... this is why others caused an uproar when "original data" went missing from EAU and CRU right around the time of "climategate".... there was simply no way to evaluate the quality of CRU's work. access to the RAW DATA was NOT available. Only data that has already been "massaged" (to an unknown degree) was available before the "official" release, and that release was prompted by complaints about this very (and very valid) issue.... access to original data is vital to verifying and reproducing results.... CRU could have avoided the FOIA requests if they'd simply handled things in a professional, reasonable manner, as opposed to one that was blatantly arrogant and dismissive. They needlessly pissed a lot of people off. When you do that, you should not expect them to not piss you off in return.... I'm not trying to say data was actually "missing", but it is true that some of it was not available. And CRU's documented attitude regarding requests about it contributed to an atmosphere of distrust....
Jane Q. Public, please use your feminine voice to tell Lonny Eachus that when he finds himself deep in a hole, he should use his masculine strength to... stop digging.
Again: "Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."
Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned.
Previously, you could have used your ignorance as an excuse. Now you're just lying. And apparently neither you or Lonny Eachus have enough intellectual integrity to retract your latest steaming pile of civilization-paralyzing misinformation. This flood of misinformation isn't just staining "Jane Q. Public's" sock puppet legacy. It's also staining Lonny Eachus's real human legacy. Please stop.
it was uncovered that most of the original data could (later) be obtained from the original sources
I didn't notice this comment before I wrote mine, otherwise I'd have been forced to correct this incorrect claim too. Again, the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." Most of the data was already in the public domain, which is why the FOIA blizzard against CRU was so hysterically pointless.
Years ago, I explained in excruciating detail that this played absolutely no role in evaluating the quality of CRU's work because the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." The Muir Russell review reproduced the necessary code in two days without any help from CRU.
And, of course, this isn't CRU's fault because “the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.” Oddly, many people seem to ignore this point and blame CRU.
By the way, I debunked the misinformation that you and Lonny Eachus were spreading about Cowtan and Way 2013. Feel free to retract your misinformation (or double down on it) here. Lonny Eachus is welcome to do the same, but for some reason he never replied.
That's why it was "impossible" for CRU to have withheld access to the raw data. Because they didn't collect it in the first place. Anyone who was actually interested in the data could always have gotten them from the same sources that CRU did.
"Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."[Muir Russell Review, p48,53]
The cosmic microwave background radiation is slightly closer to an ideal blackbody spectrum than that of an incandescent bulb, but people can't see it. So physicists don't nitpick continuous spectra like you keep doing, because nobody should be surprised that incandescent bulbs are made of atoms.
Pardon me for nitpicking a bit, but incandescents are not "continuous spectrum". Generally speaking, they are more continuous than fluorescents and LEDs, but continuous they are not.
Cowtan and Way 2013 compensated for missing HadCRUT4 surface temperature measurements in places like the Arctic and Africa by using the spatial pattern of satellite data to produce a hybrid satellite/surface dataset. Jane and Lonny ponder the differences between Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset and HadCRUT4:
I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science? That was my point. [Jane Q. Public]
... They are saying that it is not the 0.05 degrees C per decade that the AR5 report gives for the last 15 years, but that it is, instead, 0.12 degrees C. Which is actually a difference of not 100% but 140%, for the most recent 15 years. [Jane Q. Public]
@ScienceChannel @jimmygle PLEASE tell the Anthropogenic Global Warmists! Yet another report surfaced saying their "science" was off by 140% [Lonny Eachus]
Jane and Lonny's basic premise wrongly ignores the large error bars on these noisy, short-term trends. The SkS trend calculator can calculate the trends and error bars from 1997 through (including) 2012 for both HadCrut4 and Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset:
The hybrid dataset's central estimate is inside the error bars of the original HadCRUT4 estimate.
... they haven't been right yet... They admit that they have no explanation why their models, which projected continued if not increased warming, do not explain why it has dropped by more than half (0.12 to 0.05 deg. C / decade) over the last 15 years. Or, for that matter, why their margin of error (-0.05 to +0.15 deg. C) for the last decade and a half is 4 times the size of their actual estimated warming. Nope... it's pretty damned clear. Something is wrong with their science. [Jane Q. Public]
I calculated error bars on UAH trends. The black line on the second page shows the UAH trend ending in 2012, for different starting years. The error bars are shown in red; they're 95% confidence uncertainty bounds. Note that error bars on longer trends are smaller than the large error bars on shorter trends.
