Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26901 - 26920 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Nov 4, 2014 - 10:21am PT
I am not surprised that the deniers here haven't a clue about line fitting.

Meanwhile, here is a FORTRAN least squares fit I wrote in 1974.


REAL LISTX(100),LISTY(100)
CHARACTER*20 AA,BB/'ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ'/
LOGICAL*1 AD(36)
LOGICAL*1 NSYM(30)
COMMON /A3/ AD
COMMON /A4/ NSYM /A5/ XMAX,XMIN,YMAX,YMIN
READ21, (AD(J),J=1,36)
21 FORMAT (36Z2)
READ4,(NSYM(J),J=1,30)
4 FORMAT (30A1)
READ,NN
DO 1000 MM=1,NN
SX=0
SY=0
SX2=0
SXY=0
PRINT1
1 FORMAT ('1',/ /,25X,'X',24X,'Y',24X,'X**2',24X,'X*Y',6X,'POINT'
+)
NO=0
I=1
10 READ(5,30,END=15)AA
30 FORMAT(A20)
IF(AA.EQ.BB) GO TO 15
READ(AA,*) X,Y
LISTX(I)=X
LISTY(I)=Y
NO=NO+1
C CALCULATE BEST-FITTING LINE FOR GIVEN POINTS
SX=SX+X
SY=SY+Y
X2=X**2
XY=X*Y
SX2=SX2+X2
SXY=SXY+XY
II=MOD(I,30)
IF(II.EQ.0) II=30
PRINT11, X,Y,X2,XY,NSYM(II)
11 FORMAT (/,5X,4(10X,F16.8),5X,1A1)
I=I+1
GO TO 10
15 PRINT16,SX,SY,SX2,SXY,NO
16 FORMAT (//,' SUM=',4(10X,F16.8),5X,'NO= ',I4)
B=(SX*SXY-SY*SX2) / (SX**2-NO*SX2)
A=(SY-NO*B) / SX
SDY=0
DO 20 I=1,NO
DY=LISTY(I)-(A*LISTX(I)+B)
20 SDY=SDY+DY**2
ALP=SDY/(NO-1)
DELTAA=SX2*NO-SX**2
AERR=SQRT((ALP*NO)/DELTAA)
BERR=SQRT((ALP*SX2)/DELTAA)
AERP=AERR/A*100
BERP=BERR/B*100
PRINT18,A,AERR,AERP,B,BERR,BERP
18 FORMAT(///,10X,' SLOPE = ',F16.8,' +/- ',F16.8,' ( ',F8.2,' %)',//
+,10X,'Y-INTERCEPT = ',F16.8,' +/- ',F16.8,' ( ',F8.2,' %) ',//)
PRINT19,A,AERP,B,BERP
19 FORMAT(/,40X,' Y= ( ',F16.8,' +/- ',F8.2,' %) X + ( ',F16.8,
+ ' +/- ',F8.2,' %)',//)
PRINT22,A,B
22 FORMAT (/,40X,' Y = ',F16.8,' X + ',F16.8,//)

STOP
END
Sparky

Trad climber
vagabond movin on
Nov 4, 2014 - 10:39am PT
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/2014-list-of-45-global-tipping-points.html
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Nov 4, 2014 - 11:01am PT
Anybody think the deniers can find a problem with the above code?

Naw, that would require brains.
If they can't find it on a blog, it is unattainable to them.

Go ahead jerks, show us that you can think & reason even a tiny bit.

Ha Ha, that'll be the day.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 4, 2014 - 11:07am PT
Meanwhile, here is a FORTRAN least squares fit I wrote in 1974.

Cool! Back before statistical packages. I vividly recall going through that stage in my first graduate stats course...
 Here's a book about FORTRAN;
 Here's one about matrix algebra;
 Here's one on regression;
 Here's a boxfull of data; now
 Run multiple regression and write a paper!

It took so much time & effort to get that first regression run, seemed like it was gold. The concepts of regression criticism and diagnostic checks could not catch on until the cycle got much easier.

Nowadays anyone can run hundreds of regressions without having a clue what they are. Clueless regression results will mostly be nonsense, though, like we see about every day here.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2014 - 11:07am PT
Meanwhile, here is a FORTRAN least squares fit I wrote in 1974.

