Posted by Jeff Id on August 2, 2011
I’ve got a new computer today which allows blogging at twice the normal rate. It’s nothing fancy but a heck of a lot better than a laptop with a dead keyboard. Yup, I typed the old laptop completely to death! Flat, shiny,non-working, keys and finally a dead screen. All of which which forced me to blog away from the livingroom and the family. Therefore, even less blogging.
It has been a crazy past week though with Mann being honored yet again along with completely insane people that would require me to decline the association. Then the most oppressive socialist UN countries were demanding giving human rights to the planet, yet no demands for actual humans. Don’t forget science magazine, in a fit of impressive misdirection, claiming climategate was about CRU temperature data, and CRU claiming that the release of data pulls the rug out of skeptics. I suppose that is directed to evil skeptic bloggers like me who post higher temp trends than CRU.
What’s to write about though. A ton of interesting things are out there but it is the Air Vent and I’m not really happy with a small corner of blogland. Dr. Jim Bouldin claimed that I don’t know what I’m talking about regarding Mann08, not that interesting except that he apparently is planning on publishing in paleoscience. As is typical in climate science, he seems to have not one specific point regarding my misunderstandings.
Blogging at the Air Vent is a far more collaborative effort than many scientists grasp. Many of the regular readers here are more skilled than I in some of the topics discussed. That is what makes this blog a little different. We’ve done a lot of cool stuff through error, correction and expansion. Certainly Dr. Bouldin hasn’t figured the dynamic here out yet.
remember Jeff C (different one), jumping in and helping with the early Steig analysis. It is amazing that our very earliest work was able to correct Steig’s continental trends from a simple understanding of PCA and regression. Regarding O10 or S09, does anyone wonder which “published” paper will receive more references from today to the future? One of them is correct, the other is not. And despite the elegance of the Ryan/Nic solution, I still prefer the simple for regional trend. Of course, the simple is an excellent match to our O10 results but despite several emails, the press was MIA.
So recently, I left several comments at Barts and even a blog post for Jim Bouldin on M08. They were required in reply to his indecipherable critiques left at Bart Verheggens blog:
I note also that Jeff ID states in the thread you mentioned: “Even though I am certain this is one hundred percent correct, this changes little about the climate story. What it does do is make one wonder how math skilled individuals still refuse to acknowledge it.”
Well Jeff, maybe because it’s perhaps, patently wrong?
In fairness, maybe the misunderstanding is because Jim is not math skilled? I hope so because we don’t know what training he’s had after all, but we do know that he is incorrect on a number of matters.
Here is a previous paragraph from the same comment which to my mind is painfully misdirected:
In short, the probability of getting 484 sites that pass the p < .128 screening by chance, is very small, and his argument is utterly wrong. The only way it could be true is if somehow the temp-ring relationship magically arose in 1850 but didn’t exist beforehand, which of course is ludicrous.
The reason it ticks me off is that I’ve spent literally weeks demonstrating that the correlations happen completely without magic. I’ve slashed and bashed at it a dozen different ways with apparently no result to the truly smart people’s minds. In fairness, climate mathmagic was employed more than once in M08 but certainly not Harry Potter style magic as the Doc apparently implied.
What should we do though when the Doc writes this:
“Jim, If you ‘expect to publish’, I wonder if you would mind addressing my more poignant and relevent critiques.”
Sure Jeff, point me to the journal article(s) in which you have shown that the use of the correlation between two variables over the common interval, to predict the values of one of the two over the non-common interval, is now null and void, and I’ll see what I can do. As I said above, this is quite a profound finding that affects a very wide range of fields in science, so it would seemingly be suitable for at least one article in Nature or Science, wouldn’t you say?
And good to see that you have a high opinion of your work, that should help.
I don’t know what to say to him at this point. He has clearly not followed the problems or the discussion here and the challenge he made to point to my publication in a field I’m not paid to publish in is weak fodder. Exceptionally so after Steig’s Antarctic paper. It costs money to publish in climate and that is the cheap part. Then there is the time, self centered reviews and flat gatekeeping that those without the right names and conclusions must suffer. I am running a growing company and do have a family life after all.
My work ain’t all that, but I guarantee it comes to a more reliable conclusion of M08 proxy data than Bouldin did. NO DISCERNABLE SIGNAL doc. Estimates of potential historic signal repression of valid proxies are in the 60-90% range, but thus far unrefuted statistical analyses put it at under 10% signal to noise.
Yup, its frustrating. So why did I bring up Steig’s rebuttal? You remember, the Steig Antarctic Doom paper on the cover of Nature with bright red colors and dozens of melting ice news articles? Because even after the work is proven incorrect beyond any doubt in a top climate journal, there is still little to be said by the pros.
Mann 08 is such an astoundingly bad, obviously incorrect paper, it is difficult to find a comparison. It is so incredibly bad that seeing an alleged scientist support it that it leaves me sick to my stomach thinking that popular science has gone this wrong.
How does it happen that M08 passes484 proxies by accident when far less were anticipated? – Look at the autocorrelation of the ACTUAL proxies doc, let us know if they are even close to the estimation of 08!
Duh! Why would anyone do that Jeff?
Finally, there are several claims the doc made of my opinions which do not represent my understandings. If you are reading this and have read his interpretation, please refer to my own posts for the correct version.