Patrick Frank is a physical methods experimental chemist. BS, MS, San Francisco State University; PhD, Stanford University; Bergmann Postdoctoral Fellow, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. Now Emeritus scientific staff of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the Department of Chemistry, Stanford University. He has 67 publications in bioinorganic chemistry including among others the unusual metal active site in blue copper electron transport proteins, the first X-ray spectroscopic evidence for through-sigma-bond electron transfer, falsification of rack-induced bonding theory, deriving the asymmetric solvation structure of dissolved cupric ion (which overturned 60 years of accepted wisdom), and resolving the highly unusual and ancient (Cambrian) biological chemistry of vanadium and sulfuric acid in blood cells of the sea squirt Ascidia ceratodes. He also has peer-reviewed publications on the intelligent design myth, the science is philosophy myth, the noble savage myth, the human-caused global warming myth, and the academic STEM culture of sexual harassment myth.
Slides for this podcast: https://tomn.substack.com/p/on-the-re…
Another Patrick Frank pod here: • Climate, Sea Squirts & Science – Dr …
About Tom Nelson:
https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1
YouTube:
• Tom Nelson Podcast
Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123
Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/
About Tom: https://tomn.substack.com/about
Pat, I have been late to this thread but have added some comments.
I want to congratulate you on a fine interview and a fine paper. I have certainly learned a lot and had some concerns verified.
Keep up the good work. You have many here that can follow what you are doing and appreciate your work.
Many of us have been horrified at the statistical ineptness displayed in climate science. Your work uncovers some of it!
Many thanks,
Jim Gorman
Thanks for the kind words, Jim. Your contributions have been greatly appreciated. You and cousin Tim have been tireless in the contest of ideas.
OK, you, too KM. 🙂
After skimming the link that bgwxyz threw in your face below, filled with nonsense and vitriol from the climastrologers, I can only imagine what the struggle you’ve had to endure must have been like to get the truth out there. Words fail me.
Thanks KM. We’re all compelled to the defense.
I strongly suspect we are dealing here with a Climate ChatGPT – The previous trolls have deferred to AI.
Training on vast language models must have been done, probably by scraping WUWT and all Climate sites (killing them as with DOS). Musk is suing because Twitter was scraped for AI illegally.
Not to be sniffed at – AI is a Pentagon Strategic Imperative : Palantir AIP : Defense and Military
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEM5qz__HOU
This AIP, integrated with OpenAI and Bard, from billionaire Thiel (major GOP donor), is ready to both generate and conduct military operations.
Palantir CEO Karp already in Feb told WaPo that AIP was already used in Ukraine.
Obvious question – what if a Chatbot gave firing orders and the Pentagon only found out later?
This is likely why Musk and others call for a moratorium! There is a Congress bill to block AI and nukes.
It was only a matter of time. Now how to identify a ChatGPT Climate AIP?
It gets worse – someone asked about kids and ChatGPT – well here is where they go :
https://graziamagazine.com/me/articles/love-letter-chatgpt/
Not even mentioning medical-response-policy by ChatGPT.
How about election Teleprompter ChatGPT?
Here is a list of AI articles on this problem :
13 report pages.
https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/why-ai-isnt-nearly-as-smart-as-it-looks/
Not sure yet if Climate mentioned.
It does not know when it is blowing smoke. Therefore, the number of factual errors is probably a function of the number of words.
The usual estimate is the square root of the number. 🙂
So, 13 pages, 1000 words per page, 114 errors.
One is reminded that AS is the other side of AI. Artificial Stupidity.
I will be submitting an article on measurement uncertainty and some AI answers.
The AI responses are interesting. Perhaps the biggest failing is exactly what climate scientists and others ignore in using statistics – the necessary requirements that must be met for the use of various statistical tools.
One of the biggest problems is repeatable conditions when using experimental uncertainty. None of the AI’s mention this necessary condition.
From JCGM 100:2008
“””””B.2.15 repeatability (of results of measurements) closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement
NOTE 1 These conditions are called repeatability conditions.
NOTE 2 Repeatability conditions include:
— the same measurement procedure
— the same observer
— the same measuring instrument, used under the same conditions
— the same location
— repetition over a short period of time.
NOTE 3 Repeatability may be expressed quantitatively in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the results. [VIM:1993, definition 3.6] “””””
Does anyone think these conditions are met when averaging different stations at different stations?
None of them apply.
Also, the variance at each station is different, and none of the measurement errors are stationary.
So many entries it is hard to get them all. That is exactly the point, none of the conditions are met. At best uncertainty propagation equations are worthless.
NIST TN 1900 at least addressed some of the big issues.
“— repetition over a short period of time.” is a big one. Even over a month is probably pushing it.
I was just told that this arbitrary addition of year-1 to the W m-2 units from Lauer & Hamilton 2013 has already been hashed out with Pat Frank. I’m disengaging from this particular discussion with Pat Frank as I now see that no amount of explanation will ever convince him of the error.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/391B1C150212A84C6051D7A2A7F119
“I’m disengaging from this particular discussion with Pat Frank as I now see that no amount of explanation will ever convince him of the error.”