That Malemutt.

What a smart boy.



He said "There's been less air warming, and more ocean warming, than the mean of most models in earlier IPCC reports projected".

How much warming is that?

That Sketch.

Not so much.






Asking questions that have already been answered, and to which he already knows the answer.
That's not a sign of intelligence.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 4, 2014 - 12:10pm PT
It's comical to see someone so educated miss obvious, simple points.

Clearly one of us is stupid.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 4, 2014 - 12:20pm PT
Any Colorado voters out there--please give some thought to voting for Gardner if you haven't yet voted and are still thinking about it.
Udall is a climber, so let's give him a chance to go climbing every day!
Let's also do our part to start shutting down the government funded climate-change "science" boondoggle and get some realistic energy policies in place.
(I don't have a problem with some reasonable government funding for climate change science if it could be done by reputable, actual scientists who are interested in finding out what may be going on in the world rather than pushing for some combination of further funding for themselves a left wing "utopia" for the masses. But from what I've read on this thread, I fear such an animal is as easy to find as Chiloe's South American goblins.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2014 - 12:49pm PT
I don't have a problem with some reasonable government funding for climate change science if it could be done by reputable, actual scientists...


Yeah, let's make Ted Cruz the Chair of the Subcommittee on Science and Space. That will show them liberal environmental Nazis.
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Nov 4, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
I don't have a problem with some reasonable government funding for climate change science if it could be done by reputable, actual scientists...

powerful intellect you have there, bet you voted for Caribou Barbie to be one heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief....

but to my question, because I doubt you know what you are talking about

name the non reputable and non scientists that are currently making climate science contributions,
other than those who's views are aligned with your own (knee jerk, defensive, "conservative")

name em
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 4, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
name em

He's not exactly a scientist but the the Climate Audit guy http://climateaudit.org/
Steve McIntyre, seems to present an informed and balanced voice.
Even though he's Canadian, perhaps the US gov should engage him as a sort of inspector general over the scientists/"scientists."

I don't have time to say more now, gotta run now to drop of my ballot.
Want to make sure that Udall gets in plenty of climbing next year--would that Chiloe and Ed could join him!
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Nov 4, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
engage him as a sort of inspector general over the scientists/"scientists

Yes, of course. Because trusting one person, tied to the political system, makes TONS more sense than the "inspector" system we have now...which you may have heard of...it's called "peer review".
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 4, 2014 - 02:33pm PT
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/southeast-early-opening-day-ski/36790016
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Nov 4, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
Thanks for the weather report, TGT.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 4, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
Steve McIntyre, seems to present an informed and balanced voice.

Umm, no, far from it. McIntyre is popular among denialists for his political hatchet work, such as relentlessly picking at MBH98. McIntyre let Wegman grossly misrepresent his work to write an anti-MBH98 report to Congress; it took years for bloggers to figure out what McIntyre had actually done with his "persistent red noise" and the hockeyfest cherry pick. Meanwhile actual scientists, Mann among many others, continued with several generations of improving paleoclimatology, using a wide variety of alternative methods and data. For example, from the PAGES 2k network

(1) The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the 19th century.

 The regional rate of cooling varied between about 0.1 and 0.3°C per 1000 years.

 A preliminary analysis using a climate model indicates that the overall cooling was caused by a combination of decreased solar irradiance and increased volcanic activity, as well as changes in land cover and slow changes in the Earth’s orbit. The simulations show that the relative importance of each factor differs between regions.

(2) Temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

 The period from around 830 to 1100 CE generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In contrast, in South America and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around 1160 to 1370 CE.

 The transition to colder regional climates between 1200 and 1500 CE is evident earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere.

 By around 1580 CE all regions except Antarctica entered a protracted, multi-centennial cold period, which prevailed until late in the 19th century.

 Cooler 30-year periods between the years 830 and 1910 CE were particularly pronounced during times of weak solar activity and strong tropical volcanic eruptions. Both phenomena often occurred simultaneously. This demonstrates how temperature changes over large regions are related to changes in climate-forcing mechanisms. Future climate can be expected to respond to such forcings in similar ways.

