archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Op Ed on Deflategate « Climate Audit
    on the geometry of the room and yes even the time of day or night From my experience you simply need to incorporate a lot more physics into the models if you want to use them to rule out a particular scenario deflation of the Patriots footballs in this case As I mentioned the Sun heats the top of buildings in the daytime typically resulting in a near neutral daytime profile in the interior At night with the absence of solar heating the top of the building cools rapidly creating a large negative unstable temperature gradient Although this is well understood physics the Exponent group showed virtually no awareness of the physics processes involved in the warming of the footballs after they were placed in the locker room In particular their use of an environmental chamber is a complete cosmic joke on them and is such a bad error I truthfully think the NFL should be refunded their money At the minimum the room where the original data were taken should have been analyzed and pressure air speed data for similar weather conditions should have been collected using several 3 axis ultrasonic anemometers this is not as complicated as it sounds At least then you d plausibly know the range of possible radiative forcing experienced by the footballs And you could move forward from there to study the warming curves under realistic conditions I have to emphasizethough that I think the warming data published in the Exponent report is totally useless unless by some bizarre coincidence the balance of the physical processes involved in heat energy exchange are nearly identical in the locker room as in the environmental chamber It s also my belief that if you bracket the uncertainty in the measurement conditions you are left with plausibly the balls could have been deflated but there s no way to rule out tampering I also don t think you could prove that tampering occurred beyond any reasonable doubt As I mentioned on a previous thread based on press reports the Patriots football skins were treated more heavily than the Indy footballs and quite plausibly did not absorb as much moisture in their skin If the press reports of course this works the wrong way for your scenario that the differences could be explained by evaporative cooling it makes the difference worse of course It s why I suspect that if we did the physical tests a little less wrong we d come to the opposite but I think still not valid conclusion that the footballs were deflated beyond any reasonable doubt The Exponent group should have looked at this critical issue which it appears they did not While they did look at evaporation on the rate of warming they did so in a scenario that is unlikely to replicate the conditions under which the original measurements were conducted Nor did they appreciate that there would likely be a differential effect of evaporation on the rate of warming The thought that Brady s treatment of the football skins might influence the probability of fumbles is an interesting one but I think there are too many uncontrolled variables to really explore what effect this has on games during rainy periods of the season One thing I m pretty sure we ll agree on is the lack of access to the investigative file by Brady s team in particular the data and access to the scientific research group We both probably agree that the decision by Goodell and especially the punishment were handled in an arbitrary and even capricious manner If reports that Goodell stuck to the four game suspension due to the desire of other team owners to see Brady punished it s hard to see Goodell s behavior as other than purely capricious I m glad that Brady can go back to his life now And while we disagree on some of the physics here I think the NFL and Goodell owe him an apology for their treatment of him Steve Based on past experience we probably agree on most things I definitely endorse your last couple of paragraphs I ve paid close attention to your physics comments even if I ve taken a different line from time to time My closing take on your physics observations was that the data did not permit one to exclude the possibility of deflation but it seems to me that this falls short of showing that the deflation was more probable than not But we ve been round this bush and I think that we understand one another s points mpainter Posted Sep 3 2015 at 6 36 PM Permalink Reply Carrick you say You don t need an 80 page document to show that the pressure data are consistent with the theory that the footballs were deflated I suggest that you re read Steve s previous posts on the issue and strive for better comprehension Also you say the underlying physical processes of the Earth are more or less invariant which is a vary different scenario than atmospheric measurements You do not know what you are talking about Earth s processes are not invariant not a bit Also you say As I mentioned the Sun heats the top of buildings in the daytime typically resulting in a near neutral daytime profile in the interior At night with the absence of solar heating the top of the building cools rapidly creating a large negative unstable temperature gradient Only if you pretend the building had no HVAC You also say Although this is well understood physics the Exponent group showed virtually no awareness of the physics processes involved in the warming of the footballs after they were placed in the locker room In fact it is quite plausible that the Patriot s balls did not warm I believe that a simulation would show that they did not warm before being tested You also say At the minimum the room where the original data were taken should have been analyzed and pressure air speed data for similar weather conditions should have been collected using several 3 axis ultrasonic anemometers this is not as complicated as it sounds This is a joke right Measure wind speed inside the the officials room Please tell us that you are joking Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 9 20 AM Permalink mpainter You do not know what you are talking about Earth s processes are not invariant not a bit I m afraid you re mistaken on all accounts here Over the time scale that people do their measurements the Earth processes are typically considered invariant Seismologists spend quite a bit of time mapping out the arrival pattern where a new seismometer has been placed Over the period of a few hours the atmosphere can change radically enough that the physics that drives heating cooling processes can also change radically You don t see effects like this with the Earth Unlike the Earth the heating or cooling of an object in a room influences the air flow in it This is one way of many ways that convection is nonlinear The atmosphere is very messy different ways than