tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3287725383340804807..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Steve McIntyre's big blooper - mistaking water mass movement for water temperature!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71879050886879062382015-04-15T13:21:11.904+10:002015-04-15T13:21:11.904+10:00Captain Flashheart - "Why didn't you digi...Captain Flashheart - <i>"Why didn't you digitize the series before you started making accusations of deception about the construction of the index? [...]. Now you have moved on to a new criticism, without acknowledging how mean your last one was..."</i><br /><br />Because HAS is thrashing around with different claims trying to come up with a sciency sounding objection to the paper. And failing. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1106662419327934342015-04-15T09:39:37.624+10:002015-04-15T09:39:37.624+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31071023613392898032015-04-15T09:36:27.375+10:002015-04-15T09:36:27.375+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61292940237329298642015-04-15T08:56:00.882+10:002015-04-15T08:56:00.882+10:00How did you compare the series HAS? How does your ...How did you compare the series HAS? How does your argument change if both series are correlated with or driven by an I observed factor? <br /><br />Why didn't you digitize the series before you started making accusations of deception about the construction of the index? Your eyes were good enough then, until you were shown up as a fool. Now you have moved on to a new criticism, without acknowledging how mean your last one was... You say the "graph was ambiguous " but what you should say is you "didn't understand the graph when everyone else did". <br /><br />You really are as Ill mannered and mendacious as your hero.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27956210053570328432015-04-15T08:42:17.831+10:002015-04-15T08:42:17.831+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15549544856446563712015-04-15T08:08:45.208+10:002015-04-15T08:08:45.208+10:00Shorter answer: "...you need to make sure tha...Shorter answer: <i>"...you need to make sure that there aren't quite unrelated factors driving them the apparent relationship..."</i> There are <b>known</b> factors driving both indexes - the ocean circulation. And while proxies need to be checked for physical confounding factors, both proxies have strong relationships to the underlying AMOC.<br /><br />You aren't making a physical argument, such as investigating possible confounding factors - you're just messing around with (inapplicable) statistics trying to generate some kind of objection. Physics discussions require physics, and you aren't supplying any. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49045364735996182202015-04-15T08:02:03.419+10:002015-04-15T08:02:03.419+10:00But you asserted that the d15N proxy and SST AMOC ...But you asserted that the d15N proxy and SST AMOC index are non-stationary. As opposed to physically constrained (trend!) stationary phenomena that will vary around the driven/forced state?<br /><br />As trend-stationary phenomena the appropriate check on their relationship (if you are interested in those statistics) would be <i>correlation of values over time</i>, not differencing and comparing _rates_ of change (derivatives), an inherently noisy comparison. Which in the case of two different physical phenomena is particularly uninformative.<br /><br />And (as has been pointed out to you repeatedly on this thread) both are effects (and indicators) of the underlying circulation changes investigated in the paper. Their relationships are properly speaking to that circulation, as separate indicators, and the Rahmstorf et al paper <i>isn't trying to make conclusions about the statistical relationship of the two indexes</i>. They are using the physics of circulation, and the understood relationships between water mass source/d15N and between circulation patterns/AMOC SST index to investigate <i>the AMOC circulation</i>. <br /><br />Screwing around with the statistics of index derivatives, in the absence of the underlying physics, is nonsensical. And doesn't address Rahmstorf et al in any manner whatsoever - it's simply irrelevant. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33606300941751942272015-04-15T06:28:54.136+10:002015-04-15T06:28:54.136+10:00A random walk is ARIMA(0,1,0) a special case of in...A random walk is ARIMA(0,1,0) a special case of integrated time series. Like random walks the series we have here are integrated to the first order but are they not random walks. <br /><br />The difference is they also contain significant autoregression and trend, but is possible that if the autoregression is modeled at higher orders the trend ceases to be significant (i.e. they are likely ARIMA (3,1,0) or ARIMA (1,1,1)) .<br /><br />[The parameter used in the ARIMA model show the order of AutoRegression, Intergration, and Moving Averages (aka trend) respectively]<br />HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84522108314566303962015-04-15T00:28:06.745+10:002015-04-15T00:28:06.745+10:00HAS is taking first differences and considering th...HAS is taking first differences and considering the AMOC and d15N series to be nonstationary? Sounds like somebody has been reading the Beenstock et al nonsense and thinking both d15N and the AMOC are random walks, an approach best described as <b>worthless</b> by Tamino <a href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/not-a-random-walk/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/still-not/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />A recurring, albeit pointless, exercise from deniers. Both mass flow changes from d15N and the AMOC are bounded phenomena driven by physics, not random walks. As a pointer to readers, whenever you hear someone invoke <i>"not stationary", "first differences"</i>, or <i>"random walk"</i> with respect to climate, you're about to hear nonsense. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66446274316014475972015-04-14T20:47:04.321+10:002015-04-14T20:47:04.321+10:00HAS's comment has been moved to the the HotWho...<i>HAS's comment has been moved to the <a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery15.php#has140415" rel="nofollow">the HotWhoppery. </a></i><br /><br /><b>Sou</b>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70814470770121467332015-04-14T20:03:35.706+10:002015-04-14T20:03:35.706+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35060628525104343152015-04-14T18:53:44.648+10:002015-04-14T18:53:44.648+10:00It's your failure, HAS - not the experts.
