Climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics
From the GWPF – London, 6 February: A recent paper in Nature has received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability. The lead author, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, also claimed that his work dealt a fatal blow to suggestions that computer simulations have systematically overestimated the global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
However, Nic Lewis, an expert in this area of climate science, today pubished an article demonstrating that there are serious errors in the paper, and that its conclusions cannot be sustained. Lewis said:
“As well as having some basic statistical errors, Marotzke’s study can be shown to utilise circular logic. This means that its conclusions are unsound. Moreover, the stability of estimates for at least one of the two key structural model properties used is so poor that even were he able to rework his paper without the circularity – which appears impracticable – it would very likely be impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. I think the authors have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”
Lewis’s findings, which have been published at the influential Climate Audit blog, have been reviewed and confirmed by two statisticians: Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Roman Mureika, formerly of the University of New Brunswick. Professor Hughes said of the Marotzke paper:
“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This statement in the cited article is unnecessarily incendiary. It may be true, but it would be better to save the incendiary bombs for the comments and keep the paper itself analytical.
From UCSD: “In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels–a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests–and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.”
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
Reg Nelson,
Thank you for that. I’d not seen it before. Now on to the 2nd part of Db’s comment: “Since CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past with no runaway global warming, current levels are not worth worrying about.”
I don’t know the definition of runaway global warming used, but it appears warm.
http://news.thomasnet.com/~/media/88C4993A1AF449A1B07FAA722CBBF798.png
David,
Mr. Thomas? Formal.
I see that it’s a reconstruction based on the link. But I’m interested in the interpretation of the data provided and this: “Since CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past with no runaway global warming, current levels are not worth worrying about.” as Db stated. The chart I found seems a bit warm at the time of 20X concentrations.
@ur momisugly David Socrates February 6, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Mr D Thomas
..
There is no direct evidence that CO2 has been 20x higher in the past.
————–
There’s plenty of evidence: White Cliffs of Dover, The Great Barrier Reef. Limestone etc. You might see some of it, if you pulled your head out and had a look around.
BTW The University, UCSD, is a very liberal institution. It was Lefties like you that were making this claim.
David,
Pls call me Danny.
The sentence just after the one you quoted: “In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values.” http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
And I’ve provided a chart showing “reconstructed” temps from that approximate time. And in that chart the temps were a bit warmer than today. I believe our questions for Db are different. But, all this assumes that the link provided by Reg Nelson is that which Db based his claims:”“Since CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past with no runaway global warming, current levels are not worth worrying about.”
Interestingly, temps nor CO2 levels 500,000,000 years ago have nothing to do with today’s CO2 levels and/or if they’re “worth worrying about” but Db posted it. He’s taught me if I post it I own it so I assume that applies to all (unless retracted).
Wow! This challange:
coming from av (C)AGW-believer or at at least -hopeful, is really a bit rich, wouldn’t you say? Or just from a ‘consensus adhering hang around’ ..
🙂
Jonas –
You make an important point. Since the CAGW believers haven’t shown “direct evidence that…”, why would any serious scientist, climate or otherwise, even engage in discourse with them?
Of course, I am being naïve and ignoring the political and financial aspects of CAGW believers, but from only a scientific standpoint, why do we even respond to their lack of direct evidence belief?
FWIW – I believe the answer to my question is “because if we don’t, their lie becomes truth”.
I am afraid it is far too late for that. Science as a whole has allowed this travesty to unfold and seriously damage whole economies. The poor have suffered greatly. I don’t think there is any “respectable” science left at this point.
This has been a major propaganda effort and anyone who has not been fighting back is complicit.
From Lewis “One of Marotzke’s conclusions is, however, quite likely correct … : it seems reasonable that differences between simulated and observed trends may have been dominated – except perhaps recently – by random internal variability over the shorter 15-year timescale.”
So, that is half of the reason it’s in Nature, and he agrees.
The other, from the abstract: “the claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations to be unfounded”. That is what Lewis goes after with all of his Greek symbols.
If you look at the article, half of the models runs go north and half go south. So, to normal people (e.g. most reviewers) it’s hard to see the problem. I am waiting for a critique by a statistician who is not a retired economist that writes books complaining about why solar farms don’t work.
Ooooh, all those complicated greek symbols.
Math is s-o-o-o hard.
Hmmm, let’s see, if we regress dT on dT….
GCM’s unable to replicate observed (natural) variability are unfit for purpose.
h/t Dr. William Briggs :
http://wmbriggs.com/post/15201
So if a peer reviewed paper is half right it passes muster. Post modern science?
Pippen Kool goes back to school:
Another attempt to twist a statement into supporting the consensus Pippen? You posit a straw man ‘half’ of the reason the paper was in Nature? All it takes is a statement without context and your false spin on the meaning?
Context: (my highlights and bolding)
Note Pippy’s use of an ellipsis to hide the fact that Marotzke’s accidental conclusion was not established and therefore not even a tiny part of why Nature published the toilet paper work. Marotzke’s accidental conclusion was not expanded nor expounded on by Marotzke.
Nic Lewis only accepts that Marotzke’s accidental conclusion is reasonable, not proved.
Pip, economist. Its because of the economics that it doesn’t work.
“Socrates”,
We have been over this several times now. I keep telling you that I have that citation right here. But since I’ve given you the citations you demand over and over again, with never a ‘thank you’ and most often with no acknowledgement other than nitpicking and carping about them, I attached a couple of conditions this time, as you well know. But you ignore the conditions, and continue to demand that I do what you want.
In the past when I’ve posted the citations you demanded, your response has been to either set up a strawman and knock him down without ever responding to what I provided [deflection], or you completely ignored what I posted because it destroyed your position. You have never once said ‘thanks’ for all the times I helpfully provided what you demanded.
I see your Alinsky tactic now: you incessantly demand citations, trying to imply that I’m making up facts. I never do that. But I’m not going to be your chump. The answers are online, go find them yourself. I’ve done enough homework for you, those days are over.
All you have to do is to acknowledge that I posted a citation you demanded, and post a simple, “Thank you,” without your usual incessant arguing and nitpicking. If you agree to do that when I post the citations you constantly demand, I’ll post this one. If not, go look it up yourself.
That goes for all future demands from you — I’ve explained this to you a couple of times now. Either learn the rules, or get lost.
Db,
I thank you. I learned something (else) today and it’s appreciated!
You are welcome. Also, check out the mod’s comment above, in Reg Nelson’s comment: February 6, 2015 at 6:56 pm, above.
Db,
Interesting & noted. I’ve much to learn. I truly appreciate your sharing.
Regards.
I guess the statistically-challenged authors want to invoke natural variability for the lack of warming in last 15 years and anthropogenic forcing for all the warming in 62 years. No matter how much you torture the numbers, it’s still a dumb idea.
Nature will withdraw a paper which helps their cause, seriously? Did they ever withdraw the Mikey Mann hockeystick paper?
This has probably been pointed out above, and might be what the article’s reviewers meant by “circular logic”, but it was obvious as soon as I saw the headline: if natural variability has affected the data so much, then isn’t the paper concluding that natural variability > AGW?
My thoughts, exactly, if the goal of a model is to explain variance in the data, and the model fails to do that then the model, in the words of Drew Carey, is “Craptastic!”
Yes.
But that is evident from the Pause.
It’s reality that confounds the Alarmists.
Observation, not Opinion.
In a way it is unfortunate that the paper is junk. There is a priceless sentence in the summary:
“For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations”
This means that differences in climate sensitivity has no discernable effect on modelled Global Mean Surface Temperature, and since GCM:s are supposed to reliably simulate actual climate, it implies that, at least for periods up to 60+ years climate sensitivity has no traceable effect on climate either!
Now you would have thought that this alone should have rung a warning bell somewhere, but no.
In December 2014, Willis posted GMT series generated by 42 CMIP5 models, along with HADCRUT4 series, all obtained from KNMI.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/22/cmip5-model-temperature-results-in-excel/
We were able to analyze the temperature estimates of CMIP5 models and compare them with HADCRUT4 (1850 to 2014), as well as UAH (1979 to 2014). The models estimate global mean temperatures (GMT) backwards from 2005 to 1861 and forwards from 2006 to 2101.
Bottom Line:
In the real world, temperatures go up and down. This is also true of HADCRUT4.
In the world of climate models, temperatures only go up. Some variation in rates of warming, but always warming, nonetheless.
The best of the 42 models according to the tests I applied was Series 31. Here it is compared to HADCRUT4, showing decadal rates in degrees C periods defined by generally accepted change points.
Periods HADCRUT4 SERIES 31 31 MINUS HADCRUT4
1850-1878 0.035 0.036 0.001
1878-1915 -0.052 -0.011 0.041
1915-1944 0.143 0.099 -0.044
1944-1976 -0.040 0.056 0.096
1976-1998 0.194 0.098 -0.096
1998-2013 0.053 0.125 0.072
1850-2014 0.049 0.052 0.003
In contrast with Series 31, the other 41 models typically match the historical warming rate of 0.05C by accelerating warming from 1976 onward and projecting it into the future.