seismologists typically deal with temporal variations large enough to completely change the physics model you use is not something that seismologists typically have to deal with Only if you pretend the building had no HVAC As it happens I ve characterized it in my laboratory where I have my calibration equipment and can confirm it is a real effect Unless you had a very specialized HVAC system the temperature gradients will follow the pattern I ve described How do you suppose that if we have the types of vertical thermal forcing that I ve described that vertical gradients wouldn t get established Fans tend to homogenize a room but unless most dwellings don t have the amount of circulation needed before you could ignore the types of effects I ve described This is by the way why a room gets stuffy on a hot afternoon even with working A C and why it gets drafty at night on a cold winter night And as it happens the locker room where the measurements were taken had no HVAC equipment In fact it is quite plausible that the Patriot s balls did not warm I believe that a simulation would show that they did not warm before being tested It s complexly implausible that they didn t warm Steve doesn t make This is a joke right Measure wind speed inside the the officials room Please tell us that you are joking No it s not a joke to use a high resolution sonic anemometer such as the Gill R3 or the Campbell Scientific CSAT3 to measure room circulation patterns and its turbulence spectra in the inertial subrange mpainter Posted Sep 4 2015 at 9 40 AM Permalink I think Carrick that what you are trying to say is that the dynamics of the atmosphere are different from the dynamics of the earth and geologic processes That I will agree to But believe me geologic processes are not invariant not in the sense that they lack variation A clearer style of commenting would benefit you But you seem to be saying that Steve s approach is faulty without giving any specifics fantasy football physics This is no contribution but only a type of juvenile egoism based on put downs of the the Poster In fact Steve has convincingly shown that Exponent s analysis is not only faulty but also partly a misrepresentation You agree do you not eloris Posted Sep 4 2015 at 10 24 AM Permalink Is it not the case that dinking around with things like airflow etc would only change the estimated rate of warming not the starting point or ending point Regardless of your HVAC system if the room is 72 degrees the ball ain t gonna get warmer than that Isn t there already huge uncertainty as to the precise point on the transient that the balls would have reached Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 8 53 PM Permalink mpainter A clearer style of commenting would benefit you I think I was plenty clear enough for anybody who wasn t just looking for a fight fantasy football physics This is no contribution but only a type of juvenile egoism based on put downs Careful how you frame this Steve is rather prone to this turn of phrase himself his titles are rife with similar wit I bet he wishes he d used this himself in reference to the Exponent s group work and would have if he had thought of it In fact Steve has convincingly shown that Exponent s analysis is not only faulty but also partly a misrepresentation You agree do you not The way I d put this is reality isn t a democracy so my opinion isn t very valuable here The Exponent analysis did what ever it did regardless of whether Steve has persuaded him you or anybody else What is important for me is what the Exponent group says in response They should phrase a response that explains either that they made an error or explain how Steve was wrong Yes it is possible that Steve is wrong Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 5 2015 at 7 23 AM Permalink Carrick writes Yes it is possible that Steve is wrong I am the first to be aware of the potential for error and mistake and try to avoid over stating I tried diligently to get Daniel Marlow of Princeton to look at the apparent misrepresentation By coincidence I have a very eminent friend in the Princeton Physics department and despite being uninterested in football he asked Marlow to respond Marlow said that he would but didn t My friend is quite disappointed at the lack of response BTW I think that Carrick expresses himself well I seldom have difficulty understanding his points which I value and if there are points of misunderstanding they are usually easy to clear up It doesn t mean that I always agree with him While the lack of response can be due to other reasons it increases rather than decreases my confidence in the point being right MikeN Posted Sep 5 2015 at 7 41 AM Permalink This is a joke right Measure wind speed inside the the officials room The report looks like they were trying to think up more tests to earn more money I suspect they d have done it if aware MikeN Posted Sep 10 2015 at 7 54 AM Permalink Reply Carrick do you agree that there would be a 1 5C increase in temperature inside the football when the referee reinflated I am basing this on the formula for adiabatic expansion admkoz Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 37 PM Permalink Reply If the judge really thinks the Patriots are innocent I hope somebody s going to do something for the little fish McNally and Jastremski who have been punished much more severely and can afford it much less mpainter Posted Sep 4 2015 at 4 44 PM Permalink Reply MacNally and Jastremski were both fired by the Patriots just after May 6 I believe at the release of the Wells Report Of course Jastremski had nothing to do with taking the balls into the bathroom but he was fired I have a feeling that we will hear more about this MacNally too will want some justice However all depends on whether these people wise up to the job done on them by Exponent Another issue what about the million fine levied on the Patriots and their loss of draft picks That still stands it seems This is another venue for getting the Exponent crowd Marlow Goodell etc before the bar MikeN Posted Sep 5 2015 at 7 42 AM Permalink The Patriots chose not to appeal HaroldW Posted Sep 16 2015 at 7 45 PM Permalink Reply According to this report the two have been reinstated with restrictions on their roles Chris Simms believes this is evidence of Brady s guilt Robert Young Posted Sep 3 2015 at 4 21 PM Permalink Reply Steve Your article got onto WellsReportInContext com so perhaps you can get the following info past the folks who screen out unsolicited public input The only reason the Exponent simulation with ref s recollected gauge produced a higher pressure than the game day Patriots balls was that the simulation freely exposed the footballs to air to warm up faster Had the simulation been true to game day events balls kept in a bag the simulation would have vindicated