tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6207317292471647435..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Great Minds AgreeEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5983694296157099592011-02-19T06:17:50.908-05:002011-02-19T06:17:50.908-05:00I did notice this comment at the same post, though...I did notice this comment at the same post, though...<br /><br /><i>Kenneth Fritsch (Comment#69975) February 17th, 2011 at 6:27 pm<br />[...]<br />Damn girl now I know why we are paying you the big bucks.<br />[...]"</i><br /><br />Just a compliment, or an indication of how well the Tip Box can work?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68927522535377464262011-02-19T06:15:15.891-05:002011-02-19T06:15:15.891-05:00To which Lucia adds in the actual post...
"M...To which Lucia adds in the actual post...<br /><br /><i>"Mind you: I have not thought about the idea long enough to know for sure that it is the best possible way to determine the “optimum” method. Perhaps there is some difficulty presented by the fact that if the surface stations really had warmed, we might have expected the satellite data for those stations to shift also. So, there may be something a little artificial about adding synthetic warming to the peninsula stations without tweaking the satellite data."</i><br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/sensitivity-test-odonnells-idea/<br /><br />Perhaps she should find out and submit for peer review?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52730629980285146362011-02-18T16:13:00.138-05:002011-02-18T16:13:00.138-05:00http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads...http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Steigian.jpg<br /><br /><br />Well we definately know Steig 09 did not use the "best method" if only a reviewer had "insisted" that he do so.<br /><br />lol<br /><br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37680576296002607362011-02-18T10:24:24.868-05:002011-02-18T10:24:24.868-05:00celery eater:"Hamilton now says iridge was in...celery eater:"Hamilton now says iridge was in the 2nd version whence before he said it wasn't."<br /><br />I misremembered, iridge results were put into the text of version 2 bu O'Donnell and Eric wanted it put into a figure also, THE BASTARD! Still Steig's fault for tricking them into using iridge, by making them use this as an argument rather than justifying parameters used for TTLS.<br /><br />Funny how a self proclaimed Auditor was unable to anticipate criticisms in spite of the reviewer telling them the very same things in review. Perhaps the blog should be called Clouseau Audit.<br /><br />celery eater continues:"It was in the 2nd version ONLY to show that TTLS was probably good has it yielded similar results."<br /><br />Yes, and if used inappropriately would give results equally poor with a suboptimal TTLS. Steig asked for justification in the first (refused - FAIL) , and warned them to investigate the literature to make sure there were no problem with the second (refused - FAIL - and blamed Steig). The sword cuts both ways when you use a second method and get a similar answer.<br /><br />Celery eater finishes:"The claim was not that it was a better method only that results in one area my be in better agreement with Steig 09 (which is crap)."<br /><br />O'Donnell certainly does not qualify it as better only in one area, nor because it agrees with Steig: <br /><br />“Eric recommends that we replace our TTLS results with the ridge regression ones (which required a major rewrite of both the paper and the SI) and then agrees with us that the iRidge results are likely to be better . . . and promptly attempts to turn his own recommendation against us.”t_p_hamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32357774585903282482011-02-18T03:03:11.422-05:002011-02-18T03:03:11.422-05:00@ Anonymous - I like reading Eli's thought pro...@ Anonymous - I like reading Eli's thought provoking posts and enjoy his humour. Most of the comments are also either informative or funny.<br /><br />There are occasional unfunny disinformation posts from people like celery eater. (Thankfully, on this site, most people who comment add information and don't distort facts.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90202559076653868342011-02-18T01:53:06.058-05:002011-02-18T01:53:06.058-05:00Sou is that why you stay here? To be part of the b...Sou is that why you stay here? To be part of the bunny choir?