tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post1885434632316522892..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: Climate and statistical forecastingNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-77566065964560849002016-04-03T08:52:04.460+10:002016-04-03T08:52:04.460+10:00To put it charitably, Nate Silver is ignorant when...To put it charitably, Nate Silver is ignorant when it comes to science. And I would also argue that statistics plays a minor role as both CO2 warming and ENSO are both deterministic and single origin in nature. The only real statistical contributor to global temperature variations are volcanos and we haven't seen major eruptions recently.@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-7687314890218223002016-04-02T22:02:14.548+11:002016-04-02T22:02:14.548+11:00To the survival of the speciesTo the survival of the speciesPGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-29772144656686072302016-04-02T21:49:49.444+11:002016-04-02T21:49:49.444+11:00Nate Silver may have made stats sexy but Nick and ...Nate Silver may have made stats sexy but Nick and Tamino have made it essential.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-45840724114377337662016-04-02T00:42:36.416+11:002016-04-02T00:42:36.416+11:00One major point of confusion looking at that is th...One major point of confusion looking at that is the negative spike for 1997/98. You've marked 'Phase Reversal' at the top - is this suggesting some major shift in the climate system so that processes which used to produce positive ENSO now produce negative ENSO?PaulSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-7771587474682065682016-04-01T23:36:01.753+11:002016-04-01T23:36:01.753+11:00And you have to consider this model for ENSO to ap...And you have to consider this model for ENSO to appreciate how red noise plays no role<br /><br />http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/219/OyG6rV.png@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-23421479734108873272016-03-30T20:33:15.108+11:002016-03-30T20:33:15.108+11:00I see the GWPF spin machine is hard at work on the...I see the GWPF spin machine is hard at work on the Mills report. It's got a pliant "environment editor" at the London Times (Murdoch stable) to produce an article claiming that Mills predicts no global temperature rise right up to 2100, with a very clear graphic demonstrating exactly that. The GWPF then posts this article on its website:<br /><br />http://www.thegwpf.com/planet-is-not-overheating-says-uk-statistician/<br /><br />To think that the GWPF is run by the UK's former finance minister... (who also happens to be the father of Monckton's brother-in-law)<br /><br />bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-5503349299871413542016-03-30T07:13:28.653+11:002016-03-30T07:13:28.653+11:00I agree it doesn't add up, especially since th...I agree it doesn't add up, especially since the chief theorist behind the QBO, Richard Lindzen had suggested that lunisolar tides could have something to do with the behavior very early on -- in his words <i>"Lunar tides are especially well suited to such studies since it is unlikely that lunar periods could be produced by anything other than the lunar tidal potential."</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, Lindzen could not detect the pattern, most likely because he didn't understand how the lunar gravitational cycles could be strongly aliased against the seasonal cycle, which can combine potential energy and thermal energy to get the QBO in motion.<br /><br />It's very easy to conceptually debunk the lunisolar cycle QBO model -- all you have to do is show that the lunar cycles get out-of-phase with the QBO measurements. I am not able to falsify the model because the fit works way too well and has stayed in phase with the moon for more than 60 years. <br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-83694141901825609032016-03-30T05:25:55.743+11:002016-03-30T05:25:55.743+11:00It seems I can imagine a "climate scientist&q...It seems I can imagine a "climate scientist" working on tidal predictions, using an inadequate model based on simply the gravitation effects of the sun and the moon, and then adjusting the data from tide guages to fit the model. The realities of tidal prediction are actually far closer to the idea of curve fitting, and are largely based on Fourier analysis of real data in order to capture the complexities induced by the real shape of the oceans and the oscillatory harmonics that induces, which far outperform the work of Laplace to improve on the basic gravitation model. <br /><br />The methodology was originally developed and incorporated in an analogue computer by the first Baron Kelvin, who was of course a physicist of the first rank, albeit he made a number of predictions that turned out to be radically wrong. <br /><br />Further work was done by George Darwin (a son of Charles), who was a mathematician and astronomer, before being further refined by A.T. Doodson. It doesn't add up...noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-60719504723963766822016-03-30T01:07:41.378+11:002016-03-30T01:07:41.378+11:00It's the Automatic Multi-excuse Oscillation: t...It's the Automatic Multi-excuse Oscillation: the AMO.