the Patriots The issue was referenced by Professor Robert Blecker in his 8 31 op ed that linked to http www BetterDialogue com Deflategate for the proof using Exponent s own data and words Please contact me at Robert Young BetterDialogue com to discuss Rob mpainter Posted Sep 5 2015 at 8 36 AM Permalink Reply Carrick we are here to help you out of your confusion Brady has a contract with the New England Patriots with contractual obligations toward them Likewise the Patriots have contractual obligations toward Brady spelled out in that contract Brady as a member of the NFLPA is subject to the CBA Likewise the NFL is subject to the CBA To say that Brady has a contract with the NFL with contractual obligations toward the NFL is to say the converse i e that the NFL has a contract with the players with contractual obligations toward them Think about it It shouldn t be too difficult to understand the subtleties Now neither the NFL nor the NFLPA nor did Judge Berman speak of violations of contract or contracts or contractual obligations nor did anyone else in the media speak of Brady s contractual obligations toward the NFL That confused mental twist is yours and yours alone mpainter Posted Sep 5 2015 at 8 44 AM Permalink Wrongly nested ignore Robert Young Posted Sep 3 2015 at 4 31 PM Permalink Reply PS The only apparently credible reason for rejecting the ref s recollection of the gauge used pre game was that of all the gauges tested only the ref s logo gauge had the 3 bias Thus if the gauge was highly unusual it s unlikely both Colts and Patriots had one like that so since the ref s gauge agreed with Patriots and Colts one would question the ref s recollection The trick there was that Exponent acquired and tested only gauges identical to the one the ref said he did NOT use Just like Honda s had odometers that over read by 2 and nobody noticed for a long time it s likely that the design of the logo gauge had a built in 3 bias Had exponent acquired only logo gauges the non logo gauge would likely have looked like the unusual one Follow the Money Posted Sep 3 2015 at 4 35 PM Permalink Reply I read it First thought it contains a lot of NFL history via legal cases and the conduct of Taglibue who is played out to be wise and reasonable implicitly reflecting negatively on Gooddell 2nd the judge refers to the seemingly obvious conflict of interest of the NFL lawyers under the guise of inadequate documents production I suppose that is a subtle twist of the verbal knife Chris Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 15 PM Permalink Reply Steve The bottom line is I don t think Roger would have changed his mind if you were in there He had his mind made up and that was that Perhaps if it was before the original suspension but certainly not after And Berman couldn t rule on facts He stayed in his decision he accepted Roger s take on the facts Chris Carrick Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 39 PM Permalink Reply It s my guess that the original punishment and the refusal to reduce it are both political decisions on Goodell s part This goes back to my comment of what I view as capricious behavior on the part of the NFL mpainter Posted Sep 3 2015 at 7 17 PM Permalink Reply I recall that most of your criticism was directed at Brady on your presumption of his guilt and you accused him of violating his contractual obligations to the NFL something that you simply made up Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 9 23 AM Permalink You don t recall correctly I never assumed Brady s guilt and his contractual requirement to cooperate with the investigation is neither made up nor was it in dispute in the court hearings mpainter Posted Sep 4 2015 at 9 52 AM Permalink Carrick your notion of contractual requirement by Brady toward the NFL is invented by you purely and simply Not even the NFL referred to contractual obligations by Brady Judge Berman specifically cited in his ruling the NFL s stance on the cooperation issue He ruled against the NFL and in favor of Brady I would suggest that if you improve your commenting style and tone down your polemics you would greatly enhance your credibility Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 8 46 PM Permalink mpainter simply pointing out the obvious fact that the Judge ruled in favor of Brady isn t evidence that Brady did nothing wrong What the judge said was The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies including A inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline four game suspension and his alleged misconduct B denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one oftwo lead investigators namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash and C denial of equal access to investigative files including witness interview notes Nowhere is it contested that players are bound by the CBA to cooperate with NFL investigations Indeed further into the findings the Judge states In December 2010 the NFL fined Brett Favre 50 000 but did not suspend him for obstruction of a League sexual harassment investigation Although not entirely comparable to the present matter this illustrates the NFL s practice offining not suspending a player for serious violations of this type Nowhere in his finding does the Judge question the legally of fining a player for obstruction Further we have Brady himself acknowledging a failure to cooperate and admitting this to be an error You might say in response that there is no specific wording that compels Brady to cooperate but that s not how business law works It s generally accepted that Article 46 of the CBA regarding the integrity of the game compels players cooperate with NFL investigations because a failure to cooperate clearly is damages the integrity of the game You don t have to enumerate every possible way that somebody could undermine the integrity of the game before that person can be held accountable for their actions Brady knows this and admits to his error The problem as the Judge frames it was that the fine was way in excess of what was warranted based on similar infractions and because Brady was denied due process rather arguing that an infraction never occurred mpainter Posted Sep 4 2015 at 9 02 PM Permalink Carrick show the contract that you referred to by your statement his contractual requirement to cooperate Do you imagine that your verbose deflection will fool others Carrick Posted Sep 5 2015 at 2 37 AM Permalink CBA 46 is a contractual requirement Stop being a New England Patriots fanboy mpainter Posted Sep 5 2015 at 8 40 AM Permalink Carrick we are here to help you out of your confusion Brady has a contract with the New England Patriots with contractual obligations toward them Likewise the Patriots have contractual obligations toward Brady spelled out in that contract Brady as a member of the NFLPA is subject to the CBA Likewise the NFL is subject to the CBA To say that Brady has a contract with the NFL with contractual obligations toward the NFL is to say the converse i e that the NFL has a contract with the players with contractual obligations toward them Think about it It shouldn t be too difficult to understand the subtleties Now neither the NFL nor the NFLPA nor did Judge Berman speak of violations of contract or contracts or contractual obligations nor did anyone else in the media speak of Brady s contractual obligations toward the NFL That confused mental twist is yours and yours alone Carrick Posted Sep 5 2015 at 10 29 PM Permalink mpainter you are making a distinction without a difference here CBAs are regulations that govern the relationship between employer and employee So in which Patriots fanboy universe isn t compliance with the CBA part of an NFL players contractual responsibilities Don t bother answering I ve lost interest Bye mpainter Posted Sep 6 2015 at 9 53 AM Permalink mpainter Posted Sep 2 2015 at 10 04 AM Permalink Reply And it appears Brady was victimized deliberately Funny before deflategate I never gave a hoot about Brady nor the NE Patriots I have never been within a thousand miles of Boston Now I feel great disgust toward Goodell and his sordid machinations My interest is in rigorous science and clear thinking Never lose interest Your fanboy epithet misses by a wide margin MikeN Posted Sep 7 2015 at 9 31 AM Permalink Article 46 of the CBA deals with discipline by the Commissioner not player conduct I see nothing in it that says a player must cooperate with an investigation MikeN Posted Sep 7 2015 at 9 32 AM Permalink https nfllabor files wordpress com 2010 01 collective bargaining agreement 2011 2020 pdf MikeN Posted Sep 7 2015 at 9 49 AM Permalink Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game bets on an NFL game knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on field performance or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football To Carrick this means hand over your phone mpainter Posted Sep 7 2015 at 10 39 AM Permalink To Carrick this means hand over your phone As a contractual obligation no less eloris Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 34 PM Permalink Reply Summarizing what I think on this 1 McIntyre clearly shows though I haven t independently verified this but the reasoning looks correct that there was a scenario under which environmental factors could explain the pressure drop He is right that Exponent should admit this and retract any statements to the contrary It is a disgrace that they have not 2 But he then takes it a step further and de facto argues for Brady s innocence on the grounds that this scenario is the most plausible That seems much more questionable His scenario is the NFL used the biased high gauge just for the Patriots prior to the game and not for the Colts Exponent rejected this for several dumb reasons but the one that is hard to argue with is that the measured Patriot results apparently match those obtained by the Patriots themselves meaning that for this scenario to hold the Patriots would have to be using a gauge with a similar bias Given that he argues against intentional deflation on the grounds that it is unlikely the Patriots conspired to deflate balls by an amount exactly equal to the intergauge bias it seems equally unlikely that they just so happened to have a gauge that had the exact same bias as the Logo gauge I note that if they did use such a gauge then they did in fact provide balls that were out of compliance pre game and the officials didn t notice because their gauge was biased high He comes several times back to the point of the unlikeliness that they deflated by exactly the intergauge bias and that seems weak to me too because it assumes that we know both that bias and the temperature the balls were measured to an implausible degree of precision Maybe I m wrong on this because I haven t run the numbers but if that gauge bias is determined by comparing the two ref s halftime readings then it varied by as much as 0 15 psi just during that series of measurements alone Finally if we re actually arguing for the Patriot s innocence then all the other non scientific evidence comes in too which is what the Wells Report really spent its time discussing In short if the standard is more likely than not I am not convinced that intentional deflation doesn t meet it I am glad it isn t my decision Maybe they should have had the CSI team investigate the bathroom to find out if McNally in fact made use of the facilities while he was in there Couldn t have cost more resources than have already been spent on this Carrick Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 50 PM Permalink Reply elof 1 McIntyre clearly shows though I haven t independently verified this but the reasoning looks correct that there was a scenario under which environmental factors could explain the pressure drop He is right that Exponent should admit this and retract any statements to the contrary It is a disgrace that they have not Not quite The Exponent report already acknowledge that they can t demonstrate that the footballs were deflated beyond any reasonable doubt The existence of a scenario where the footballs were deflated does tell us anything new in that case so there s nothing to retract 2 But he then takes it a step further and de facto argues for Brady s innocence on the grounds that this scenario is the most plausible That seems much more questionable I d go as far to say that Steve s physical assumptions are wrong I called them fantasy football physics on another thread To be fair Steve appears to be basing his physics assumptions on the Exponential report But given that e goes on to criticize the Exponent report as badly done it s frankly bizarre that Steve s going to base his physics models on the Exponential report This all goes back to the issue between plausibility vs implausibility Badly done measurements are much less likely to rule out a particular hypothesis than well done ones mpainter Posted Sep 3 2015 at 6 59 PM Permalink Reply Carrick you say The existence of a scenario where the footballs were deflated does tell us anything new in that case so there s nothing to retract As Steve showed Exponent faulty transient regarding ball initialization with the Logo gauge requires a corrigendum and conclusions based on that faulty curve need to be retracted You also say I d go as far to say that Steve s physical assumptions are wrong I called them fantasy football physics on another thread Here you seem to be indulging your penchant for extravagant statement I think that if you have greater comprehension skills and less egoism you would not make such statements You also say But given that h e goes on to criticize the Exponent report as badly