HAS...It's your failure, HAS - not the experts.<br /><br />HAS's comment is coming from someone who five days ago didn't understand the paper enough to realise that dN15 was about mass water movement, not temperature. This was despite him apparently reading the paper, and despite the above article, and despite the numerous responses he got. He decided the authors and reviewers and editors from Nature Climate Change had messed up! An inflated sense of self-importance and a denier bent, has HAS.<br /><br />Then he couldn't understand the simple subtraction used to develop the AMOC index, again insinuating the authors were wrong and he was "right". Ha! He "didn't believe" the clear statement explaining it in the paper, and couldn't even see what was staring him in the face in a chart.<br /><br />He's still pitting himself against one of the world's leading experts on AMOC - and still losing badly.<br /><br />Take no notice of HAS, ever, on anything related to climate or earth sciences.<br /><br />A slowing AMOC will, by definition, slow ocean currents. (BIg hint: the "C" in AMOC stands for circulation!)<br /><br />http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150290/<br /><br />The fact that the slopes of whatever at two places, very far apart, aren't identical every single minute in time means squat. There is a lot of water mass movement between the sub-polar gyre and the area near Nova Scotia and an awful lot of ocean for it to move around in. <br /><br />The fact is that less water came from the Labrador when the AMOC index dropped suggested a slowing of the AMOC. That's quite clear.<br /><br />(Think "water mass movement" in a vast ocean - not the flow of water out of a short 2cm diam hose.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13198703773198290632015-04-14T18:19:38.497+10:002015-04-14T18:19:38.497+10:00I'm not sure if I allowed back here, but I do ...I'm not sure if I allowed back here, but I do need to admit I was wrong.<br /><br />The relationship between d15N and the AMOC didn't arise from relationships between d15N and either of the temperature series that went into AMOC. The failure was much more basic than that.<br /><br />The problem with finding interrelationships between time series like d15N and AMOC is that you need to make sure that there aren't quite unrelated factors driving them the apparent relationship. This is indicated if the series aren't stationary which is the case with these two series.<br /><br />One way to confirm or otherwise the existence of a relationship is to take first differences and compare the series (this is comparing the slope at each point rather than the actual value - obviously if these aren't related one would find it hard to say the time series were related). <br /><br />I digitalised the AMOC index and the d15N series and checked them out.<br /><br />Despite strong relationships between the series (that you see in the graphs) there is no relationship at all between the first differences of the d15N series and the AMOC index. <br /><br />Moving to the physical interpretation there is no case for arguing the AMOC tells us anything about the movement of the flows.<br /><br />This probably explains why the authors didn't do the required analysis, and left it to our failing eyeballs to draw the conclusions from the graphs.<br /><br />HASnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61987315773463491362015-04-13T03:10:10.255+10:002015-04-13T03:10:10.255+10:00metzomagic: Anon was serving up a nicely roasted M...metzomagic: Anon was serving up a nicely roasted McI kabob on a skewer. I'm sure they're acutely aware of all climate change blogosphere traditions, including the inability of any major denier to admit error.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17775036486524471942015-04-12T22:15:06.844+10:002015-04-12T22:15:06.844+10:00Anon said:
Until this is all cleared up its hard ...Anon said:<br /><br /><i>Until this is all cleared up its hard to judge one way or the other.</i><br /><br />Maybe you haven't been hanging around too long in the climate change blogosphere, but if you have you should know that these pissing contests rarely if ever get 'cleared up'. Because people like McIntyre will never, ever admit to being wrong, even on the smallest point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20225521308883371332015-04-12T20:08:16.406+10:002015-04-12T20:08:16.406+10:00We should never forget that it is the faux auditor...We should never forget that it is the faux auditor's prerogative to ask the questions, and it is for the rest of us - mere mortals - to provide the answers. And answers must be given even though they represent nothing more than the material from which the next set of questions are formulated, because the faux auditors are only performing the fossil fuel industry's mission to spread disinformation.