tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1693418559633864107..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Upsides Down and BackwardsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4715158763153073502014-10-01T11:23:40.706-04:002014-10-01T11:23:40.706-04:00Do these people have an explanation for Zhang et a...Do these people have an explanation for Zhang et al? (see my blog). Tree rings. Temperature reconstruction. China. Big sample. Lo and Behold! a Hockey Stick!<br />I presume they would call this a coincidence, or a lie. Seems reasonably clear-cut from where I'm sitting.The Old Man is backhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06299949591915788184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91240131715386175242014-09-30T12:06:11.293-04:002014-09-30T12:06:11.293-04:00McIntyre is simply trying to throw as much FUD up ...McIntyre is simply trying to throw as much FUD up as he can at this point so that what Deep Climate pointed out long ago gets lost in the blizzard.<br /><br />It's really rather pathetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35686971188543231972014-09-30T10:36:56.714-04:002014-09-30T10:36:56.714-04:00Jeffrey Davis - Yep, in MM05 the sample PC1 extrac...Jeffrey Davis - Yep, in MM05 the sample PC1 extracted using MBH from synthetic data is almost an order of magnitude smaller than that from the proxy data (0.08 vs. 0.6).<br /><br />That should have triggered a reality check right there.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70850383260637232942014-09-29T19:16:58.433-04:002014-09-29T19:16:58.433-04:00Wegman blamed others, but that don't make it s...Wegman blamed others, but that don't make it so.<br /><br />Read Deep Climate and you will see that the Wegman report was not the first time. There is history.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20746079072915769272014-09-29T17:34:26.947-04:002014-09-29T17:34:26.947-04:00speaking of flipping have you seen this?
http://...speaking of flipping have you seen this?<br /><br /><br />http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f38_1367436965<br /><br />( I hope this doesn't get me banned. I have to be so careful with you evil war mists)tonylearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168161576867493109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34404370335176143232014-09-29T17:31:14.141-04:002014-09-29T17:31:14.141-04:00Am I the only one that loves Brandon? He somehow m...Am I the only one that loves Brandon? He somehow manages to get embroiled in all the most arcanely detailed rabbit holes ( sorry Eli) and manages to turn them into such complicated messes that even the most obvious reality gets totally confused. <br />tonylearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168161576867493109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9035843767541931012014-09-29T15:24:32.737-04:002014-09-29T15:24:32.737-04:00Actually, I don't think Wegman did much. He ri...Actually, I don't think Wegman did much. He rightfully takes most of the blame, but I am quite certain Yasmin Said was put to the task, was overwhelmed, and took a short-cut.<br /><br />So, Xerox should be hiring Said...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88272238018454066932014-09-29T12:36:17.881-04:002014-09-29T12:36:17.881-04:00'the claim of independent replication turns ou... 'the claim of independent replication turns out to be completely false."<br /><br />I think what he meant was 'duplication" because that's what Wegman did (and excels at), duplicated McIntyre's file of the top 1%<br />(that, and significant parts of Bradley's book)<br /><br />Arnold is the Terminator and Wegman is the Duplicator. Maybe Xerox should hire him. Wonder how fast he is.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47783555546164925792014-09-29T11:39:32.511-04:002014-09-29T11:39:32.511-04:00Eli had tried to put a couple of comments over at ...Eli had tried to put a couple of comments over at the Auditor's lair, but alas they have not appeared although they were nice and calm. <br /><br />To reiterate, by defining the Hockey Stick Index as McIntyre did and then selecting the 100 with the highest scores for the random draw, those pointing downwards at the end (which would have negative HSI) would not even be considered. Thus this whole nonsense about flipping the birds is just that.<br /><br />Perhaps someotherbunnies could go post there. Eli tires of agitating a bag of wind.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17298687347171923042014-09-29T11:00:37.228-04:002014-09-29T11:00:37.228-04:00I'm old and my memory isn't great, so grai...I'm old and my memory isn't great, so grain of salt and all that, but I also remember an issue with the y-axis of McIntyre's graph. Wasn't it hugely out-of-scale with the graphs it was supposed to be debunking? that the "hockey-stick" it showed (from cherry-picked data) would just look like noise at the same scale as Mann's graphs?Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4720913545304485962014-09-29T09:57:36.981-04:002014-09-29T09:57:36.981-04:00Caption to the Wegman Report's Figure 4.4:
Fig...Caption to the Wegman Report's Figure 4.4:<br /><i>Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications.</i><br /><br />The orientation issue in Wegman's Figure 4.4 is interesting for what the Auditor and others never want to admit: The orientation should have provided Wegman with the necessary clue to investigate the code. Investigate the code and discover the results in Fig. 4.4 are from the archived 100:1 cherry-pick file. <br /><br />The Auditor and others claim that flipping the orientation so that they're all upward-sloping is for consistency. That point is moot regarding the Wegman Report. Wegman didn't flip anything. <br /><br />We know Wegman didn't flip any images to build a figure with consistent orientation because the images are all from the archived file. In that file are the 100 results with the largest HSIndex - all with positive sign. He took twelve images the code grabbed from the archived file and it apparently never struck him as odd that all 12 were upward-sloping. The odds that a random sample would all have the same sign are astronomical.<br /><br />The caption to Figure 4.4 is a multitude of errors. The noise model is incorrectly stated, the images all come from the 100:1 cherry-picked archive file, and the claim of independent replication turns out to be completely false.<br /><br />Other than that I don't see any problems with it :)Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83475190397734266652014-09-29T09:30:27.611-04:002014-09-29T09:30:27.611-04:00Readers may also like:
http://andthentheresphysic...Readers may also like:<br /><br />http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-ghost-of-present-climateball-tm/<br /><br />***<br /><br />Why the Auditor does not comment at Nick's?<br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15335055204201342702014-09-29T08:21:46.982-04:002014-09-29T08:21:46.982-04:00"This whole fixation on PC1 is just silly; to...<i>"This whole fixation on PC1 is just silly; to capture the full climate signal in paleoclimate data, *multiple* PC's should typically be retained."</i><br /><br />And if you retain all the PC's, it's just like doing no PCA at all.<br /><br />Actually, the whole fixation on PCA is silly. PCA is a data reduction technique. Nothing more.It's not even necessary (for this case or any other) and can actually be worse than doing nothing if one does not retain enough PC's for the case at hand.<br /><br />Those who make it out to be something more don't really understand what it is (and what it is not.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91136878204178120712014-09-29T04:45:46.361-04:002014-09-29T04:45:46.361-04:00Why doesn't McIntyre come over and comment her...Why doesn't McIntyre come over and comment here? It's his work being thrown in the dustbin of wrong, and he isn't a king (well, that's maybe not true in your eyes).J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19560709216204142882014-09-29T01:14:32.180-04:002014-09-29T01:14:32.180-04:00In my opinion, the biggest mistake Mann et al ever...In my opinion, the biggest mistake Mann et al ever made had nothing to do with PCA centering. <br /><br />It was using PCA when they didn't need to.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87854116128608367342014-09-28T23:41:27.689-04:002014-09-28T23:41:27.689-04:00why doesn't Josh go over to climate audit and ...why doesn't Josh go over to climate audit and comment there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47706627100186518772014-09-28T22:15:08.621-04:002014-09-28T22:15:08.621-04:00This whole fixation on PC1 is just silly; to captu...This whole fixation on PC1 is just silly; to capture the full climate signal in paleoclimate data, *multiple* PC's should typically be retained.<br /><br />Wahl/Ammann demonstrated just that with an R-code package they released with their 2007(?) paper; their code, when run with Mann's NOAMER tree-ring data, shows that the "hockey-stick" PC1 produced from "short-centered" data can be reproduced from a linear combination of multiple PC's computed from "full-centered" data. <br /><br />If you compute the number of PC's to retain with "full-centered" with the same algorithm that Mann used to compute the #PC's to retain from his "short-centered" data, your "full-centered" and "short-centered" results will be nearly identical. <br /><br /><br />IOW, if you apply Mann's PC selection criteria *consistently* for short-centered and full-centered data, you get the same answer (i.e. a "hockey-stick").<br /><br />However, if you compute the number of PC's to retain for "short-centered" data (with Mann's selection algorithm) and then fail to recompute the number of PC's to retain when you switch to "full centering", you won't get a hockey-stick result.<br /><br />That's not because Mann's "short-centering" mines data for phantom hockey-sticks; it's because you screwed up.<br /><br />Anyway, this "discussion" has been going on for what, nearly a decade now? And over something as basic as computing the number of PC's you should retain before you proceed with your analysis?<br /><br />I'm definitely not an expert at any of this; I just remember the basics of this stuff (from having applied SVD/PC techniques to speed up "production" processing of acoustic array data years ago). <br /><br />BTW, full Wahl/Ammann code that demonstrates the above can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6dHB2dV96OHpGU0U/view?usp=sharingcaerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52844561663594629742014-09-28T20:50:20.831-04:002014-09-28T20:50:20.831-04:00Exactly right. Gerry North nailed it in the NAS r...Exactly right. <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/gerald-north-dishes.html" rel="nofollow">Gerry North nailed it</a> in the NAS report and the Washington Post. Still, a bunny can have a great deal of fun agitating a bag of wind.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88007363882529262622014-09-28T19:48:32.295-04:002014-09-28T19:48:32.295-04:00This all seems to getting almost mathematically th...This all seems to getting almost mathematically theological.<br /><br />One thing being missed is that creation in science is almost never precisely right in the first go. But that hardly makes it useless -- look at all the work that followed MBH since 1998: it led to a flowering of the field of paleoclimatology and analyses of the data with other methods that give essentially the same results.<br /><br />Whether MBH98 & 99 were exactly correct in every detail isn't the point at all -- the point is that it showed the way for others to follow (and improve upon), which was its greatest accomplishment. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82044102114454256492014-09-28T19:47:17.606-04:002014-09-28T19:47:17.606-04:00IIRC, didn't McIntyre include the graph of his...IIRC, didn't McIntyre include the graph of his pre-selected data as a kind of lagniappe, without comment, as SJ Perelman joked about Seth Pecksniff, as though butter wouldn't melt in his mouth? It's been so long ago. <br />Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.com