done it s frankly bizarre that Steve s going to base his physics models on the Exponential report Steve did not perform any simulations He criticized Exponents methods assumptions and conclusions in their simulations and demonstrated their faults Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 3 2015 at 10 52 PM Permalink As Steve showed Exponent faulty transient regarding ball initialization with the Logo gauge requires a corrigendum and conclusions based on that faulty curve need to be retracted Carrick that s a key point and obviously one that I emphasized You can complain about fantasy physics but that doesn t justify Exponent s misrepresentation of their Logo simulation As I pointed out if they had done the simulation that they claimed to have done the transients would have been lower and the contradiction disappeared In my Op Ed as submitted I used strongly language than the final publication e g misrepresentation but the newspaper asked that the language be made less accusatory and I agreed Surely you can agree on the narrow point that Exponent misrepresented the simulations in Figures 26 27 and 30 not argued in my Op Ed but in prior CA posts and that they ought to have issued a corrigendum I ve speculated that such a corrigendum from Exponent would have made the entire controversy disappear The more water under the bridge the more embarrassing the mistake Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 8 15 PM Permalink To be fair the fantasy football physics was initiated by the Exponent report I do feel that their failure to respond to pertinent criticisms undermines their credibility regardless of any legal requirements that JD brings up Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 3 2015 at 10 44 PM Permalink Reply Carrick I didn t actually base my final position on the Exponent simulations other than their estimate of the differential between wet and dry balls at halftime I used Colt balls placed late in the intermission to benchmark and made no use of information from the simulations I don t think that this approach is as unreasonable as you argue Carrick Posted Sep 4 2015 at 8 08 PM Permalink Okay I would have used their work as a baseline for what to expect But I think it s a mistake to assume the Indy and Patriot footballs would absorb the same amount of moisture in their skins based on what is commonly known about the differences in the way the footballs are treated by the two teams Steve McIntyre Posted Sep 3 2015 at 10 40 PM Permalink Reply You say Given that he argues against intentional deflation on the grounds that it is unlikely the Patriots conspired to deflate balls by an amount exactly equal to the intergauge bias it seems equally unlikely that they just so happened to have a gauge that had the exact same bias as the Logo gauge I m aware of this issue and didn t discuss in the op ed because of space reasons I was at word limit and couldn t deal with some issues that I wanted to The point has been discussed on a number of occasions and was discussed in more detail in my letter to Marlow Exponent s case on this point was based on the apparent matching of pregame measurements of both Patriots and Colts However if Anderson switched gauges between PAtriot and Colt balls then Colt match is irrelevant and it is only the Patriot match that matters We know that Anderson s older gauge had gone out of compliance over time Could the same thing have happened with the Patriot gauge Seems entirely possible to me The logical thing would have been to test the Patriot gauge which was in the possession of the NFL at halftime The NFL seems to have lost or misplaced the gauge subsequently The Wells Report went to great pains to avoid the slightest criticism of the NFL and did not raise this embarrassment Exponent s gauge testing program was ludicrous They acquired numerous copies of new Non Logo gauges and determined that new Non Logo gauges were not as off as Anderson s older Logo gauge However the testing program proved nothing about older gauges Also Exponent observed that the gauges went further off compliance during the testing program itself A second issue was Patriot gloving Exponent convincingly showed that the gloving increased ball temperature and pressure but that the effect would have worn off by the time that the referees did their measurements Somewhere in the documents they mention that they gloved the balls much more intensely on this occasion because of the bad weather Brady reverting to a practice of Jastemski s predecessor While the effect would have worn off by the time that Anderson measured the balls the report doesn t say when Patriots measured the balls If they measured the balls while they were still warm they could have done so with a correct gauge and got 12 5 psig because the balls were still warm On this scenario the underinflation would have been picked up if Anderson had used a correct gauge but it was a comedy of errors Once again counting very strongly against surreptitious washroom deflation in my opinion is the very variability that the Wells Report used to argue for it The washroom simulations produced twice as much deflation as existed and did not produce the large observed variability So something else is needed to explain the variability as I argued here and elsewhere jst1 Posted Sep 4 2015 at 8 23 AM Permalink Reply The NFL seems to have lost or misplaced the gauge subsequently It s sitting right next to Brady s old phone EdeF Posted Sep 3 2015 at 3 39 PM Permalink Reply Their technical expert had a good resume but his points were easily rebutted He d have been better off making my arguments though with an expert with lots of letters behind his name who understood the arguments The name Steve McIntyre is sufficient eloris Posted Sep 3 2015 at 4 26 PM Permalink Reply I think that

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/01/op-ed-on-deflategate/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • brady « Climate Audit
    Exponent s temperature trick In today s post I ve taken a closer look at the seemingly questionable calculation of the transients at 67 deg F showing that the Patriot By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged football Comments 44 NFL Officials Over Inflated Patriot Balls Jun 28 2015 10 33 AM One of the ironies of the NFL s conduct in this affair is that it can be established that NFL officials under the supervision of NFL Executive Vice President Troy Vincent over inflated Patriot balls at half time the only proven tampering with Patriot balls Brady and the Patriots were unaffected by the overinflation by NFL officials as By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged football Comments 50 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/brady/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Did McNally Inflate One Football in the Washroom? « Climate Audit