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54085562985673652102011-02-18T00:49:14.454-05:002011-02-18T00:49:14.454-05:00Celery Eater, I think you are confusing the bunnie...Celery Eater, I think you are confusing the bunnies here with people whose reading and comprehension skills are negligible. <br /><br />May I suggest you'll get a better reception on a site such as WUWT? You might even get someone there to 'agree' with you and maybe even tell you 'you're brilliant'.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50690831070158434592011-02-17T22:02:02.966-05:002011-02-17T22:02:02.966-05:00Hamilton now says iridge was in the 2nd version wh...Hamilton now says iridge was in the 2nd version whence before he said it wasn't. It was in the 2nd version ONLY to show that TTLS was probably good has it yielded similar results. The claim was not that it was a better method only that results in one area my be in better agreement with Steig 09 (which is crap).<br /><br />My how you spin and contort.<br /><br />Please do try to keep up with your changing views.<br /><br /><br />Celry EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49486654386602458042011-02-17T18:57:35.466-05:002011-02-17T18:57:35.466-05:00Celery Eater sez:"Hamilton should go read the...Celery Eater sez:"Hamilton should go read the versions of the paper. iRidge was in the second version but TTLS was still the feature and main part of the paper."<br /><br />No shit Sherlock, because<br />1.O'Donnell put it there<br />2. O'Donnell claimed it was better<br /><br />A referee is going to ask: if you got what you claim is a better method, feature it in your paper. Steig did not claim iridge was better, merely did not disagree with O'Donnell's claim it was better.<br />After rewriting to feature the method O'Donnell claimed was better, Steig points out they need to address issues brought up by Mann since they seemed unaware of them.<br /><br />How nasty of a referee insist on people using what they claim is best, and warn them of pitfalls!t_p_hamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-471901790563743832011-02-17T18:16:55.518-05:002011-02-17T18:16:55.518-05:00I am the one including the enire paragraph. you ar...I am the one including the enire paragraph. you are the one interpreting each line independently. Nice try though.<br /><br /><br />Like I said your faith prevents you from any consideration of any other possibility.<br /><br /><br />The horse is dead.<br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82735800114662031282011-02-17T17:51:47.076-05:002011-02-17T17:51:47.076-05:00Do I need to parse thsi for you?
"My recomme...Do I need to parse thsi for you?<br /><br />"My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3."<br /><br />ie, replace ONE FIGURE with a different figure showing most liekly trends.<br /><br />"While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with."<br /><br />This is the reason why the authors should do so.<br /><br /><br />"I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text."<br /><br />I'm not arguing that any particular value of kgnd is best, even though it seemed in the earlier draft that the authors imply that kgnd = 5 gives the most likely results.<br /><br /><br />"Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead."<br /><br />And it might even be that the iridge results that authors refer to in this newest draft might be best.<br /><br /><br />"The authors state that this “yields similar patterns of change as<br />shown in Fig. 3, with less intense cooling on Ross, comparable verification statistics and a statistically significant average West Antarctic trend of 0.11 +/- 0.08 C/decade.”"<br /><br />See, the authors make a plausible case.<br /><br />"If that is the case, why not show it? I recognize that these results are relatively new – since they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review – but this is not a compelling reason to leave this ‘future work’."<br /><br />If they decide it is important to use iridge to make that plausible case, show it - don't just refer to it.<br /><br />-----<br />That, celery eater, is how to read this as a coherent paragraph. And there is not one place in it where Steig insists on any given technique. He is pointing out that the authors have a lot of choices, and that the choice they had made, of kgnd = 7, is not an acceptable choice to use - but that one of these others will be.<br /><br />This is dead simple, celery eater - if you aren't trying to find phrases that you can cherry pick out to make the case you want to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82307007088968380242011-02-17T16:45:03.846-05:002011-02-17T16:45:03.846-05:00From Steig's 2nd Review (again).
