tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post1616591178710214371..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Ted Cruz Stacks the DeckDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-89288847216590611892015-12-10T19:04:22.110-08:002015-12-10T19:04:22.110-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"IMHO a better chart woul...David in Cal wrote:<br />"IMHO a better chart would have shown both series: measured temperature for recent years and modeled temperature for recent years."<br /><br />That's your opinion. Mann had a different opinion. <br /><br />Having a different opinion does not mean Mann committed fraud.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-25450482464630879862015-12-09T09:52:50.199-08:002015-12-09T09:52:50.199-08:00David in Cal,
Thanks for the link. I appreciate i...David in Cal,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.<br /><br />Since you seem like a reasonable person (in some ways), I'll throw in my 2 cents about Mann's paper. You can respond if you like, but I won't since I pretty sick of this subject myself. <br /><br />You should actually read the Mann paper. You can find a copy of it somewhere on the internet that is not behind a paywall. You'd be surprised as to what the paper is actually about. Mann's intent was not to show the world a hockey stick. He didn't need to do a principal component analysis to do that. He could have merely showed the data and that would have been sufficient. What he was actually interested in was unraveling the natural patterns in NH climate. That's the reason for the PCA. We use it in plasma physics to reconstruct plasma equilibrium. It's been a while since I read the paper, but from memory he was interested in looking at things like ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation. <br /><br />When you do a PCA you get a set of eigenvalues that correspond to a set of eigenfunctions. Using his centering the warming component was the first and therefore the largest eigenvalue. There is a criteria for how many eigenvalues you should use in the reconstruction. The essential point is that when you do the full reconstruction you should get very close to the original data that you started with. <br /><br />What M&M (McIntyre and McKitrick) did was to change the centering. What that does is change to order of the eigenvalues. The warming component is still there, but it's not longer the largest eigenvalue. M&M simply threw it away, which is nothing less than fraud. <br /><br />JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06540568535579405609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-64117071973496077802015-12-09T00:04:25.318-08:002015-12-09T00:04:25.318-08:00Joe T. and David Appell -- This looks like the ent...Joe T. and David Appell -- This looks like the entire hearing on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-50739897631845180252015-12-08T23:48:26.755-08:002015-12-08T23:48:26.755-08:00Joe T - you can find 5 1/2 minutes of Mark Steyn&#...Joe T - you can find 5 1/2 minutes of Mark Steyn's comments on a video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTM13sI2BFQ<br /><br />CheersDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-51011013367620626682015-12-08T18:41:06.579-08:002015-12-08T18:41:06.579-08:00Joe: I wasn't able to watch today's hearin...Joe: I wasn't able to watch today's hearing, but have tried to catch up via Twitter. <br /><br />Eli live-blogged it here:<br /><br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/12/senate-hearing-live-blog.html<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-8565548294684636352015-12-08T18:34:55.980-08:002015-12-08T18:34:55.980-08:00David Appell,
Did you watch the hearing today? I ...David Appell,<br /><br />Did you watch the hearing today? I wasn't able to so I was hoping that you might say a bit what you found interesting (or not so interesting, as the case may be). <br /><br />I can't even find online a recorded video of the hearing. Does one exist that we can still watch? <br /><br />[uggh, if I have to read one more boring objection to Michael Mann's reconstruction I'm going to puke. Seriously, principal component analysis is not that difficult to understand]JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06540568535579405609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-83640450041692421722015-12-06T12:13:19.575-08:002015-12-06T12:13:19.575-08:00A statistician who understood the word "trick...A statistician who understood the word "trick" as used by Jones:<br /><br />http://is.gd/ZAbrds<br /><br />https://books.google.com/books?id=g_S_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=the+word+trick+in+science&source=bl&ots=2kKPuv_df0&sig=Ai6MvrcfwmHAJHnuo9X_lNReluQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN96mkg8jJAhUFoYMKHT7ABu4Q6AEITzAM#v=onepage&q=the%20word%20trick%20in%20science&f=falseDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10861724317866271622015-12-06T12:01:16.403-08:002015-12-06T12:01:16.403-08:00"I said is wasconceivable that the word "..."I said is wasconceivable that the word "trick" was used as you believe it was."<br /><br />You're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. When are you going to admit it?<br /><br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/11/word-trick.html<br /><br />"So what is "Mike's Nature trick"? This refers to a technique (in other words, "trick of the trade")...."<br />https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm<br /><br />"Regarding the “hide the decline” email, Jones has explained that when he used the word “trick”, he simply meant “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”."<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.htmlDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-86896793528342062442015-12-05T22:29:51.441-08:002015-12-05T22:29:51.441-08:00REviewing your comments, David, I see that my stat...REviewing your comments, David, I see that my statement that your interpretation was conceivable was misread as if I had written "inconceivable".<br /><br />On reflection, Mann didn't put all the information on one chart. In fact, what was noteworthy was that the chart omitted a key bit of information-- namely, what his tree-ring model would have shown for recent years. IMHO a better chart would have shown both series: measured temperature for recent years and modeled temperature for recent years.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-74697618313844051222015-12-05T22:08:20.119-08:002015-12-05T22:08:20.119-08:00Are you calling me a liar? No, indeed. I said is...<i>Are you calling me a liar?</i> No, indeed. I said is <i>was</i>conceivable that the word "trick" was used as you believe it was. BTW I tend to doubt that you've taken more math courses than I. I spent 5 years as a math grad student at Berkeley. I am a kind of scientist, if you call Actuarial Science a science. My bistatistician wife of 50 years is a real scientist. She co-authored over 100 papers in scientific journals. So, I too am familiar with how mathematicians and scientists talk.<br />David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-64542571338295497422015-12-05T21:23:39.261-08:002015-12-05T21:23:39.261-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"...the question arises, ...David in Cal wrote:<br />"...the question arises, What is it that was clever about Mann's mixing of graphs?"<br /><br />It put all the information on one graph.<br /><br />Scientific papers usually strive to be concise. Page space, page charges, general scholarship, and all that. <br /><br />Again, these papers are written for professionals, not amateurs. Watson and Crick's famous paper on the structure of DNA spanned only two pages, and was barely a single page long in length:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdfDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-40132912367399940102015-12-05T21:01:50.144-08:002015-12-05T21:01:50.144-08:00http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick...http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htmDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-5568316530262449822015-12-05T20:56:33.492-08:002015-12-05T20:56:33.492-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"The only cleverness I sa...David in Cal wrote:<br />"The only cleverness I saw was to make it harder to see that the tree rings didn't match recent temperatures."<br /><br />That reflects your inability to understand the science. <br /><br />Scientific papers aren't written for amateur like you.<br /><br />"If your interpretation is correct, then there was a scientifically valid clever reason to splice the graph in this way. What was that reason?"<br /><br />Because the model's conclusions about some tree rings after about 1960 weren't valid because of the divergence problem:<br /><br />“On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the<br />tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D'Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.<br />http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71884937077257534592015-12-05T20:53:24.452-08:002015-12-05T20:53:24.452-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"It's conceivable tha...David in Cal wrote:<br />"It's conceivable that Dr. Jones was using the word "trick" to mean "clever idea""<br /><br />David: I've taken a lot more science courses than you have, and math courses, and listened to a lot more seminars, colloquia, and talks than you, and talked to a lot more scientists.<br /><br />Innumerable times I've heard the word "trick" used to mean "a clever idea." <br /><br />Are you calling me a liar? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-25598648912251265292015-12-05T20:51:13.736-08:002015-12-05T20:51:13.736-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"It's conceivable tha...David in Cal wrote:<br />"It's conceivable that Dr. Jones was using the word "trick" to mean "clever idea""<br /><br />Why is it inconceivable? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-85195369884986620682015-12-05T15:58:14.838-08:002015-12-05T15:58:14.838-08:00David -- It's conceivable that Dr. Jones was u...David -- It's conceivable that Dr. Jones was using the word "trick" to mean "clever idea", rather than its main definition, "a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud." However, if you're right, the question arises,<i> What is it that was clever about Mann's mixing of graphs?</i> <br /><br />The only cleverness I saw was to make it harder to see that the tree rings didn't match recent temperatures. If your interpretation is correct, then there was a scientifically valid clever reason to splice the graph in this way. What was that reason? David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-42118885611727040532015-12-05T15:53:58.214-08:002015-12-05T15:53:58.214-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"I sympathize with this s...David in Cal wrote:<br />"I sympathize with this sentiment. Statistics looks a lot easier than physics or medicine. However, statistics isn't as easy as it appears. Most medical researchers are very smart. Yet, all the top medical journals require a qualified statistician to sign off on the statistical work. Otherwise, they won't accept the paper."<br /><br />Physical scientists are a lot better at math than medical researchers. <br /><br />Sorry to burst your self-centered bubble, but statistics isn't that difficult to learn. Or to do. Physicists are very smart and very good at math, and statistics is just applied math. <br /><br />And there isn't even that much of it, because doing climate research is fundamentally different from doing medical research -- it's an observational science, not an experimental science. Climate scientists don't set up a sytem in a controlled/initial state and see what changes. There is only one Earth, so that is impossible. So, in fact, you see very few p-values quoted in climate science, because that simply isn't how data in an observational science is done. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-33251347905754288322015-12-05T15:49:22.253-08:002015-12-05T15:49:22.253-08:00"David, which science do you claim I distorte..."David, which science do you claim I distorted?"<br /><br />Read my comments above.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23293446097655760412015-12-05T15:47:03.063-08:002015-12-05T15:47:03.063-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"Because Mann's colle...David in Cal wrote:<br />"Because Mann's colleague Phil Jones recognized it a trick to hide the fact that Mann's model didn't match actual temperatures."<br /><br />You are really scrapping the shit off the bottom of the barrel now, aren't you.<br /><br />Do you know what the word "trick" means in science, David? No, of course you don't.<br /><br />It means a clever idea.<br /><br />That's all. Liars like you are distorting this for your own ends because you cannot compete on the science. It's dispicable.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-59630011760083325322015-12-05T15:45:02.553-08:002015-12-05T15:45:02.553-08:00David, which science do you claim I distorted?
Che...David, which science do you claim I distorted?<br />Cheers<br />David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10644232292808044582015-12-05T15:44:59.061-08:002015-12-05T15:44:59.061-08:00I couldn't care less what John Cook said, and ...I couldn't care less what John Cook said, and have said so on this blog. <br /><br />In any case, the agreement on consensus is over 99%:<br /><br />http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/<br /><br />"E.g. 2. Climatologists don't know that much. They don't know what the sensitivity of climate to CO2 is."<br /><br />David -- this is your last warning. If you do not stop lying like this, all of your subsequent comments will be immediately deleted. <br /><br />Got it?<br /><br />"They don't know how rising temperatures will affect other weather. They know very little about natural causes of temperature variation."<br /><br />So tell us, David, in your expert opinion as an actuarial, what are the natural causes of global warming that climate scientists are overlooking?<br /><br />"E.g. 3. The public has been told that global warming causes more general climate change. That's just a theory. There is no consensus about global warming causing more windstorms, droughts, floods, weather extremes, etc. There's no study, not even a flawed one, claiming to show a consensus that global warming will have any of these effects."<br /><br />Bullshit. A more energetic system has larger fluctuations -- that's basic thermodynamics. <br /><br />Did you ever study thermodynamics, David? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-42314672764241881772015-12-05T15:39:58.762-08:002015-12-05T15:39:58.762-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"What I mostly dislike is...David in Cal wrote:<br />"What I mostly dislike is that much of the public has been misled about the scientific conclusions."<br /><br />What I don't like is you lying like this. <br /><br />You distort the science, and then blame scientists for that distortion. You should be ashamed of yourself. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73679461375979301932015-12-05T15:38:27.999-08:002015-12-05T15:38:27.999-08:00"3. Because IMHO that graph was intended to m..."3. Because IMHO that graph was intended to make Mann's model look stronger than it actually was."<br /><br />This shows you didn't understand Mann's work, while lots of others did. Your fault, not his. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70033043325031390302015-12-05T15:37:24.648-08:002015-12-05T15:37:24.648-08:00""The graph was clearly labeled. So how ...""The graph was clearly labeled. So how was it misleading?""<br />"1. Because it never should have been included."<br />Instead, Mann ought to have included a consistent graph and pointed out the lack of agreement between tree rings and actual temperatures for recent years, when the actual temperature was known."<br /><br />Why? He was writing for experts who already understood the divergence problem. His graph used different colors for different lines, clearly showing they were...different.<br /><br />"He should have stated that this lack of agreement meant that his model was uncertain, at best."<br /><br />In what way did this lack of agreement mean his model was "uncertain?" Specifically. <br /><br />The fact is, Mann's model doesn't go past about 1960, BECAUSE of the divergence problem. But his result drove deniers like you so mad that you lie about his what his model actually meant and where it applied. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-2698028525101912462015-12-05T15:33:51.370-08:002015-12-05T15:33:51.370-08:00"Because that graph was reproduced elsewhere ..."Because that graph was reproduced elsewhere without the full labeling."<br /><br />Where?<br /><br />How is that Mann's fault?<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.com