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-90818790352056274422016-03-29T18:06:10.536+11:002016-03-29T18:06:10.536+11:00Akasofu is a sad case, and I see his paper that Pa...Akasofu is a sad case, and I see his paper that Page referenced was in a SCRIP journal, one of Jeffrey Beall's "favorites." Oh, my.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-61420172305332207262016-03-29T18:02:28.678+11:002016-03-29T18:02:28.678+11:00Hal Doiron and Norm Page are both Hpuston-based si...Hal Doiron and Norm Page are both Hpuston-based signers of the "300 scientists" list Will Happer collected to help Lamar Smith Harass NOAA.<br />For amusement, Page seems to have subscribed to the <a href="http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1971-73/data/pg/0057/0006/1100/1140.htm" rel="nofollow">expanding Earth hypothesis</a>, i.e., "radius of the Earth has increased by at least 33 percent since the Paleozoic'John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-23040402302611984952016-03-29T16:36:14.810+11:002016-03-29T16:36:14.810+11:00John,
The 62 year cycle is very popular, based on ...John,<br />The 62 year cycle is very popular, based on two apparent periods in the observed surface data. One, due to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu" rel="nofollow">Akasofu</a>, showed up at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/24/collapse-of-the-cagw-delusion-untenable-past-2020/" rel="nofollow">WUWT</a> a few days ago. It's funny in context, because it's from 2008. With cycle predictions, if temps have been rising, the inevitable prediction is for a downturn, and that is what it shows. But of course, temps have gone up since 2008, and I think will align well with the rising IPCC prediction shown (and mocked). I was going to say so, but got sidetracked by an idea for a general graph superimposing gadget, which I needed and will blog about soon.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-29205411172996391562016-03-29T08:06:12.485+11:002016-03-29T08:06:12.485+11:00I offer another jolly example of odd "statist...I offer another jolly example of odd "statistics", by a few ex-NASA-Apollo guys who comprise "The Right Climate Stuff."<br /><br />1) See <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/harold-doiron" rel="nofollow">Hal Doiron</a> in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr-723Ohtxk&feature=youtu.be&list=PLLF4kBvOHH68jcsuPmA49KQgMQ8Tyx1wb&t=2161" rel="nofollow">14-minute talk</a>, in which he uses a simple climate model, starting with Ljungqvist(2010) and showing <a href="https://youtu.be/qr-723Ohtxk?list=PLLF4kBvOHH68jcsuPmA49KQgMQ8Tyx1wb&t=2969" rel="nofollow">1000-year and 62-year sine-wave cycles</a> to prove global warming is no problem. Exactly where the 62-year cycle came from I'm not sure, and of course, using a 2000-year reconstruction of 30-90N (25% of Earth) seems a little chancey to know a 1000-year cycle. People will be pleased to know that the model shows flat to down temperatures for 2000-2030.<br /><br />2) If for some reason that isn't enough, there's a longer version by one of his team, Jim Peacock, in a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPKSf7o6O3k" rel="nofollow">lecture</a> for Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in 2014, using some of the same slides. The first half is Apollo stories, then <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPKSf7o6O3k" rel="nofollow">he talks on their climate models</a> to prove that old Apollo mechanical engineers can do it better than climate scientists.<br /><br />Note of course, that these guys are a tiny fraction of NASA retirees, and the people at NASA, who are generally pretty competent, actually accept the science, use NOAA data, and <a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codejx/ClimateChangeWorkshops/PDF_TAGGED/6d_JSC_Center_Climate_Change_Status_Up-TAGGED.pdf" rel="nofollow">model risks from sea level rise.</a>John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-5132238468106879902016-03-28T21:00:36.569+11:002016-03-28T21:00:36.569+11:00All of us commentators we know: Nick Stokes and Gr...All of us commentators we know: Nick Stokes and Grant Foster are quite a bit busy with lots of things.<br /><br />But when you see this spurious increase of really poor-minded guest posts e.g. at Climate etc, claiming that "Temperatures do not add" or that "Inappropriate use of linear regression can produce spurious and significantly low estimations" etc, you truly hope for some really scientific contribution published there!<br /><br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-3333188519508284072016-03-28T07:39:03.041+11:002016-03-28T07:39:03.041+11:00Well, the GWPF made the rather surprising admissio...Well, the GWPF made the rather surprising admission that Mills was paid 3000 pounds for this work. As far as Mills was concerned he was asked to model some data assuming no deterministic inputs, did it, and took the money. Since this is the sort of thing he's probably been doing for much of his career (much of it looks cut and pasted) it looks like easy money. One wonders if he deliberately ran the model from the beginning of 2015, so that it would already be falsified (at 95% confidence) by the time it came out. Funny: you'd have thought all those illustrious professors would have checked up on this, especially the author of the introduction, McKitrick with his profound knowledge of climate science.