My recommenda...From Steig's 2nd Review (again).<br />My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. While the written text does acknowledge<br />that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. The authors state that this “yields similar patterns of change as<br />shown in Fig. 3, with less intense cooling on Ross, comparable verification statistics and a statistically significant average West Antarctic trend of 0.11 +/- 0.08 C/decade.” If that is the case, why not show it? I recognize that these results are relatively new – since they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review – but this is not a compelling reason to leave this ‘future work’. <br /><br /><br />Notice in the beggining he says the "best results" should be used and then refers to these as "new results" and says "why not show it" and there is "no compelling reason to leave this as future work". <br /><br />Remember O'Donnel stated that irdge would be in a future work.<br /><br /><br />Nice box you are in Lee either you are right and Steig does not know how to properly construct a paragraph capturing his thoughts or you are mistaken and when Steig insisted that the most likely results be shown he was indeed referring to the irdge results.<br /><br />I know you will not yield as your faith prevents this, but I offer the exercise nonetheless.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70002519913059529662011-02-17T16:33:05.950-05:002011-02-17T16:33:05.950-05:00Hamilton should go read the versions of the paper....Hamilton should go read the versions of the paper. iRidge was in the second version but TTLS was still the feature and main part of the paper.<br /><br />Lee that's pretty funny speculation on your part. Steig seemed pretty confident on what was best in public comments. He in fact set himself up pretty well to attack this paper in public, that clearly shows Steig's result are worthless.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89948887328953108142011-02-17T16:23:39.460-05:002011-02-17T16:23:39.460-05:00"Lee,
What "most likely" method do..."Lee,<br /><br />What "most likely" method do you think Steig was referring to? TTLS? irdige? Some other mystery method not mentioned?"<br /><br />Oh, good god...<br /><br />Steig doesn't say which is best - he's not the fricking author! It's the author's job to figure that out - its is their analysis.<br /><br />He spent much of the previous review, and much of the first part of this review, showing that TTLS with kgnd=7 was the WORST of the results that O et al report. He doesn't want them to base their analysis on the worst result, but on the best. In context, clearly he wants them to use the best of what they have reported in their paper.<br /><br />Steig doens't tell them what the best is - it is the authors job to figure that out, and then to justify that choice in the paper. Perhaps the best might be TTLS with a different value of kgnd - Steig had argued for that already. Perhaps several of the values of kgnd give comparable results, perhaps iridge is best, or comparable. <br /><br />Steig doesn't say which is best - he accepts, cince the author have mentioned iridge, that perhaps it might be iridge, but he doesn't insist on it. What he is insisting on is that the authors NOT use the WORST results, and he asks that the editor require the authors to use the BEST results in their graphics and analysis - which would perforce be determined by the authors and justified in the rewrite.<br /><br />The best might have been, for example, TTLS with kgnd = 5, and perhaps the authors could have done the analysis and shown that this was representative of several equally good (based on verification statistics) results. <br /><br />I suspect that the authors didn't want to use gnd = (anything except 7) because doing so would show much better agreement with Steig than they wanted to imply. I suspect that because of they, they were already committed in their own minds to using either kgnd = 7, or iridge, because these gave the result they wanted to show - so that when Steig nixed kgnd = 7, they read it that their only option was iridge. <br /><br />Steig didn't insist on iridge - Steig was clearly willing to accept a value of kgnd with better verification statistics, preferably with the best verification statistics. But the authors were not, so they (and you, it seems) read that as requiring that they use iridge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26855562320993538402011-02-17T15:58:36.302-05:002011-02-17T15:58:36.302-05:00Celery eater wants clairvoyance from Steig: "...Celery eater wants clairvoyance from Steig: "Steig never mentioned the possible problems with iridge until the 3rd review. The only "most likely" results were the iridge ones at the time Steig said that. wow just wow."<br /><br />Iridge was not in version 2, that is why Steig asked it to be shown (in version 3). It was put in version 3, but with no caveats. Steig mentions in review 3 that O'Donnell should consider published shortcomings, but no, O'Donnell appeal to the editor, ignore Steig, and then get upset when Steig points out in a public post that their iridge based analysis has problems. EPIC FAIL.t_p_hamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27767369286478765312011-02-17T13:40:13.719-05:002011-02-17T13:40:13.719-05:00Sou,