    crazier This leaves the single cold outlier Its implied deflation Non Logo initialization is about 0 76 psi a typical amount observed in Exponent s deflation simulation Ironically this illustrates a major problem in Exponent s deflation simulations if the 12 Patriot balls had been deflated according to the Exponent simulations they would all be in this range Instead eleven of 12 balls are way above this level On the other hand the pressure temperature is too low to be explained simply by the use of the Logo gauge Variability in the Wells Report With the above background on nuances of variability I ll now consider how the analysis in the Wells Report and Snyder s criticism The Wells Report reported that the standard deviation of Patriot pressure measurements was 0 40 psi 11 balls as compared to 0 144 psi 4 balls for the Colt balls but were unable to find that this difference was statistically significant because the small number of Colt balls meant that standard tests had little power In their simulations Exponent observed that the difference in measurements between extremes of dry and wet balls was relatively small as follows the maximum differential observed between the dry and wet footballs tested under the same conditions was only approximately 0 3 psig This text is somewhat inconsistent with Figure 27 which shows a differential of 0 5 psi but that s a different story Either way the observed pairwise differences between Patriot measurements fluctuations in Exponent s terminology was much higher than that observed in their simulations an issue that Snyder did not confront Exponent presented the table of pairwise differences shown below Table 1 Exponent s table showing pairwise differences in Patriot measurements Exponent commented as follows There are seven pairs of measurements highlighted in orange and red in which the drop in pressure between the earlier ball tested and the later ball tested is greater than or equal to 0 75 psig and there are three pairs of measurements highlighted in red in which the drop in pressure between the earlier ball tested and later ball tested is greater than or equal to 1 0 psig From this they concluded that variations in wetness could not account for the very large variations in Patriot ball pressures and that the Patriot balls measured by officials did not all start the game at or near the same pressure though they didn t define near Specifically the fluctuations in the halftime pressures of Patriots footballs exceed in magnitude the fluctuations that can be attributed to the combined effects of the various physical usage and environmental factors we examined Therefore subject to discovery of an as yet unidentified and unexamined factor the most plausible explanation for the variability in the Patriots halftime measurements is that the 11 Patriots footballs measured by the officials at halftime did not all start the game at or near the same pressure However these findings need to be interpreted in light of the analysis in Figure 1 The orange and red cells all occur in rows 1 6 and 7 rows that correspond to the three balls in the two upper ellipses in Figure 1 In the analysis presented above these three balls did not start the game at the same pressure as the other eight balls because of different gauging and selection not because of washroom deflation Snyder Brady s expert witness Edward Snyder argued that it was improper to proceed with further comparison of variations once the initial comparison had not yielded a statistically significant result Secondly Exponent looked at the variation and the measurements between the Patriots balls and the Colts balls at halftime They compared the variances And despite conceding that there was no statistically significant difference between the two they went ahead and drew conclusions but those conclusions are improper Later Snyder expounded further that it was not sound practice to draw conclusions from an analysis that did not result in a finding of statistical significance Q Let s go to the next slide And what did Exponent conclude as a statistical matter about variability A No statistical no statistically significant difference Q Did they stop there A No They continued which is striking because whereas in the difference in difference analysis they adopted the standard five percent as the benchmark here they said no we will just continue on and reach conclusions And it s right here at the bottom So without having found anything that s nevertheless they have a statement that begins in their report therefore Q And in your experience as a statistical matter is it a sound practice to draw conclusions from an analysis which doesn t reach statistical significance A No Exponent rejected Snyder s criticism on this and other points on two grounds First their analysis was not limited to the comparison of variability between Patriot and Colt balls but also included comparison to their simulations Then we went and did all that physical testing We saw the effect of all those other parameters the effect or no effect of those parameters We looked at that and then we went back and looked at the variability of the data comparing at the same time looking at the variation of the balls individual balls And could we account in the difference in pressures based on other physical factors And the ranges and variability of factors were not predicted by the effect of say ball wetness and ball dryness that we saw So we went back and said you know there is variability in 2 here The statistical analysis you can t conclude but based on a review of the fluctuations in the data and looking at the physical experiments that we did we concluded that there is a difference there and that difference is most likely the differences in starting pressure of the footballs two different analyses The statistical analysis did not preclude us from going back and looking at the physical realities that we measured And that s what we did to come to that conclusion Second they also argued that the p value of the F test entitled them to take notice even if it was greater than 5 And similarly if you take Case 2 which is making a larger adjustment the reported p value s in the neighborhood of 2 a little bit above 2 Again if you do the analysis without imposing an equal variances assumption you get a p value that s below ten percent So it s statistically significant at the ten percent level not at the five percent level The other important point in thinking about statistical significance is that it s not a black or white line at 05 And there s no direct way that you can connect 05 certainly to a legal standard for preponderance of evidence So it s not that if you are 04 it s more likely than not and if you are 06 it s less likely than not We have to be clear about that So