(3) The 20th century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in nearly 1400 years. However, some regions experienced 30-year intervals that were warmer than 1971-2000. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between 21 and 80 CE was warmer than during 1971-2000.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Nov 4, 2014 - 03:14pm PT
It's not just peer review,
there is also "peer replication",
and "peer questioning",
and "peer attack".

Unlike the parroting we see from the deniers
who are unable to think for themselves.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 4, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
I've posted this before but some of you have poor memory or reading ability (or, most likely, both):
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
How science goes wrong

Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself
A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity. . . .

In any event, if we're lucky, the American legal process will compensate for the shortcomings of the broken "peer review" system, and Steyn will depose the living daylights out of Mann in connection with the lawsuit Mann filed.

Edit:
Here's a good opinion piece that appeared in The Washington Post that gives some flavor of the general perfidy of Mann. Readers of this thread will recognize the pro-Mann distortions as we get them on a regular basis from a certain "scientist"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/01/steve-mcintyre-was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-oxburgh-panel/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Nov 4, 2014 - 04:47pm PT
So did any deniers look at the code?
Or is it beyond your comprehension?

Care to translate the first bit to pseudo-code?
(before format statement 22)

Or are you math, science, and programming morons?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2014 - 04:50pm PT
Certainly interesting, but seems to be much ado about nothing. Note the relevant pieces of the puzzle:

Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data… But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.

That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where “inappropriate methods” had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon. Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated – although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming.

So yeah, they criticized Mann's methods, and Mann tried to clear his name.

But in the end, the results are much the same, no matter what technique is used for the analysis.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 4, 2014 - 05:03pm PT
So did any deniers look at the code?
Or is it beyond your comprehension?

Rhetorical questions both.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 4, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
What FORTRAN skills I learned in school mostly atrophied a long time ago. Nowadays I mostly use Stata, which has an internal language. The graphs I post here, for example, are each a small program.

To keep up with the Malemutes ... here's an ultra simple OLS routine (just calculates the b vector) I wrote as an example for one of my books:

*! 21jun2012
*! L. Hamilton, Statistics with Stata (2013)
program ols0
version 12.1
syntax varlist(min=1 numeric) [in] [if]
marksample touse
gen cons_ = 1
tokenize `varlist'
local lhs "`1'"
mac shift
local rhs "`*'"
mata: st_view(y=., ., "`lhs'", "`touse'")
mata: st_view(X=., ., (tokens("`rhs'"), "cons_"), "`touse'")
mata: b = invsym(X'X)*X'y
mata: b
drop cons_
end

Or a slightly nicer one that calculates coefficients along with their standard errors, t statistics and p values:

*! 21jun2012
*! L. Hamilton, Statistics with Stata (2013)
program ols2
version 12.1
syntax varlist(min=1 numeric) [in] [if]
marksample touse
gen cons_ = 1
tokenize `varlist'
local lhs "`1'"
mac shift
local rhs "`*'"
mata: st_view(y=., ., "`lhs'", "`touse'")
mata: st_view(X=., ., (tokens("`rhs'"), "cons_"), "`touse'")
mata: b = invsym(X'X)*X'y
mata: e = y - X*b
mata: n = rows(X)
mata: k = cols(X)
mata: s2 = (e'e)/(n-k)
mata: V = s2*invsym(X'X)
mata: se = sqrt(diagonal(V))
mata: t = b:/se
mata: Prt = 2*ttail(n-k, abs(b:/se))
mata: vnames_ = "Yvar: `lhs'", tokens("`rhs'"), "_cons"
mata: vnames_', ("Coef." \ strofreal(b)), /*
*/ ("Std. Err." \ strofreal(se)), /*
*/ ("t" \ strofreal(t)), ("P>|t|" \ strofreal(Prt))
drop cons_
end

Beyond OLS the programming gets harder. Wrote and tested a routine once to calculate robust regression via iteratively reweighted least squares, which eventually became part of Stata (now much cleaned up). That was the height of my programming ambitions, though.
Messages 26901 - 26920 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews