Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Graun podcast dull | Main | Climate cuttings 41 »
Sunday
Nov142010

JEG on McShane & Wyner

Julien Emile-Geay, who has been very critical of McIntyre in the past, has emerged from blogging hibernation with a posting on McShane and Wyner, the paper about multiproxy methods as seen by two professional statisticians.

JEG's post has something for everyone, but readers here will be most struck by this:

Finally, I agree with [McShane & Wyner's] main conclusion:

“the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection of our knowledge of the truth. Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.” 

That being said, it is my postulate than when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics, it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented…the case for it just isn’t completely airtight now.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (53)

JEG says

it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented…the case for it just isn’t completely airtight now.

The same amount and rate of warming was measured in the period before 1950. I would assume that this makes an airtight case AGAINST the proposition.

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterdl

"I have already decided on the answer and when the evidence comes in I'll be hiding the decline."

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

"it is my postulate than when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics, it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented…the case for it just isn’t completely airtight now."

In other words, 'we need to keep searching for a method that will give us the answer that we (and our funders) want'.

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Translation: Despite the evidence proving X isn't true I continue to believe the opposite because I know better.

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

JEG

"But I urge all those who believe they know everything to please consult with a climate scientist before treating them like idiots!"

By their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew 7:16).

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356

"Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know [snip]-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know [snip]-all)."

Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSayNoToFearmongers

The latest misdirection from the warming camp is a failure to point out that AGW is only supposed to have started in 1945/50. That way they can pretend that current rises aren't broadly consistant with the rate since 1850. They haven't issued any new graphs showing predicted temperatures either.

Nov 14, 2010 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

JEG says:

...it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented...

This person does not know what he/she is saying. To say that the rate is 'unprecedented' - you should know prior warming rates. Do we know them?

The IPCC pushed its junk "rate of warming is increasing" crap in its synthesis report - proving once and for all, its activist nature.

Please read the entire email saynotofearmongerers cited above - it is very instructive. Ed Cook is proposing a Soon/Baliunas type project with some very interesting comments about Mann at the beginning of the email. Apparently when 'genuine', 'climate scientists' plan these kinds of projects, it is ok, but when 'fossil-fuel' funded scientists do it, it is not

Also when Ed Cook says:

(i.e. we know with certainty that we know [snip]-all).

these folks can get it, but when Dr Curry talks about meta-probabilities, they go

"what, what, what, what did she say, doesn't make sense, eh, huh, hmmm, she is a denier"

Nov 14, 2010 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Sounds like a spoiled brat leaving the ball game with his ball and bat -- or perhaps puck and hockey stick?

Nov 14, 2010 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"It is my postulate that" this bloviating phrase of his is as close as he can bring himself to admitting straighforwardly that he does not have evidence to back his speculations.

Is there any difference logically between this and an admission that he has been wrong from the beginning?

Nov 15, 2010 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterNNN

Julien and I have a history. Years ago when he was still a rambling wreck at Georgia Tech I had several brief conversations with him. My parting words were 'I haven't the certainty you desire and you haven't the uncertainty I desire.'
================

Nov 15, 2010 at 2:05 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

OK, now I read his post and it seems as if he's gotten a little uncertainty religion since our last conversations. 'The case for it just isn't completely airtight yet' is a lot further than he'd go back then, around the time of Steve's visit to Judy.

dl's comment #1 is almost the airtight case. Three times in the last century and a half the rate of temperature rise has been the same and in only the last of those times was CO2 also rising. It's the biggest 'Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc' of all time, so far anyway. With the PDO now negative, we've a chance to get a little better handle on the climate sensitivity to CO2.

Of course, back then, Julien didn't know the oceans were cooling. An oceanography specialist, he apparently didn't know Josh Willis's results, or wouldn't admit them.

And then Livingston and Penn loom.
================

Nov 15, 2010 at 2:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

It is my postulate that the author is talking out of his arse.

Nov 15, 2010 at 5:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

That being said, it is my postulate than when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics, it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented…

Well do it and prove it then.

Oh you forgot you are not statistician !!!!!!!

Well don't spout rubbish then.

Nov 15, 2010 at 6:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

Latimer Alder: Yes, exposterior vocalization often copresents with proctocraniosis. The underlying condition, similar to alcoholism, is incurable as long as the patient's state of denial persists.

Nov 15, 2010 at 6:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Latimer.

I agree wholeheartedly with your postulate!

Nov 15, 2010 at 6:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Could everyone be a bit nicer please. JEG has stated his position in a civil fashion. Let's hear why his arguments are wrong rather than your opinions of the man himself.

Nov 15, 2010 at 7:14 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Good to have the admission, but sad to see such poor logic.

Lesseee, the primary piece of "evidence" for the unprecedentedness turns out to be a "feature of regression," but my faith sustains me -- eventually we'll find evidence that supports my assumption that the unprecedentedness is real. Hopefully he'll go back and re-read what he wrote and have an epiphany.

Nov 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterEric Anderson

Kim, I found this paper on his UC site. Much of it beyond me, but he appears to admit a bit of uncertainty in the conclusions. Wonder if Bob Tisdale has seen this?

Nov 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterDeNihilist

Arrgghh!

http://college.usc.edu/labs/jeg/research/JEG_AGU09.pdf.pdf

Nov 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterDeNihilist

Kim, are you one of the authors of this presentation?

Nov 15, 2010 at 7:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterDeNihilist

Point noted, Your Grace.

But when presented with a completely open goal by the other team it is difficult to resist the temptation to shoot. And over at Judith's place one or two from our more strait-laced colonies have been praising this blog for its 'acerbic humor' (sic) and noting the need for more of it in 'climate science'. It would be a shame to entirely discard one of the USPs for this fine forum.

On a more serious note, JEL accuses McS & W of 'arrogance' in not coming round to talk to the 'climate scientists' and finding out about all the good statistical methods that they use.

I replied as below on his website. It is 'awaiting moderation', so may never see the light of day there. No other comments have appeared since the original post a few days ago, so I am not hopeful.

'Re arrogance.

'Climate science' has such a long history of poor professional practice and self-delusion that it would be very unwise for anyone from a different field (especially one where they actually have serious expertise) to let themselves be influenced by the existing thinking and practices of the climate scientists in that area.

Good auditors should not begin their investigations by going out drinking with the Chief Accountant of the audited organisation, but start with a clean sheet of paper and a nasty suspicious mind. More of this attitude and less buddy buddy would perhaps have stopped Madoff and Enron earlier. It may not lead to comfortable cocktail parties, but that is not the purpose.

What you may consider arrogance, the outside world, used to external scrutiny as a a means for trying to keep people honest, considers as maintaining a sensible professional independence.

Nov 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

He is a spiffing fellow my boy Latimer ... but he will revert to vernacular of the street at times... I blame his father...

Nov 15, 2010 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder's Mum

The thing that still gets me is why would anyone think tree rings are any good as a historical temperature proxy. I'd intuitively think lots of the other proxies in this and other studies (ocean temperature ones in particular - which also seem more important from a climate point of view) to be better. Trees only grow in summer with strong water/lack of water and sunshine dependencies. I might not be an expert but I struggle to see how a couple of degrees difference in summer temperature (where it probably goes up and down 10 degrees a day) would ever show up.

Together with the fact that they don't correlate with the temperature now, and surely it is a pretty easy experiment to measure what happens to trees under controlled greenhouse conditions, I can't see why anyone would ever look at a tree proxy history with anything more than a casual interest. The Warmists have stronger cases than Mann et al to defend so I really wish they would move on now so we can have our 'quite strong evidence exists for' Medieval Warm Period back along with the other Holocene warm episodes.

Nov 15, 2010 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob B

A quick reading suggests that M&W is again approached as though it is a paper on climate science rather than a paper on statistics. The points of contention seem to be the standard ones of

a) We don't do it like that in climate science.
b) In climate science we have a special definition/methodology for that.

which to my untutored eye was rather the point of M&W.

Nov 15, 2010 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

"Could everyone be a bit nicer please."

We do try, Bish, but his comments do not exactly invite respect. 'Unprecedented' is a term that needs qualification. I'm with Latimer, I'm afraid, especially his comment at 5:31.

Nov 15, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Seems like the same old story, belief in the cause leads to ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence. So desire to execute an Airborne operation in Holland trumped the unequivacal and complementary evidence from Ultra and Photo-Reconnaisance of an SS Panzer Corps in the Assault area. Panzer divisions being the one thing that paratroops of the era couldn't carry the kit to fight (See R Bennett "Ultra in the West " ISBN 0 09 139330 2 pp 143-145). In this case because the cause is just , the argument that the current evidence doesn't support the conclusion can be dismissed because future evidence as yet unknown will vindicate the true believers. I'm assuming that reversion to applying the scientific method is not an option at this point.......:-)

Nov 15, 2010 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Ozanne

JEG has stated his position in a civil fashion. Let's hear why his arguments are wrong

Civil?

"the antiquated analyses that Climate Audit and other statistical conservatives have wanted us to use for a few centuries...skeptics who go cherry-pick their proxies so they can get a huge Medieval Warm Period."

I count several sneers, at least one piece of rule-by-horses and at least one piece of deceit by omission right there. I haven't heard of JEG but I suppose we should applaud this latest convert to the cause of glasnost.

What "statistical conservatives" wanted warmists to do was disclose what techniques they had actually used to arrive at their apocalyptic reconstructions; explain them; identify the statisticians who'd agreed these techniques were both apt for the purpose; and show that there had been proper peer review of the data and whether they had been correctly used.

The Bishop's book is essentially the story of the clique's decade-long, dogged, very fishy refusal to do any such damn thing. If they've now progressed to pretending this never happened, and to sneering at others' suggested statistical techniques, then I suppose that's progress - like it was when they tried to say they never said the science was settled.

Moving on.

This new study was performed "on an up-to-date network of proxy data (that of Mann et al, PNAS 2008)" - I can't immediately see how up-to-date that data was. Was it up to date as in, the decline had been hidden? I think this needs to be spelt out every time, to be honest, otherwise the suspicion of fabrication by omission will always be there.

"when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics" - you demanded trillions based on obsolete and hence questionable analytical techniques? If so, this is the first time I've heard a card-carrying warmist admit it. Mainly, so far, they have simply smeared those tactless enough to point this out.

"Yet every good statistician will tell you that the method must be guided by the structure of the problem, and not the other way around." Yeeeeeeeeeeees. Has anyone mentioned this to anyone at UEA, UPenn, UMass? Them may be considered fightin' words, son.

"Climate proxies are all noisy, and one never expects a small subset of them to be dominating the rest of the pack" I believe he just spilt Michael Mann's pint. He's just rubbished PCA, hasn't he?

"When entering a new field and finding results at odds with the vast majority of its investigators, two conclusions are possible : (1) you are a genius and everyone else is blinded by the force of habit (2) you have the humility to recognize that you might have missed an important point,"

What if the field's astrology?

Portents in the sky, signs in the heavens, everything revolving around Man and his deeds and his destiny...they all believe it, so they must be right. Right?

The objection is the same old objection again: no matter what your expertise, if you're not a climate scientist, your conclusions must be dismissed.

"I urge all those who believe they know everything to please consult with a climate scientist before treating them like idiots!" One can only wonder why this would be useful, unless the climate scientist's goal is to influence the analysis towards what he's already decided the answer to be. Who needs statisticians when climate scientists have arrived at the answer without using statistics properly?

Proper statistical analysis represents an existential threat to climate "science". The latter can't call itself such without first applying proper statistical rigour to its hypotheses. If statisticians are going to start noticing that this has never been done, and that the inferences and perhaps the data themselves have been GIGO for 30 years, then war will have to be declared on statisticians as well.

Just as the climate's failure to keep warming required that the past be made colder, statisticians picking holes in the conclusions will have to be crushed and climate science's superiority asserted.

I imagine William Connolley's on it right now.

Nov 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

It is indeed curious that a "feature of regression" should be used as a reference point for current temperature trends. Also re: "not completely airtight yet" I presume he means it in the sense that "this seive is not completely airtight yet". :)

Nov 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered Commentersunderland steve

@ Michael Ozanne

WW2 intelligence also provides a great example of a failure of Occam's Razor.

The Germans were operating an extremely complex encryption gadget called Enigma and using it to encode military messages. Operations kept going wrong, or being met by unexpected enemy strength, and so on.

They thought about this and figured as follows. Either

1/ the allies have established an entire covert organisation that we've never identified, dedicated to nothing but breaking into Enigma messages in near-real time, presumably using some kind of invented-for-the-purpose electromechanical code-breaking reverse-Enigma gadget. And this thing would need to be the size of a house. Or

2/ there's a rat in the organisation.

Occam's Razor pointed them unerringly to the wrong answer.

As with CO2 = climate change and witchcraft = crop failure, the argument that "it must be X because Y seems impossible" is always a piss-poor one.

Nov 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

How unsettling for the alarmists that the settled science is so unsettled.

Nov 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

How unsettling for deniers, that climate scientists are quite prepared to admit that they don't yet have all the answers to everything, but all the evidence so far points to AGW being the correct theory.

Nov 15, 2010 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Is ZDB actually James Delingpole making mischief?

Nov 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

That being said, it is my postulate than when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics, it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented…the case for it just isn’t completely airtight now.

I think Julian has finally accepted that his belief in AGW is religious and not scientific. Witness the clear message that he believes in AGW without actually having evidence to prove it.

Mentally I found myself changing some words to see if the argumentation has changed

That being said, it is my postulate than when paleoclimate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of atomic physics, it will indeed be found that the age of the earth are much smaller than evolutionists claim…the case for it just isn’t completely airtight.

Nope. Not really.

Nov 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn A

ZDB

"all the evidence"

You must be very privileged.

Nov 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Quote, JEG "That being said, it is my postulate than when climate reconstruction methods incorporate the latest advances in the field of statistics, it will indeed be found that the current warming and its rate are unprecedented"

Quote, Phil JOnes, "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Quote, HARRY_READ_ME, "......... of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

Everyone knows now what "the latest advances in the field of statistics" actually means.

Nov 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"Is ZDB actually James Delingpole making mischief?"

it was Déjà vu for me - ZDB has to be Baghdad Bob

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth." -- Jean-Pierre McGarrigle"

Nov 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete

"latest advances in the field of statistics"

And how pray, will that get over the red noise gives the same result problem?

Nov 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

@ ssat

Re "the red noise gives the same result problem" - Bob Carter has made the point that forecasting the climate simply by assuming each year will be like the last gives more accurate results than GCMs. I can't remember the study he cited, but essentially, if true, it's saying that year-on-year climate variation is red noise - which would explain, beautifully, the problem you mention.

Nov 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Things are moving well towards the broad realization that the climate panic was not based on reality and that we do not need to make major changes to deal with a non-existent crisis.

Nov 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

How typical that ZDB does not need actual evidence to support her conclusion?

Nov 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

We treat certain climate scientists as idiots only to the extent that they act like idiots. Rahmstorf's "it's worse than we thought" study was so stupid that it had to be the work of an idiot. The rest of the six co-authors deserve scorn for signing on to something only an idiot could agree with.

The bizarre wild-ass guesses underlying the SST work have all the earmarks of idiots. The idea that scientists need never check their instruments doesn't inspire thoughts that they are geniuses. The rejection of transparency, replication, or the fundamental principles of forecasting don't either.

If he doesn't like to see climate scientists treated as idiots, perhaps it would help if they stopped acting like idiots.

