there were questions regarding temperature adjustments you arrogantly dismissed the claims of Stephen, then got on board and proclaimed to tell everyone that you would be one of the first to know what their response would be. You weren’t. There are a few recent examples that suggest you might be getting too big for your boots.
If the science was settled there would only be on model and it would be 100% accurate to observations. But this is next to impossible with a chaotic system as complex as the planet Earth.
Either way, the more important point being made is what Jordan pointed out regarding bias. Can you honestly defend Mosher’s statement in light of that? If not, why did you not make note of that? Curious…
Others hinted at how that might be a problem with choosing the “best” models, but Jordan was the first to elicit the fact.
Mark
Paul Jackson: this particular complaint regarding an average is actually unrelated to the actual content of the signal (other than whether the models are actually representative). In fact, it does not matter if the climate is chaotic, deterministic, or stochastic; IF the models accurately represent the physics of the climate, the average should improve signal to noise ratio.
Mark
Poptech says:
July 19, 2014 at 7:19 pm
So this comment had to be snipped? Seriously?
Mr. Mosher’s computer illiterate logic, averaging wrong answers is more accurate than a single wrong answer.
==================
Do you have the right answer ?