Over the entire time series, the average model has a warming trend of 1.26C per century. This compares to UAH global trend of 1.38C, measured by satellites since 1979.
However, the average model over the same period as UAH shows a rate of +2.15C/cent. Moreover, for the 30 years from 2006 to 2035, the warming rate is projected at 2.28C. These estimates are in contrast to the 145 years of history in the models, where the trend shows as 0.41C per century.
Clearly, the CMIP5 models are programmed for the future to warm more than 5 times the rate as the past.
To the “Lukes” out there … Nic Lewis is accomplished in the climate science field. Others have noted his recent paper on the climate model subject with Judith Curry. In a matter of NINE days from publication Nic has compiled a detailed review and analysis of the paper, invited two top statisticians to review his work, and written a strong rebuttal shows the serious/fatal flaws. Climate Audit published this article and a number of other noted experts in the field have commented, largely supporting Nic’s work and findings.
In NINE days, in a PUBLIC source, there has been more ‘science’ accomplished – more expert scientific and statistical review, than obviously was done by Nature, its peer reviewers and editorial staff in the likely months of publication “process.”
The “Luke’s” of the world always have an excuse and/or attack ready – in fact the kooky SkS kidz are in full excuse-making attack mode – melting down with insults etc. – over this topic in their forum. Yet despite all their ‘experts’ weighing in, not a SINGLE ONE offered ANY rebuttal or even comment about Nic’s work. Nothing but the ad hominem attack, and appeals to authority they so judiciously condemn when coming from a “denier.”
Publication in a blog – especially a highly rated scientific blog like Climate Audit, with its large group of folks who DO have proven, specific domain knowledge and experience – is in no way inferior to publication in a professional journal.
It eliminates entirely the “pal review” and strips away partisan biases. Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Lucia and similar all will and do allow critical comments – and encourage them – especially when from other experienced individuals in the field. If anyone disagrees with Nic’s work they are free to post a rebuttal which will get the same critical review – conducted in the OPEN – without partisan censorship.
The ridiculing by “Luke” and the like of Nic’s posting in a lowly blog as opposed to attempting to fight the biases, partisanship and secrecy of a reply or separate paper submitted to an official publication – shows their lack of any real rebuttal of work like Nic’s.
ANY person with the requisite skills can comment on and or rebut Nic’s work here or at Climate Audit (or at the similar blogs). The authors can come here or CA and respond & rebut. Any of the warmist crowd can come here or CA and make a rebuttal. Yet for the most part not a one of them will. They know they cannot control the medium, cannot censor so as to control the discussion. And do not have the secrecy and protection of the generally “friendly” journals.
“Crowd review” – conducted in the open – is the far better review than the closed journal system. It is increasingly the future of science. Bad work is quickly identified as such. Good work is built upon and improved.
Claims that its posted on a blog so it has no legitimacy or value are simple laughable – the mark of desperate people with no rational intelligent response.
The problem is you need people that are qualified to do the review. You can have thousands of comments on an article on a website but they mean nothing if the person making the comments is not qualified to truly understand the analyses and provide an unbiased review of the science. In the case of a paper like this, I imagine there are only a few dozen people in the world that have sufficient understanding of the approaches being used to provide a thorough review. It comes down to this, I trust the editors of Nature to vet the paper with the best scientists in the world, most of the people who comment on this site do not share that point of view.
Luke,
Are you serious? Do you really believe that out of 6 billion+ people, that there are “only a few dozen people in the world that have sufficient understanding of the approaches being used to provide a thorough review“??
Well. There goes your credibility.
Luke,
There has been a tremendous amount of evidence presented by highly qualified persons operating in concert, which disproves the conclusions reached in this thread’s subject paper. In face of that evidence, your statement of trust in the editors of Nature signals that your stance in regard to this matter, is made rigid by your beliefs.
We all operate within the bounds of belief, doubt and knowing. Once made aware of mistakes, the choice then becomes to correct our error, or proceed as before. It’s your life, now what will you do?
Luke –
From your comment: “I imagine there are only a few dozen people in the world that have sufficient understanding of the approaches being used to provide a thorough review” I surmise that you are admitting that YOU are not one of your supposed few dozen. Indeed I have never understood why a personal lack of understanding does not advise adequate caution in making comments on blogs.