for all of those reasons I think that first finding is without foundation Because Exponent had also purported to justify their statistical analyses without consideration of timing as a sort of preliminary gatekeeping Kessler scored some points as to why they didn t do the same thing with their analysis of differences in variability In my opinion this was a better rhetorical than analytic point I don t have any issue with Exponent analysing variability only that they didn t do enough analysis or that their analysis wasn t insightful enough Snyder also speculated that the greater variability among Patriot balls arose from timing pointing out that the Colt balls being measured later were closer to the asymptote but did not quantify the impact of this observation Q Even putting aside the fact that Exponent s results were not statistically significant are you aware of any explanation for greater variability among Patriots balls compared to Colts balls A I m not here to offer scientific insights I don t know if the first half conditions could lead to more variance I m just going to focus on the scientific guidance provided by Exponent And recognizing that the Colts balls were measured some time in here indicating They are measured at a relatively flat part of the curve indicating And if you sample from a relatively flat part of the curve you get less variance And this was not considered by Exponent when they made this comparison and reached the therefore conclusion While timing has some effect on the variability in my opinion it is a secondary issue and does not explain the actual variability Conclusion The variability in Patriot pressures is larger than the variability in Colt pressures but the form of variability is very odd and in my opinion is more indicative of inconsistent gauges and even mistaken inclusion of a Colt ball than of erratic washroom deflation Exponent dismissed the idea that Patriot balls might have been initialized using the Logo gauge on the grounds that Anderson s pregame measurements were more or less consistent with each team s own measurements prior to tendering the balls I ve argued as had AEI and MacKinnon that it was entirely possible that Anderson switched gauges between Patriot and Colt pregame measurements as did NFL officials at halftime even under its heightened scrutiny This scenario removes the similarity of Colt team pregame measurements as an issue since it adopts the assumption that Colt balls were initialized with the Non Logo gauge and only requires similarity between Patriot pregame measurements and Anderson s Logo gauge There are two ways that this could have happened both of which were alluded to in Kessler s examination One possibility is that the Patriot gauge like Anderson s gauge was older and had gone slightly off calibration A second possibility was that Patriots had done their pregame measurements while the balls were still warm from gloving rather than waiting for them to cool down While Kessler raised these issues he didn t close off either one getting lost on the relevance of gloving after setting up the issue The other alternative and one not squarely addressed in the hearing was that the Patriots had for some inexplicable reason deflated their balls by the implausibly small amount of 0 38 psi an amount that is the exact amount of the inter gauge bias of Anderson s gauge a coincidence that in my humble opinion is wildly more improbable than the Patriots using an old and slightly off calibration gauge or doing their pregame measurements when the balls were still slightly warm from gloving However as discussed above simply assuming Logo gauge calibration doesn t solve the problem of variability and in particular it creates real interpretation problems for three balls that end up being too warm for which I ve proposed other alternatives I recognize that reasonable people may regard these alternative explanations as themselves implausible But when the details are examined erratic washroom deflation is not nearly as plausible an explanation for the observed variation as Brady critics assume Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Aug 10 2015 at 1 22 PM filed under Uncategorized and tagged brady exponent nfl Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Letter to Daniel Marlow on Exponent Error Op Ed on Deflategate 68 Comments gmkstans Posted Aug 10 2015 at 5 14 PM Permalink You are so much more thorough than Exponent Thank you for sharing your many analyses In support of your suggestion that a Colts ball was included among the Pats balls is footnotes 3 and 47 in Exponent s report According to information provided by Paul Weiss we understand that the Patriots may have delivered 13 primary balls prior to the game but it is clear that only 11 were measured at halftime Additionally see footnote 39 in Wells and the deflation exercise Exponent reported in Appendix 2 was on 13 balls MikeN Posted Aug 10 2015 at 7 03 PM Permalink One ball was intercepted and one was caught for a touchdown and taken out and 11 were measured at halftime This is the basis for concluding they started with 13 No one remembers the Pats actually preparing 13 balls Jeff Id Posted Aug 10 2015 at 5 55 PM Permalink deserves a bold imho The other alternative and one not squarely addressed in the hearing was that the Patriots had for some inexplicable reason deflated their balls by the implausibly small amount of 0 38 psi an amount that is the exact amount of the inter gauge bias of Anderson s gauge Chris Posted Aug 10 2015 at 6 46 PM Permalink Hi Steve What is the variance of the group of balls that may have been measured by the logo gauge I assume it s much closer to the colts balls All of the explanations you make are plausible This is the problem with the lack of information on the pregame procedure and two gauges that are very different I still don t understand why the Pats and Tom Brady would try to cheat to save 0 38psi I seriously doubt it would make any difference Chris Chris Posted Aug 11 2015 at 11 09 AM Permalink To answer my own question the standard deviation of the 0 38 group of balls is 0 16 MikeN Posted Aug 10 2015 at 7 10 PM Permalink Another possibility we are only seeing one group of Colt footballs It could be that the other 8 balls have greater variability There is about a 12 chance of getting a range 45 by picking 4 of the Pats 11 footballs About 20 for 7 or less Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 11 2015 at 12 20 AM Permalink Another possibility we are only seeing one group of Colt footballs It could be that the other 8 balls have greater variability There is about a 12 chance of getting a range 45 by picking 4 of the Pats 11 footballs About 20 for 7 or less It s possible but it s also possible and IMO much more likely that the higher variability of Patriot footballs is because