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-73849902773510799102016-03-28T06:16:56.212+11:002016-03-28T06:16:56.212+11:00BillH, By saying "economists would do well to...BillH, By saying <i>"economists would do well to give more account to external forcings"</i>, you have hit the nail on the head. When you see all these differential equations without a clear forcing function, you know that they are missing 50% of the problem formulation.<br /><br />Can you imagine an economist working on ocean tidal prediction? They would likely create a fancy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28mathematics%29" rel="nofollow">autonomous</a> differential equation which could adequately fit the observations. But then someone would come along and point out that it's just the sun and moon providing the forcings, thus collapsing their house of cards.<br /><br />If you can understand and appreciate that hypothetical situation, then consider that is what is happening right now with the modeling for QBO. Unfortunately, in this case, we can't just blame the economists, but climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen, who for whatever reason were never able to root out the clear external forcings.<br /><br /><a href="http://contextearth.com/2016/03/21/inferring-forced-response-from-qbo-wave-equation/" rel="nofollow">http://contextearth.com/2016/03/21/inferring-forced-response-from-qbo-wave-equation/</a><br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-68327944385310964162016-03-28T05:40:08.311+11:002016-03-28T05:40:08.311+11:00Though being all but a mathematician, I had real p...Though being all but a mathematician, I had real pleasure in reading - starting from here, thanks Nick Stokes - lots of posts and comments around Mills forecasting blind-alley.<br /><br />Best of all was a hint by L. Hamilton in his comment:<br /><br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2016/02/no-terence-mills-does-not-believe-his.html?showComment=1456358463898#c3485582121726390124<br /><br />where L. Hamilton reminds us of an earlier paper written by the same Mills<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9525-7#/page-2<br /><br />' How robust is the long-run relationship between temperature and radiative forcing? '<br /><br />That paper's abstract ends with<br /><br />' This result is robust across the sample period of 1850 to 2000, thus providing further confirmation of the quantitative impact of radiative forcing and, in particular, CO2 forcing, on temperatures. '<br /><br />Delicious...<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-6195456793023574612016-03-28T04:15:18.570+11:002016-03-28T04:15:18.570+11:00Nick, Thanks for the summary and for the econometr...Nick, Thanks for the summary and for the econometrics background to all this stochastic modelling. I have often wondered why, all those years ago, McIntyre and McKittrick got into using those strange red noise inputs in their Monte Carlo modelling. Now it's clear, it's become a standard tool for economists, presumably for modelling Stock Market fluctuations.<br /><br />It strikes me that economists would do well to give more account to external forcings, despite the supposed failure of deterministic models. For instance, the effect of prolonged drought in the Middle East on the Syrian economy and polity. bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-10854720037924904132016-03-28T01:35:11.627+11:002016-03-28T01:35:11.627+11:00The lines of evidence point toward determinism as ...The lines of evidence point toward determinism as driving the natural variability of many climate measures. It's actually misguided to apply Markov or random walk models to a behavior that is forced by a non-random physical process. <br /><br /><i>"A side story here is the use of Arima models with an I, as in Keenan's (3,1,0). A unit root. This is the difference between a model that has a random perturbation about a mean value, and a random walk. "</i><br /><br />Lots of misconceptions about random walk. A pure random walk is a martingale process, and can wander infinitely far from the mean -- that is, given enough time. But there is a kind of random walk that has a reversion to the mean, as modeled by a potential well -- in physics this is called an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. And yes, this is categorized in the ARIMA class, but statisticians don't model physics and so use a generic name. <br /><br />Note that this is different than a random perturbation about a mean, which is white noise jitter and not a Markov process.<br /><br />There is actually no evidence that large scale processes are best modeled as a stochastic process.<br /><br />So for example, a process such as ENSO is closer to a deterministic forcing than it is to the red noise of an O-U process. And for the life of me, I can't figure out what the charade is over acting as if the QBO contains <i>any</i> randomness.<br /><br />IMO, it's just a matter of time before physical models applied to machine learning experiments will root out all the deterministic behaviors, and the stochastic crowd gets pushed to the corner on this topic.<br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-6079024454854408782016-03-27T20:10:58.186+11:002016-03-27T20:10:58.186+11:00Really nice, thanks. Really nice, thanks. ...and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com