Please do try to at lkeast paraphrase and re...Sou,<br /><br />Please do try to at lkeast paraphrase and represent what I have said accuratley. I NEVER said Steig proposed iridge. Please quote me if I am wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17854807498223285982011-02-17T13:38:47.784-05:002011-02-17T13:38:47.784-05:00Lee,
What "most likely" method do you t...Lee,<br /><br />What "most likely" method do you think Steig was referring to? TTLS? irdige? Some other mystery method not mentioned?<br /><br />Oh I get it Steig was saying that he insists they use the most likely method to the editor and the editor calls for a rewrite and O'Donnel et. al are supposed to go out and use every method possible known, find the most likely result and come back.<br /><br />Genius.<br /><br /><br />Lee meet Mr. IllogicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50046612847030014022011-02-17T13:35:41.849-05:002011-02-17T13:35:41.849-05:00OMG you people are hopeless. Steig never mentioned...OMG you people are hopeless. Steig never mentioned the possible problems with iridge until the 3rd review. The only "most likely" results were the iridge ones at the time Steig said that. wow just wow.<br /><br />Still not a single critical word from any of the team members, talk about religon.<br /><br />Out<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18660459045859303792011-02-17T00:17:11.800-05:002011-02-17T00:17:11.800-05:00@sou:
I don't think even ODonnell's respo...@sou:<br /><br />I don't think even ODonnell's response there gets it right. Nowhere do I read Steig saying that he seems to think that iridge would be the 'most likely' results. He had spent the first several pages of the review rehashing the argument over the kgnd setting, and arguing forcefully that using kgnd=7 was NOT the best result, tha tamong th kgnd settings that o et al report, a different settign woudl be the best.<br /><br />It seems to me that he acknowledges that "perhaps" O'Donnell's use of iridge might actually be even better "as the authors suggest" but he wants that justified. He did not insist that the authors change from TTLS to iridge - he asked that the editor insist that they use the best of their results and explain it.<br /><br />O'Donnell et al decided that iridge was best, and they rewrote the paper - they decided, not Steig, to rewrite it - but they screwed it up and failed to discuss a major shortcoming of iridge that was likely to have a direct impact on their analysis. <br /><br />Even worse, they managed to get the editor to bypass the additional round of review that Steig asked for after the authors responded to the 'best results' problem - so Steig didn't have a chance to catch that error in review, and the new reviewer D apparently wasn't up to speed enough in the field to catch it.<br /><br />But it is clear - no where does Steig "Insist" that O et al use iridge. Celery eater says again "Steig (seeing the trends are closer to his own paper) INSISTS they use that method and relagate TTLS to the back," but nowhere is there cite or quote where Steig says this.<br /><br />-LeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50327930356714523692011-02-16T23:18:54.525-05:002011-02-16T23:18:54.525-05:00CE is trying to learn duplicity, not quoting from ...CE is trying to learn duplicity, not quoting from O'Donnell himself let alone from the review notes that have since been made public, preferring to make stuff up. As she or he knows, Steig did not insist on any particular method, only that the most likely results be shown in the figure. Perhaps CE prefers to only be told about the least likely results? Odd that.<br /><br />This is part of what O'Donnell wrote:<br /><i>"Some people have read selected excerpts and come to the conclusion that Eric actually proposed iRidge independently of us, and have thus used this as a defense of my actions. <b>This is not true. We were the first to mention iRidge. Eric recommended that our "most likely" results</b> - which he seemed to think [accurately] would be the iRidge results - should be what appeared in the main paper. <b>These are different things.</b>"</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49850994127934543032011-02-16T23:17:34.151-05:002011-02-16T23:17:34.151-05:00Celery eater's summary is inaccurate, what els...Celery eater's summary is inaccurate, what else is to be expected? <br /><br />Steig did not insist that they use iridge, he insisted on them reporting it since they had replied to the first review using iridge results INSTEAD of addressing his point about justifying the value chosen for a parameter in TTLS. This is an O'Donnell et al. fail 100% in response to review 1. Review 2 or 3 says if you use iridge, make sure you address reported problems with iridge. O'Donnell et al. failed AGAIN.t_p_hamiltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50887897042427181162011-02-16T22:10:47.830-05:002011-02-16T22:10:47.830-05:00Thanks for the link Sou, it perfectly supports my ...Thanks for the link Sou, it perfectly supports my summaries of the events above.