Anyone can reproduce my results by downloading the free "R" programming language used by professional statisticians. Then save this code as "significance.r":
# run using R CMD BATCH significance.r
# outputs to Rplots.pdf and significance.r.Rout
# load custom functions
b) the physics of increased greenhouse effect predicts larger effects in polar regions. (This also distinguishes global warming from enhanced greenhouse from global warming from increased solar output).
Warming from greenhouse gases and a brighter sun are both amplified in the Arctic, because the sea-ice albedo feedback happens either way. As early as the 1980s, climate models have been predicting delayed warming around Antarctica.
Aside from Arctic amplification, it's also important to note that ENSO affects equatorial regions more than the Arctic. The largest El Nino ever recorded happened in 1998, followed by a string of cooling La Nina events. Since these events don't affect the Arctic as much, including Arctic temperatures increases the observed warming since 1998.
Anyone can calculate trends and uncertainties with the new HadCRUT4 hybrid dataset using the SkS trend calculator. Note that the hybrid trend since 1998 lies within the uncertainties of the previous HadCRUT4 trend, so this doesn't support accusations of a "very serious problem" with mainstream science.
Oh, I see. You were responding to the Slashdot summary which wrongly claims that "the first major effect of warming, about 1 billion years from now, will be a dramatic drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide as the oceans absorb more of it."
You were right to point out this error. The summary should say land, not ocean. Sorry for the interruption.
Error. The original paper [arxiv.org] on the very first page of the introduction, says atmospheric CO2 drawdown will reduce CO2 concentration in the oceans, not increase absorption. The latter doesn't make sense anyway, because the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up. [Jane Q. Public]
Presumably you're referring to these sentences:
"Rising temperatures cause silicate weathering rates to increase, increasing CO2 draw-down, lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This results in conditions that are increasingly unsuited to (higher) plant life (Lovelock & Whitfield 1982; Caldeira & Kasting 1992). During the CO2 decline, rapid ocean evaporation would not yet have begun. From Henry's Law, a reduction in atmospheric CO2 would lead to a reduction in the CO2 levels in the surface ocean, while increased silicate weathering could potentially lead to increased carbonate deposition."
There's no error here. As the Earth warms, more ice melts which exposes more silicate rocks. As the temperature increases, these rocks react faster with CO2. This sequesters carbon in the rocks, decreasing the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2, which decreases CO2 in the ocean via Henry's Law, as the text mentions.
Lgw correctly pointed out that on geological timescales, rock weathering is Earth's thermostat:
Warm the Earth and rock weathering speeds up, reducing atmospheric CO2 which slows the warming. (Of course, the end-Permian shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)
Cool the Earth and rock weathering slows down, eventually stopping when Earth turns into a snowball where all rocks are covered by ice. Eventually, enough CO2 builds up to thaw the snowball. (Of course, Snowball Earth shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)
... if you really want to talk to a young earth creationist (I don't know why you would), you need to show them the evidence. Really dig deep. If they want to discuss carbon dating, then dig in and show the evidence we have of why carbon dating works. Eventually, if they are willing to go along with you (and it will take a lot of work so they might not), they will turn into an old-earth creationist.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of ~5730 years, and isotope detection has a finite noise floor. Also, radiocarbon dating has to compensate for the varying rate of cosmic-ray induced carbon-14 production, and even then only works for objects less than ~45,000 years old.
One way to establish the ~4.5 billion year old earth is isochron dating like uranium-lead dating, which doesn't require knowledge of initial isotope ratios, so it doesn't require the above compensation. Isochron dating only depends on how close to constant nuclear decay rates are over geological time, which can be estimated using supernovae, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, etc.
This contradicts what Pachauri publicly stated. I very clearly referred to what Pachauri publicly stated. Again, what are you trying to prove with these straw-man arguments? Are you denying he said that?
Again, you're confusing tabloid nonsense with the IPCC. See links above.
NOAA stated (as they clearly did state, even in the otherwise irrelevant context you provided) that "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
Again, the previous sentence made it clear that they were discussing ENSO-adjusted trends, which most certainly are positive and statistically significant over 15 years. Again, see links above.
Presumably you're referring to "scientists." Also, I've repeatedly said:
Since climate is an average over ~20 years... climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~20 years.... I've repeatedly stressed that we need ~20 years to average out weather noise.... professional climatologists usually smooth data and model output using ~20 year averages.... It's also important to remember that a ~20 year timespan is necessary to obtain statistically significant temperature trends...