<br /><br />The faux auditors see themselves as this, only without the 'wit':<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xwmyFAHxso<br /><br />The rest of humanity sees them like this: but only the ridiculous bit, not the wit:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4<br /><br />'Debating' with them bears a remarkable similarity to their using FoI to demand data that they have no intention of analysing. The data is nothing to them, the harassment, and the innuendo about fraudulent science is all.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83422543393109775172015-04-12T11:58:21.085+10:002015-04-12T11:58:21.085+10:00Anoy, hate is too intense an emotion to describe w...Anoy, hate is too intense an emotion to describe what I feel about McI. Contempt describes it better.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86288581866534083832015-04-12T09:41:13.962+10:002015-04-12T09:41:13.962+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43786513061407590632015-04-12T07:01:32.428+10:002015-04-12T07:01:32.428+10:00Sou: "I did better. I wrote to the authors, a...Sou: "I did better. I wrote to the authors, and can confirm that it's a simple subtraction."<br /><br />Ack! Your missing the point Sou. The point is to raise questions, not provide answers. Answers are typically mundane. Not so questions. Questions make us curious, and if phrased just the right way they can also make us suspicious. <br /><br />Anybody can provide answers. Especially if it's as easy as asking the author. It's hard to build a narrative around answers. Who's the villain? Where's the intrigue? We need to focus on questions.Layzejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346550512734519728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30571329049736833022015-04-12T04:34:34.854+10:002015-04-12T04:34:34.854+10:00Bill H,
I note McI is now claiming that you'v...Bill H,<br /><br />I note McI is now claiming that you've run away from the discussion of stripbark bristlecones, leaving the impression that they actually apply to Rahmstorf (2015). I would think they don't, but then I think. Apologies if this has been covered explicitly somewhere else in this thread ... has gotten a bit lengthy and tedious in places. Keep fighting the good fight.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3375711524118128692015-04-12T03:06:52.119+10:002015-04-12T03:06:52.119+10:00And malevolent.And malevolent.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51626923713356766042015-04-12T01:47:42.454+10:002015-04-12T01:47:42.454+10:00I don't need to be curious or ask leading ques...I don't need to be curious or ask leading questions. I know McI is more often wrong than right. Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51404828112763074042015-04-12T01:39:59.645+10:002015-04-12T01:39:59.645+10:00Some have suggested that Steve McIntyre is more of...Some have suggested that Steve McIntyre is more often wrong than right. I don't presume that he's deliberately misleading people, but has certainly been suggested by others.<br /><br />Not curious?<br /><br />If a Google search of "Steve McIntyre is more often wrong than right" returned 261,000 results, you wouldn't be curious?<br /><br />And if the first result claimed to show that he is on an obsessive quest to disprove Michael Mann's hockey stick you wouldn't be curious?<br /><br />I hate to ascribe motives. People are just as likely to be stupid as malevolent. It is possible he is actually right in this case, but plenty of evidence has been presented to the contrary.<br /><br />Until this is all cleared up its hard to judge one way or the other.<br /><br />Gee, it's fun to play the innuendo game. Glenn Beck would be proud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88513607172416258932015-04-12T00:05:21.611+10:002015-04-12T00:05:21.611+10:00But Sou, HAS confirmed by his expert eyeball that ...But Sou, HAS confirmed by his expert eyeball that the subtraction was wrong. How can you trust the authors over his eyes? Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78660926995176727382015-04-11T20:38:38.509+10:002015-04-11T20:38:38.509+10:00Well if HAS is still about perhaps he'd deign ...Well if HAS is still about perhaps he'd deign to explain to us all why he and all the other self-appointed 'auditors' out there have failed year after year to identify any of the serial blunders committed by 'contrarian' scientists. It seems so very like the entire 'auditing' community are a bunch of fakes.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com