However, there are far far more than you suppose who DO understand the basic problem, particularly as such persons as Ross McKitrick over at the CA blog clearly and unassumingly summarized the circularity. You didn’t even read this I suspect, and probably, so It seems, wouldn’t have understood it if you had read it (I could be wrong). But a lot of people here and at CA, etc. do have sufficient analytical tools to recognize that a valid (and fairly elementary criticism) has been brought forward.
Instead, you say “I trust the editors of Nature to vet the paper with the best scientists in the world.” Your FAITH is foolishly misplaced. What a sorry basis for commenting here, where so many people do have a pretty good idea what is being discussed.
Luke,
You have the right to your opinion, but consider it this way. Marotzke & Forster produced a paper. Nature chose to vett & publish said paper in a public forum. Every consumer of that paper has the right to read (or not), digest, and use as they see fit. Others can agree, disagree, or ignore that use.
It’s a public document. We’re all “the public”. So any positive or negative critique is fair game. I don’t have the chops to review the statistics and can only presume that Nic Lewis had good reason to bring in experts that do. They’ve reviewed, dissected, and made public their views. And the cycle (can) continues. Critique their criticism. It’s fair game.
To your point of who’s qualified to understand and review the science. It’s been said that if one can’t explain their offering so that a 6th grader can understand it, then they don’t understand it that well themselves. That makes much sense to me. I perceive that Ross McKitrick in the comments did a pretty good job. And there are many folks here with substantial qualifications so to assume appropriate standing does not exist here might just be a mistake. Would you agree that a bachelor’s degree is sufficient? Masters? PHd? I’d be willing to be some of each might just be found.
My, unrequested, 2 cents.
Best,
“I imagine there are only a few dozen people in the world that have sufficient understanding of the approaches being used to provide a thorough review”
You have a somewhat über-reverent view of the complexity of the paper. Anyone with a university-level knowledge of mathematics and statistics and some familiarity with atmosphere physics should have no difficulty in understanding it. The most demanding part is probably to trace the formulation of ΔF back to an earlier paper in order to realize the fatal circularity of the reasoning. Most reviewers unfortunately don’t bother to check citations, they take the ability to read and understand earlier work as a given. Personally I mostly do check them, since I have found both citations missing in the reference list and citations that do not say what they are supposed to say to be disconcertingly common.
Luke – you clearly are purposely or cluelessly ignorant on both the science and the qualifications of those who are commenting on blogs such as WUWT and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, along with sites like Judith Curry’s, Lucia’s etc. Many are highly skilled and accomplished people with specific domain experience in the field – they are MORE THAN qualified to do the review.
You claim there are “only a few dozen” people in the world qualified to review shows your complete lack of knowledge on the topic.
When it comes to an article like Nic Lewis’ it does not matter on iota WHERE it is published. Journal or web blog – the CONTENTS and the SCIENCE are unchanged. There HAS been review of his work by experienced and reputable peers – statisticians – who know and understand the science and more importantly the math. WHERE these comments are made is once again irrelevant.
Blog publishing is as I noted in many ways superior. It is open and transparent. There are no hoops – no partisanship, no elitism, no attempts to block any comment. Unlike a source like the Journal Nature and others who are highly biased against dissenting views, no matter how well founded, NOTHING prevents the authors of the original paper or any other person from rebutting Nic Lewis’ work here, or at Climate Audit, where it is posted.
Blog publishing insures the widest distribution – no hiding behind paywall’s – for work paid for with public dollars. It also insures the widest review – there is no suppression of dissenting views.
I suggest you spend more time educating yourself and learning about the topic and less time insulting and denigrating. Perhaps with knowledge you can either see the silliness of your attacks or at least contribute intelligently.
You might be right that there are few people who can look at the original paper and then do an analysis and pick apart the flaws in the paper. However your mistake is in believing that others, many others, can not look at what Nic presents and be able to follow along with his logic and be able to understand how the paper is flawed.
For example, I would not have been able to find the flaw in the paper at this time, but I am in the middle of studying statistics and just happen to have reviewed Regression Modelling just the other day and I recognize the math laid out by Nic. I also have a strong mathematical background and can follow the math fairly easily, including the Greek and Latin symbols.
And then there’s my computer science background and the studies I am conducting in GCM’s.
So this is excuse # which now for the 18+-year halt in warming? Are we up to the magic #97 yet? And THIS one is absolutely, positutely the “fatal blow” to the idea that the GCMs are fatally flawed?
The desperation level of the Climate Liars has been cranked to 11 now for quite a while. Something’s gotta give.
