THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS (Free subscription) | 05/16/2008
The author of the excitable article below talks of "proof" but does not say what it is. As far as one can judge, however, she is referring to this article by Edward Brook , which is itself a summary of two other studies. I looked at another note about the Brook article yesterday and pointed out the huge hole in it. To be fair, the hole is not in the Brook article itself -- which simply claims that...
Seeker Blog (Free subscription) | 05/17/2008
Part 3 at SeekerBlog, perhaps “part 27″ depending on what you read. Anyhow, Roger Pielke, Jr. has more useful followup on his challenge re: Falsifiability of Climate Predictions — here and here. In his latest essay on my stupidity, climate modeler James Annan made the helpful suggestion that I consult a “a numerate undergraduate to explain [...]
James' Empty Blog (Free subscription) | 05/16/2008
But only where he says " James is absolutely correct when he says that it would be incorrect to claim that the temperatures observed from 2000-2007 are inconsistent with the IPCC AR4 model predictions. In more direct language, any reasonable analysis would conclude that the observed and modeled temperature trends are consistent." (his bold) Unfortunately, the bit where he tries cherry picking a shorter...
The Reference Frame (Free subscription) | 05/15/2008
After some time, I looked how contemporary alarmist peer-reviewed literature about the climate looks like and I was absolutely horrified. The following report seems to be special among the alarmist screams because of the unprecedentedly high concentration of women. Let us start in the Financial Times. Fiona Harvey gave her article a very modest title: Proof found of man-made climate change. Well, such...
Research Recap (Free subscription) | 05/15/2008
The thinning ranks of climate change deniers are confronted with more compelling evidence in this week’s issue of Nature. Nature reports that a comprehensive analysis of trends in tens of thousands of biological and physical systems has provided more evidence to bolster the near-universal view that man-made climate change is altering the behaviour of plants, animals, [...]
James' Empty Blog (Free subscription) | 05/19/2008
Answer: when the 23% refers to the proportion of models that are rejected by Roger Pielke's definition of "consistent with the models at the 95% level". By the normal definition, this simple null hypothesis significance test should reject roughly 5% of the models. Eg Wilks Ch 5 again "the null hypothesis is rejected if the probability (as represented by the null distribution) of the test statistic,...
Stoat (Free subscription) | 05/16/2008
Grauniad again, of course: . Its obvious b*ll*cks, at least as measured by my own experience: most of the damage is caused by roads, buildings, farming practices, and so on. Can it really be true that 90% of env damage is due to T change? Probably not. The source appears to be Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change in Nature. To quote the abstract: Significant...
A Western Heart (Free subscription) | 05/16/2008
The author of the excitable article below talks of "proof" but does not say what it is. As far as one can judge, however, she is referring to this article by Edward Brook , which is itself a summary of two other studies. I looked at another note about the Brook article yesterday and pointed out the huge hole in it. To be fair, the hole is not in the Brook article itself -- which simply claims that...
Deltoid (Free subscription) | 05/19/2008
More carriages have come off the rails in the Roger Pielke Jr train wreck . Pielke finally does a hypothesis test . Trouble is, it's an unpaired t-test, which would only make sense if GISS and HADCRU were independent of each other, i.e. temperature measurements of different planets . Which, uh, they're not. James Annan explains it here . And another Pielke carriage comes off the rails here . Read...
James' Empty Blog (Free subscription) | 05/18/2008
OK, we've all had our fun, but perhaps it is time to put an end to it. There's obviously a simple conceptual misunderstanding underlying Roger's attempts at analysis, which some have spotted , but some others don't seem to have so I will try to make it as clear as possible. The models provided a distribution of predictions about the real-world trend over the 8 years 2000-2007 inclusive. However, we...