In fact, I've repeatedly told you that ~20 years are needed:
Of course, you ignored me just like you previously ignored riverat1:
And 10 years has what to do with climate trends? Not much. A recent paper by Santer et. al. calculated the signal (climate) to noise (weather/natural variation) ratio for climate trends. For 10 years the S/N ratio is less than 1. They found it takes 17 years to be sure the signal is greater than the noise.[riverat1 to Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-19]
For global temperatures, Santer et al. 2011 shows that one needs to average over ~17 years of data to obtain statistically significant climate trends. Here's another explanation by Tamino. Also, the Skeptical Science trend calculator helps visualize statistical significance.[Dumb Scientist, 2012-08-15]
Perhaps your ode to conspiracy theories distracted you, but I also linked to another method of calculating significance which is even more conservative:
You really are an intolerant bunch, when it comes to matters of faith - any deviation from extreme alarmism is unacceptable. Here I was thinking Lomborg was one of you.... [Eric Worrall, 2013-01-26]
Contrarians often use Lomborg to support their misinformation, possibly because he's getting better at pretending to accept the science. When brucmack described Lomborg as more pragmatic than skeptic, I replied that "I've never heard of Lomborg before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with."
But when I actually read his claims, it became clear that Lomborg is repeatedly misrepresenting science. Like many contrarians, Lomborg also misrepresents his own position by claiming to accept the science while simultaneously misrepresenting that science. Lomborg's books are often used to support accusations like these:
... Last time the Eugenics catastrophists, confident in their scientific consensus that genetic pollution would return us to the stone age, killed 7 million Jews to improve the race. Now poor people are dying because only rich people can afford the self inflicted expense of trying to appease the Carbon God.... How many poor Africans and Asians will die because of the great global warming swindle, before their pseudo scientific bluff is finally called?... [Eric Worrall, 2008-02-05]
... Mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be the kiss of death. The U.S. is about to undergo this madness in the form of a deluge of Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide regulations that will strangle the economy and kill jobs. Unless the Congress can eliminate them via legislation, it will constitute a form of national suicide.... If successful, the U.N. will lead the world back to a new Dark Ages. [Alan Caruba (Heartland Institute), 2012-12-10]
Consider a group of academics who claim the world faces an imminent catastrophe unless drastic steps are taken. Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs or Climate alarmists? [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-18]
Its not my fault if you guys are pushing for the implementation of harmful policies on the basis of pseudoscientific predictions of imminent catastrophe - just like the NAZIs did. [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-29]
Given your gross advantage in economic and political muscle, its a wonder we've managed so far to hold off your new dark age.... [Eric Wor
Repeat: I did NOT claim that the probability of error was found by multiplying the individual probabilities together. That is a mis-reading of my statement, and I even expanded on that later. (However, the end probability *IS* the result of a product, not a sum. And yes, that is statistics.) So why do you continue to insist I was in error? [Jane Q. Public]
It would've been easy for you to say "Instead of 'probability of failure is multiplied', I meant that the 'probability of success is multiplied'" or even that the "probability of failure increases". Instead, you keep insisting that your original statement was 'statistically accurate' when I've shown that, at best, it's a meaningless tautology.
Learning is easier if you can recognize and learn from your mistakes, rather than compulsively doubling down on them. Here's another example...
My initial statement is that the probability of error is multiplied. And it is.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, your bizarre claim that the probability of error is multiplied would be true if it became larger (x13) or smaller (x0.01) or the same (x1.0). It's a meaningless tautology that has nothing to do with statistics, because multiplying probabilities of error only yields the probability of all subsystems failing simultaneously, which is irrelevant nonsense.
My point here was that the result is found by MULTIPLYING the numbers. Whether you are multiplying the figures as they are, or their inverses, is irrelevant: the result is still a product, as opposed to a sum.
The result is found by multiplying success probabilities. Which aren't inverses of the failure probabilities.
Your income could be multiplied by 0.01. You might not like that, but it would still be multiplication.
That's exactly why your claim that the failure probability is multiplied is a meaningless tautology.
Slashdot Mirror
No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again.
What facts support the creationist position?
Jane Q. Public, please use your feminine voice to tell Lonny Eachus that when he finds himself deep in a hole, he should use his masculine strength to... stop digging.
Again: "Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."
Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned.
Previously, you could have used your ignorance as an excuse. Now you're just lying. And apparently neither you or Lonny Eachus have enough intellectual integrity to retract your latest steaming pile of civilization-paralyzing misinformation. This flood of misinformation isn't just staining "Jane Q. Public's" sock puppet legacy. It's also staining Lonny Eachus's real human legacy. Please stop.
I didn't notice this comment before I wrote mine, otherwise I'd have been forced to correct this incorrect claim too. Again, the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." Most of the data was already in the public domain, which is why the FOIA blizzard against CRU was so hysterically pointless.
Years ago, I explained in excruciating detail that this played absolutely no role in evaluating the quality of CRU's work because the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." The Muir Russell review reproduced the necessary code in two days without any help from CRU.
And, of course, this isn't CRU's fault because “the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.” Oddly, many people seem to ignore this point and blame CRU.
By the way, I debunked the misinformation that you and Lonny Eachus were spreading about Cowtan and Way 2013. Feel free to retract your misinformation (or double down on it) here. Lonny Eachus is welcome to do the same, but for some reason he never replied.
That's why it was "impossible" for CRU to have withheld access to the raw data. Because they didn't collect it in the first place. Anyone who was actually interested in the data could always have gotten them from the same sources that CRU did.
"Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so." [Muir Russell Review, p48,53]
The cosmic microwave background radiation is slightly closer to an ideal blackbody spectrum than that of an incandescent bulb, but people can't see it. So physicists don't nitpick continuous spectra like you keep doing, because nobody should be surprised that incandescent bulbs are made of atoms.
MIT society of physics students: "one can observe a continuous spectrum by looking at an incandescent light bulb."
Cowtan and Way 2013 compensated for missing HadCRUT4 surface temperature measurements in places like the Arctic and Africa by using the spatial pattern of satellite data to produce a hybrid satellite/surface dataset. Jane and Lonny ponder the differences between Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset and HadCRUT4:
Jane and Lonny's basic premise wrongly ignores the large error bars on these noisy, short-term trends. The SkS trend calculator can calculate the trends and error bars from 1997 through (including) 2012 for both HadCrut4 and Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset:
1997-2013 HadCRUT4 Trend: 0.049 0.126 C/decade
1997-2013 HadCRUT4 hybrid Trend: 0.119 0.150 C/decade
The hybrid dataset's central estimate is inside the error bars of the original HadCRUT4 estimate.
I calculated error bars on UAH trends. The black line on the second page shows the UAH trend ending in 2012, for different starting years. The error bars are shown in red; they're 95% confidence uncertainty bounds. Note that error bars on longer trends are smaller than the large error bars on shorter trends.
Anyone can reproduce my results by downloading the free "R" programming language used by professional statisticians. Then save this code as "significance.r":
Warming from greenhouse gases and a brighter sun are both amplified in the Arctic, because the sea-ice albedo feedback happens either way. As early as the 1980s, climate models have been predicting delayed warming around Antarctica.
Aside from Arctic amplification, it's also important to note that ENSO affects equatorial regions more than the Arctic. The largest El Nino ever recorded happened in 1998, followed by a string of cooling La Nina events. Since these events don't affect the Arctic as much, including Arctic temperatures increases the observed warming since 1998.
Anyone can calculate trends and uncertainties with the new HadCRUT4 hybrid dataset using the SkS trend calculator. Note that the hybrid trend since 1998 lies within the uncertainties of the previous HadCRUT4 trend, so this doesn't support accusations of a "very serious problem" with mainstream science.
Oh, I see. You were responding to the Slashdot summary which wrongly claims that "the first major effect of warming, about 1 billion years from now, will be a dramatic drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide as the oceans absorb more of it."
You were right to point out this error. The summary should say land, not ocean. Sorry for the interruption.
Presumably you're referring to these sentences:
"Rising temperatures cause silicate weathering rates to increase, increasing CO2 draw-down, lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This results in conditions that are increasingly unsuited to (higher) plant life (Lovelock & Whitfield 1982; Caldeira & Kasting 1992). During the CO2 decline, rapid ocean evaporation would not yet have begun. From Henry's Law, a reduction in atmospheric CO2 would lead to a reduction in the CO2 levels in the surface ocean, while increased silicate weathering could potentially lead to increased carbonate deposition."
There's no error here. As the Earth warms, more ice melts which exposes more silicate rocks. As the temperature increases, these rocks react faster with CO2. This sequesters carbon in the rocks, decreasing the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2, which decreases CO2 in the ocean via Henry's Law, as the text mentions.
Lgw correctly pointed out that on geological timescales, rock weathering is Earth's thermostat:
Warm the Earth and rock weathering speeds up, reducing atmospheric CO2 which slows the warming. (Of course, the end-Permian shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)
Cool the Earth and rock weathering slows down, eventually stopping when Earth turns into a snowball where all rocks are covered by ice. Eventually, enough CO2 builds up to thaw the snowball. (Of course, Snowball Earth shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)
Rather, finite signal-to-noise ratio or nonzero noise floor.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of ~5730 years, and isotope detection has a finite noise floor. Also, radiocarbon dating has to compensate for the varying rate of cosmic-ray induced carbon-14 production, and even then only works for objects less than ~45,000 years old.
One way to establish the ~4.5 billion year old earth is isochron dating like uranium-lead dating, which doesn't require knowledge of initial isotope ratios, so it doesn't require the above compensation. Isochron dating only depends on how close to constant nuclear decay rates are over geological time, which can be estimated using supernovae, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, etc.
Again, you're confusing tabloid nonsense with the IPCC. See links above.
Again, the previous sentence made it clear that they were discussing ENSO-adjusted trends, which most certainly are positive and statistically significant over 15 years. Again, see links above.
Presumably you're referring to "scientists." Also, I've repeatedly said:
Since climate is an average over ~20 years ... climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~20 years. ... I've repeatedly stressed that we need ~20 years to average out weather noise. ... professional climatologists usually smooth data and model output using ~20 year averages. ... It's also important to remember that a ~20 year timespan is necessary to obtain statistically significant temperature trends...
In fact, I've repeatedly told you that ~20 years are needed:
As I've explained, climate is the global average over ~20 years. [Dumb Scientist to Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-16]
This graph shows why scientists prefer trends calculated over at least ~20 years. [Dumb Scientist to Jane Q. Public, 2013-01-21]
I've even gone into more detail, showing you a paper that says at least 17 years are required:
Of course, you ignored me just like you previously ignored riverat1:
And 10 years has what to do with climate trends? Not much. A recent paper by Santer et. al. calculated the signal (climate) to noise (weather/natural variation) ratio for climate trends. For 10 years the S/N ratio is less than 1. They found it takes 17 years to be sure the signal is greater than the noise. [riverat1 to Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-19]
For global temperatures, Santer et al. 2011 shows that one needs to average over ~17 years of data to obtain statistically significant climate trends. Here's another explanation by Tamino. Also, the Skeptical Science trend calculator helps visualize statistical significance. [Dumb Scientist, 2012-08-15]
Perhaps your ode to conspiracy theories distracted you, but I also linked to another method of calculating significance which is even more conservative:
Also, Bart
Contrarians often use Lomborg to support their misinformation, possibly because he's getting better at pretending to accept the science. When brucmack described Lomborg as more pragmatic than skeptic, I replied that "I've never heard of Lomborg before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with."
But when I actually read his claims, it became clear that Lomborg is repeatedly misrepresenting science. Like many contrarians, Lomborg also misrepresents his own position by claiming to accept the science while simultaneously misrepresenting that science. Lomborg's books are often used to support accusations like these:
It would've been easy for you to say "Instead of 'probability of failure is multiplied', I meant that the 'probability of success is multiplied'" or even that the "probability of failure increases". Instead, you keep insisting that your original statement was 'statistically accurate' when I've shown that, at best, it's a meaningless tautology.
Learning is easier if you can recognize and learn from your mistakes, rather than compulsively doubling down on them. Here's another example...
As I've repeatedly pointed out, your bizarre claim that the probability of error is multiplied would be true if it became larger (x13) or smaller (x0.01) or the same (x1.0). It's a meaningless tautology that has nothing to do with statistics, because multiplying probabilities of error only yields the probability of all subsystems failing simultaneously, which is irrelevant nonsense.
That result can only be obtained by multiplying success probabilities.
The result is found by multiplying success probabilities. Which aren't inverses of the failure probabilities.
That's exactly why your claim that the failure probability is multiplied is a meaningless tautology.
I'm being deadly serious. I think their idea will save our civilization. Let's support them and build a brighter future!