<br /><br />"Steig complains of the usage of TTLS, Ryan et. al. show here is another method that shows similar results, Steig (seeing the trends are closer to his own paper) INSISTS they use that method and relagate TTLS to the back, Ryan says they may do that in a future paper even though both agree iridge INITIAL results are more likely."<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26470467885378829272011-02-16T21:38:34.265-05:002011-02-16T21:38:34.265-05:00Looks like celeryeater doesn't believe anyone,...Looks like celeryeater doesn't believe anyone, not even O'D:<br /><br />http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/steig_this_is_not_complicated.html#c2047813Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17841175729973567882011-02-16T19:48:34.395-05:002011-02-16T19:48:34.395-05:00That would be great Lee if Ryan had used iridge fo...That would be great Lee if Ryan had used iridge for his paper, he did not. He used it to show another method would yield a similar result. He said he would do more work with it in a future paper. Steig then insisted it be the main focus of the paper instead of TTLS. IOW Steig complains of the usage of TTLS, Ryan et. al. show here is another method that shows similar results, Steig (seeing the trends are closer to his own paper) INSISTS they use that method and relagate TTLS to the back, Ryan says they may do that in a future paper even though both agree iridge INITIAL results are more likely. Steig obviously got pretty defensive and petty with his reviews of O'Donnel, but I get your point whatever Steig says, you believe whatever O'Donnel or anyone else says you do not. Keep spinning no one is buying it. Both of these men committed wrongs in this, at least I see that. And you?<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87482521971874918912011-02-16T19:08:28.113-05:002011-02-16T19:08:28.113-05:00@ celery eater:
Fine argument if that were what S...@ celery eater:<br /><br />Fine argument if that were what Steig did. But, it isn't.<br /><br />Steig never suggested ridge regression. <br /><br />In his earlier review, he pushed RyanO et al pretty hard on problems with their use of TTLS, and that using kgnd=7 was not objectively the best result, based on verification stastistics, but that that was the value they chose to use on their analysis and graphics.<br /><br />He suggested they deal with those problems. Not that they use iridge - rather, that they properly deal with the issue with their use of TTLS.<br /><br />RyanO et al chose, in response, to add the iridge results to the paper, but not show them. The authors chose to do that, not Steig. In fact, in Ryan's first slanderous post at CA, he make a point of saying that Steig takes too much credit when he says "since they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review" since the authors had already done that work anyway. IOW, RyanO acknowledges that their iridge analysis predates any suggestions from Steig.<br /><br />In your quoted portion of this review, Steig is saying two things:<br /><br />1. O et al are still showing graphics from an analysis that is not objectively the best analysis, and the editor should insist they show the best one.<br /><br />AND <br /><br />2. if the authors are going to use iridge to justify their argument, then they need to properly include the iridge results in this paper, and get it re-reviewed.<br /><br />Properly including iridge, and getting it through review, would necessarily mean also discussing known problems with iridge - such as the well-known problem that it underestimates trends in exactly the kinds of situation that O were using it to address. It is not the reviewers job to write the paper for the authors - that's why Steig suggested another round of reviews of the revised paper, so that it could be seen whether O et al properly deal with the iridge issues.<br /><br />O et al did end up using iridge, but Steig never got to re-review the paper, and O et al managed to show the iridge result without properly dealing with the underestimation of trends issue - and it was this problem that Steig pointed out in his RealClimate post.<br /><br />Nowhere in there does Steig SUGGEST that O et al use iridge, and no where in there does he INSIST they use iridge instead of TTLS.<br /><br />Y'all keep making this argument, that Steig set them up o iridge. He simply did not - the authors chose to use iridge, and the authors didnt properly deal with the underestimatin issue. As far as I can see, the argument either demonstrates that all y'all simply cant read, or it presupposes that none of us can read.<br /><br />-LeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com