Good decision. You’re a young man, with better uses for your time. After all, it has already been shown that dead enders here will be mercifully ignored, and will therefore have NO deleterious, superterranean impact
Thanks to the Imaginary Guy In The Sky, the other worldly heat dome has moved on. . You can go see Whiskey Drinkin’ in St. Charles tomorrow. We had supper on the Hill with in laws last hour, and we’ll be e biking up to Festival of Nations at Tower Grove Park tomorrow. Back to normal forthwith…
“Good decision.”
Do follow suit, bob.
And take your declarations of victory with you. I’m sure they’ll be a comfort.
bdgwx, I’m not at all surprised that you’d be comforted by unsupported declarations congruent with your ignorant beliefs.
Error indeed.
L&H (2013): annual means
bdgwx: annual doesn’t mean per year.
Please do bail. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
In other words, bgwxyz is just parroting all the errors the climastrologers committed.
From your link:
Pat Frank wrote:
“If you look at those reviews, Paul, you’ll find that those reviewers:
“Those are mistakes to be expected of a college freshman who never took a high school science course.”
“Never, in 30 years of publishing research in chemistry, have I ever encountered such incompetence so often repeated.”
All of these apply to you and bellcurveman, amazing.
I know what intelligent design is. What is “the intelligent design myth”?
It’s this, Joe. But this thread is not the place for a conversation about it.
Wow. The detractors here are missing the obvious problem arising from the concepts of uncertainty and error that Pat Frank is applying to the climate (i.e. surface air temperature) projections.
Do a Google search on “NASA CFD quantification of uncertainty” and read about how this problem is addressed when the outcome of a simulation depends on iterative computation. (CFD = “computational fluid dynamics.”)
Here is an example of what you will find from the field of advanced aerodynamics:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180000520/downloads/20180000520.pdf
From the abstract – “Computational fluid dynamics is now considered to be an indispensable tool for the design and development of scramjet engine components. Unfortunately, the quantification of uncertainties is rarely addressed with anything other than sensitivity studies, so the degree of confidence associated with the numerical results remains exclusively with the subject matter expert that generated them. This practice must be replaced with a formal uncertainty quantification process for computational fluid dynamics to play an expanded role in the system design, development, and flight certification process.”
And from the summary – “An enabling element in the application of this uncertainty quantification framework was the development of a metamodel [i.e. an emulator – dd] for the propagation of uncertainties. This resulted in a major cost savings with regard to the computational time required to perform the uncertainty analysis.”
So what? SAME THING in climate analysis (diagnosis of the past and projection into the future) using iterative computation in a model. An emulator can help to quantify the uncertainty to be expected.
Much appreciation to Pat Frank for doing us all a valuable service by having formally exposed this problem in “climate” studies.
This is exactly right, it is the same thing. The detractors don’t understand what they think they understand.
Thanks David. The Baurle and Axdahl report looks very useful. It provides an outstanding precedent for the emulation approach. I’ve only scanned it but will go through more carefully. Great find!
I saw, too, that they reference Roy and Oberkampf (ref. 3) for their approach to uncertainty. I cited the same paper to establish the meaning of uncertainty in (2019) Propagation…, with a long discussion in the Supporting Information.
Thanks also for you kind words. It gets a bit lonely sometimes.
Pat,
At the end of 2022, WUWT kindly published a 3-part series on uncertainty that I wrote, with Tom Berger co-author of the last part.
There were over 800 comments about my part two, so you are catching up to that total. But, your contribution is much more didactic than mine, which was largely in questioning mode. Yours in answering mode is more valuable.
You mention loneliness. Yes, I felt that also. Too many of the comments to my articles were unthinking knee jerk recitals of dogma, whose inaccuracies had prompted me to write. They failed to advance understanding of the topic, but did tell more about competence and experience of bloggers.
So, sincere thanks to you (once more) for publicising concepts that have the power to put uncertainty back into proper perspective.
Geoff S
Geoff: What is absolutely mind-boggling to me is how these ignorant climate types try to lecture Pat about the subject, telling him he’s wrong!
I saw your posts and was grateful for them, Geoff. At the time I had little free capacity to comment.
My best to you.
David,
Very impressive. The reference paper reminds me of why I, and probably most of my classmates, ran for our lives once we obtained our undergrad ChE degrees. Also interesting that at least some within NASA think there is merit in analyzing uncertainty before launching a bunch of prototypes over populated areas, versus the agency as a whole, which appears to be fully in favor of scrapping conventional energy sources for the entire world without benefit of same.
Agreed. Same for me with a BSME. No regrets. I read the entire paper, and I think I got the gist of it, but not much more. And of course the technical subject differs greatly from climate analysis. Still, the idea of uncertainty propagation through an iterative computation, and the use of an emulator to do so, is very clearly presented.