For the most part, I’ll wait to see what Nature does with the Lewis critique, if he is confident enough to submit it. It will go to the Editors and then to the original authors, and they will comment on it. then back to the Editors, and, believe it or not, out to reviewers to ask if the critique and the rebuttal should be published.
It will only be published if the flaw is real _and_ if it changes the major points of the paper. Remember, when this happened to the famous Mann 98 paper, they admitted that some minor things could have been done better, but it wouldn’t have changed the main point of the paper.
My reading of the paper and Lewis’ comments is that it will fall into that later “if”, but who knows.
Nothing stops the authors of the paper from responding to Nic Lewis’ strongly vetted work in public instead of hiding behind the protection and delays of the journal and its processes. Nic prepared his detailed review of their work, arranged for review of his conclusions by a number of highly experienced “peers” and wrote the article and published it – all with 9 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION of the paper.
Certainly the authors of the paper can support their work and rebut Nic’s claims if they are not accurate in a similar timeframe. Or they can hide behind the journal process which will take months to a year – and may never be accepted for publication.
Anyone want to guess the odds which path they choose?
Always OT, but-On the Matter of Trolls and labeling same, the A team of the opposition all stayed off this post-to their credit, they sometimes recognize when they got nuthin’. Luke made a one-sentence substance-free complaint, and never gets around to the article itself. A couple other B teamers chime in, repeating Luke’s complaint while avoiding the issues in the article. They then feign ignorance of the issues, refuse to engage, and will look to experts. In the end, they briefly take us OT, but in the entire string, there is NO defense of Marotzke & Forsters math, and no substantial disagreement with (never mind attack of) Lewis’s math. Maybe the A team stayed out for a reason, at least they’re not trolls. To John Whitmore, I say flushing this out is time well spent, so long as it doesn’t overwhelm the article. Here, it shows with emphasis that the latest attempt to prop up the cause is simply and plainly based on bad math.
Nic’s criticisms are a nonsequitor. He claims that the regression analysis is invalid because delta T is included on both sides of equation 3. However, the point of Marotzke and Forster’s analysis is not to develop a novel regression models between two independent sets of data but examine the relative contribution of the various model covariates to the output of a predictive model. This is a common approach to the evaluation of predictive models and it is perfectly appropriate. Nic’s mistake is conflating standard regression modelling with evaluation of predictive models. Both approaches are appropriate but they are used to answer different questions.
Lewis’s claim that Marotzke and Foster inflated the degrees of freedom in their analysis by assuming multiple runs of the same model are independent may have some merit but I do not have the background to evaluate how they addressed this problem. Lack of independence is a common issue in many regression analyses and can be addressed using mixture models and I imagine M&F were aware of that and did the appropriate analysis but I would like a independent statistician with more experience in these to weigh in on that.
What do you suppose their answer would have been if they didn’t know the answer they wanted to get?
Wow – Luke – you DO understand more than you were leading us to believe. You said:
“Nic’s mistake is conflating standard regression modelling with evaluation of predictive models. “
So if we write:
X = X
or perhaps better:
X = aX + bY + cZ
where we shake the data and subsequently find that a is approximately 1 and that b and c are approximately 0, is this (1) a regressive or (2) a predictive model? Choice (3): It’s just a riddle any 7th-Grader would decipher.
luke:
if you dont have the background to evaluate how M&F addressed the problem that multiple runs of the same model are, in fact not independent, and therefore by treating as such, they inflated the degrees of freedom in their analysis, I submit that you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to statistical analysis. Simply put…multiple runs of the same model aren’t independent, and never should be treated as being independent.
Regressing a variable on itself doesn’t really prove anything.
Hey, Luke, your kid evidently got hold of your laptop and put up a substantial post. Any chance you could let him/her keep the laptop?
Ahhh Luke – so you aren’t as clueless as you’d like us to believe. You show you either understand the topic, or you copy and pasted someone elses comments. Yet you show you clearly have not bothered to read Nic’s article. Which answers your question. A number of highly accomplished statisticians have reviewed and confirmed Nic’s work – both those who did so at his request in a formal review, and a number of others who responded in comments to the article.
So I post a response and davideisenstadt responds with “I submit that you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground”. I thought there might be a chance for a real dialog on this site but I see I was wrong. Just a couple of points and then I am done. davideisenstadt- statisticians have been developing approaches to deal with nonindependence of data for years. Random and mixed effects models are ideal for this kind of situation. In addition, there is information on running a model multiple times. Because of differences in model structure, beta values, and stochastic terms, different models will display different variance structures which is key to the analysis that M&F were doing.