Nov 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

It is my postulate that all of the present alarmism will be shown to not only be unjustified but positively and comprehensively destructive to human life on Earth.

Nov 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered Commentermbabbitt

@Justice4Rinka
Sometime in the mid 90's I heard the theory that if you look out the window and describe the weather you had a better than evens chance of beating the accuracy of the Met Office for the next day. Possibly the same study methinks.

Nov 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

@ SSAT

LOL, it was slightly more reasoned than that, but broadly the same principle. Red noise is, AIUI, data that varies in a random way and direction from the previous values, ie. it is somewhat linked to it albeit in a randon way. So the temperature today will be close to yesterday's rather than 40 degrees celsius different.

This would appear to be a pretty plausible description of what the weather does, and the climate is simply weather over time.

Nov 15, 2010 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

ZedsDeadBed

Go back home to your rat hole in Truro

Peter Walsh

Nov 15, 2010 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

Looks to me as though climatology may be slowly discovering the scientific method. Given a hypothesis, find supporting or contradictory evidence. Admittedly, climatology is a little skewed at present toward confirmation of beliefs and copy-and-pasting (hence the predilection for the main stream media) but this article seems to be progress as the McShane paper is being actively considered and the need for improved statistical analysis is accepted.

Nov 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

@ ZT

All they need to do is discovery humility. Until then I shall still go into bookshops and surreptitiously move books on climate change to the Religion section.

Nov 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

simpleseekeraftertruth

The forecast for my part of Devon for toady from the Met Office (on the front page of the beeb) is "fog" with "very poor visibility". So far today the sun has shone continuously from a cloudless sky. The forecast for tomorrow is the same as for today. I shall watch it with interest.

I suspect that as my part of Devon includes Exeter where the Met Office is, someone has looked out of a fogged up window and used that as the forecast. To hell with the £35M computer that we paid for through our taxes.

Nov 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

@ Phillip Bratby
"toady from the Met Office"

I thought the Bishop had asked us to be polite!

Nov 15, 2010 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

I thought the Bishop had asked us to be polite!

Yep, given that snipping of comments is so rare on this blog, once the host asks for more politeness, each of us is duty bound to self-censor any nastiness of any kind. That hasn't happened. I send you all to the naughty corner - in the politest way possible.


Let me point to what is for me a fruitful analogy from World War II from Michael Ozanne - and Justice4Rinka's provocative recasting of it as a failure of Occam's Razor. That is new and worth chewing on, thanks.

And given that Enigma is my middle name, let me put the other point of view, as strongly as I can. The case for dangerous global warming depends on strong positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds. But positive feedbacks would make the climate system highly unstable. Four billion years of evidence suggests that this is out of the question (sorry all those young earth creationists out there but I want the four billion worth). Occam says stick with what's obvious. 'All the evidence' that a small amount of AGW is happening is irrelevant. There's no evidence of strong positive feedbacks and therefore no crisis.

Note ZedsDeadBed's precise wording: 'all the evidence so far points to AGW being the correct theory.' That tells us nothing. In the light of the horrendous consequences of the myriad policy initiatives based on this so-called 'science' such lack of candour is culpable. We want to know, in detail, why ZDB or anyone else believes in strong positive feedbacks enough to put the whole world through such turmoil. As Steve McIntyre said on his trip to London, let's have 300 pages on this in IPCC WG1 and 60 on the rest.

One of the reasons for politeness - and taking a few deep breaths to achieve it - is that this field is littered with red herrings that can so easily get one riled. Let's stick with Occam and the one thing that matters. Water cycle feedbacks are all we need to understand. They are horrendously complex in detail but there's a simple way of knowing the final answer: four billion years with global mean temperature never going more than ten degrees Kelvin either way from around 290. That's not an unstable system, folks. Policymakers have been grievously deceived.

Which takes us away from McShane and Wyner. I'm deeply sorry. I'll return from the naughty corner at some point.

Nov 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>