One final thing, Lewis did not address the heart of M&F’s analysis which was that climate models do not overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increased greenhouse concentrations.
So, you claim the current climate models DO UNDERESTIMATE the impact (none) of Co2 on future global average temperatures?
Luke said:
“One final thing, Lewis did not address the heart of M&F’s analysis which was that climate models do not overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increased greenhouse concentrations.”
There has been classically, and presumably still is, legitimately, a logical fallacy called “begging the question” which means assuming the result as an input (premise) and marveling when it reappears as the output. Today almost daily someone (like in the media) misuses the term “begs the question” to suggest that a question needs to be asked, usually in rejoinder. Many of us cringe each time we hear the term (usually) misused.
M&F are (classically) begging the question by putting delta-T on both sides of the equation. Thereafter, ANYTHING goes, including needing less weight on a radiative forcing term (if you wish).
They succeeded in replacing a terrible model result with a terrible model AND terrible excuse (Mother Nature is currently in joke-mode) for its failure. Progress? – I think not.
Luke
February 8, 2015 at 8:00 am
“Nic’s criticisms are a nonsequitor.”
——————–
So you are aware of the concept of logical fallacies.
Any imaginings aside, at this point, your call for an “independent” analysis reads like a statement that you will only accept an analysis which supports your position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ps
“Luke February 6, 2015 at 7:17 am
If Lewis’s criticisms have a strong statistical foundation, I am sure that they would be published if he submitted a rebuttal to Nature.”
——————
Was that a declaration that you have influence over Nature’s future actions in re this matter?
For those with the patience:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=marotzke-forster-response
Has Lewis responded to this yet? Seems that Marotzke and Forster do not agree with him. Maybe they did understand their stats after all.
Stop being an ass. This response, which I commend Jochem Marotzke & Piers Forster for quickly undertaking, was posted in the last few hours.
Of course simple realities like that are lost on trolls such as yourself, aren’t they?
But they did respond, and now it’s up to Lewis to comment.
You, Mr. Scott, said “Nothing stops the authors of the paper from responding to Nic Lewis’ strongly vetted work in public instead of hiding behind the protection and delays of the journal and its processes. Nic prepared his detailed review of their work, arranged for review of his conclusions by a number of highly experienced “peers” and wrote the article and published it – all with 9 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION of the paper.”
Marotzke and Forster responded within 3 days, and who knows when they found out about the blob er blog entry. The folks at climate audit are just starting to respond, so it should be a fun watch.
While Marotzke and Forster spent most of their text explaining their approach, they did get one or two subtle cuts on Lewis: “This also supports the physical explanation as to why α and κ have a small role in determining model spread that Lewis did not understand.”
So, who were the ones who “peer-reviewed” this error?
What did they check, and when did they check it? What were their credentials – other than blindly being able to accept errors in the sake of furthering Big Government’s agenda and taxes?
Steve McIntyre responds (h/t Bishop Hill) :
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/2/8/the-absence-of-mathematics.html
“I’ve done a quick read of the post at Climate Lab Book. I don’t get how their article is supposed to rebut Nic’s article. They do not appear to contest Nic’s equation linking F and N – an equation that I did not notice in the original article. Their only defence seems to be that the N series needs to be “corrected” but they do not face up to the statistical consequences of having T series on both sides.
Based on my re-reading of the two articles, Nic’s equation (6) seems to me to be the only logical exit and Nic’s comments on the implications of (6) the only conclusions that have a chance of meaning anything. (But this is based on cursory reading only.)”
Perhaps Luke should go to CA and explain to McIntyre, et al, that the math doesn’t matter, it’s the thought that counts. He’s done such a fine job of it, here.
And Forster replies to McIntyre
“No, this really misses the whole point of the paper
The point of the paper is to compare variability with the forced response. This is why Nic’s eqn. 6 is not the correct starting point for our analysis”
Further discussion ensues. I am unqualified to pronounce on this, but glad to see the conversation.
While they are about it they should get some from gardening specialists with a knowledge of gardening history to see what was grown where and when, geologists and biologists with a knowledge of CO2 sources and sinks, engineers with a knowledge of signal analysis to know what the expected pattern really should be form the data available, data acquisition engineers to know the certification practices needed for reliable data, computer modellers to learn that at least the most significant variable needs understanding rather than making superficial assumptions of man’s dominance.
Mann, Miller, Marcott and now Marotzke
Seems that in climate science “M” is for Minger!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=minger