they are more variable In this post I ve tried to argue that such higher variability does not necessarily imply deflation as opposed to NFL cock ups In retrospect I should perhaps focused more on ball 7 It had a Non Logo halftime measurement of 11 85 psi only 0 3 psi less than the Non Logo measurement of the last Colt ball 12 15 psi with the Logo gauge differential 0 25 psi One has to assume pressure gain of 0 3 psi or so so the pressure of Patriot ball 7 is more or less equivalent to Colt ball 15 which is supposed to have been set 0 5 0 6 psi higher This is not easy to explain especially if the Patriot ball is supposed to have been deflated by a substantial amount MikeN Posted Aug 10 2015 at 7 15 PM Permalink For the two footballs inflated by Anderson there is the possibility that the internal temperature of the air in those footballs would have increased due to inflation by about 1 5C Where y of air 1 4 T2 T1 P2 P1 n where n y 1 y DGH Posted Aug 10 2015 at 9 22 PM Permalink As always your analysis is thorough and compelling But all this seems to be immaterial given the allegations made by the league and the issues under consideration by the court http www usatoday com story sports nfl patriots 2015 08 06 deflategate judge tom brady new england patriots 31256089 It is surprising that the league would spend 2 500 000 on an investigation concerning the results of measurements from a gauge that costs 22 on Amazon The money would have been better spent on a league wide metrology program Steve I realize that the appeal issues concern the CBA and whether Goodell s disposition of the case is justified under the CBA I just happen to think that there s an interesting analytic situation While it doesn t seem related to climate I think that at least some readers might discen why I m interested in the matter for reasons outside of football MikeN Posted Aug 11 2015 at 1 16 AM Permalink You mean natural variation causing a change that has been blamed on man Richard Drake Posted Aug 11 2015 at 3 00 PM Permalink There are reasons outside of football Fans won t be happy MikeN Posted Aug 12 2015 at 3 41 PM Permalink Could you put up a comparison of the Pats footballs with the 12 YAD trees DGH Posted Aug 11 2015 at 4 37 AM Permalink In light of their original blasé regarding the accuracy of the football pressure observations the NFL s post hoc concern and the case they ve built around flimsy data are astounding The responses by those who disagree with the NFL s charges New England sports talk radio for example are eerily familiar Deflategate has been locally redubbed as Framegate Apparently the league and the other owners were out to get the Patriots The story continues that the same owners would now have Goodell fired for handling the situation so poorly Salamano Posted Aug 11 2015 at 10 40 AM Permalink Is there a way to submit all this kind of stuff as a sort of Amicus to Judge Richard M Berman to assist in his helping the parties resolve the situation and or rule on the situation John Faulstich Posted Aug 11 2015 at 10 59 AM Permalink Berman will not rule on the merits of the question as to whether there was defalcation of the balls but rather on the process by which the NFL judged Brady and determined and imposed the penalty But if I am Brady or Kessler I would weave the numerous errors by Wells and Exponent into why I would not accept a compromised penalty including suspension mpainter Posted Aug 11 2015 at 11 11 AM Permalink Once Anderson put his gauge back into his pocket it would be random which was gauge was used next This is important Anderson was carrying two gauges around in his pocket Has it been stated at what point it became generally realized that his Logo gauge was off by 0 38 psi John Faulstich Posted Aug 11 2015 at 11 14 AM Permalink It should have been apparent January 19 when they took the halftime and post game measurements by the two gauges perhaps not the exact offset but the fact that there was an offset of about 0 4 psi JakeM Posted Aug 11 2015 at 11 47 AM Permalink Steve A retired research scientist has found another serious problem with Exponent s transient curves Not in the math but in the underlying experimental methodology to create them Exponent used a football on a stand to predict the temperature increase and hence pressure increase of the footballs while they were in the locker room at half time Exponent carried out an experiment where the football on the stand was cooled to 48 F which was the temperature of the footballs when they were brought in from the field at half time The football on the stand was then surrounded by 72 F air to simulate conditions in the locker room and warms up relatively quickly As the temperature increases the pressure increases The Wells report states that it was raining at half time and the temperature on the field was 48 F The ball boys collected the Patriot s game balls from the field and placed them in a ball bag The ball bag and footballs were cold and wet and as mentioned previously they were taken to the officials locker room and placed against the back wall in the ball bag They remained in the ball bag until they were tested by the officials The 72 F air in the locker room can t get to the footballs in the ball bag to warm them up in the same manner as the football on the stand so they remain cold and the pressure does not increase significantly Exponent s transient curves are much steeper than if they had simulated the real conditions I have some issues with some of his work and he is a Patriots s fan but his main point regarding the balls being in a more insulated environment up until testing is a very valid one http www deflategatedeflated com Steve thanks for the link I too had wondered about the ball bag and thought that this effect needed to be studied Since even a light windbreaker retards heat exchange it seemed plausible to me that the ball bag would function like a windbreaker It s interesting to see the numbers Though it seems to me that he proves too much his transients are much too low for the Colt balls I ll post on this JakeM Posted Aug 11 2015 at 1 10 PM Permalink The fault I have is just as Exponent s curve is artificially too steep his is likely too flat In his experiment he should have removed balls one at a time in proper intervals to simulate real events as the number of the balls in the bag decreased one would surmise that so would the insulating effects of those balls Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 11 2015 at 1 40 PM Permalink AS discussed previously Exponent s transients for the Logo gauge werent calculated with the Logo gauge For my own calculations I ve limited myself to the implied transient to Colt measurements from half time temperatures with a plausible differential for wet balls These give transients that seem plausible JakeM Posted Aug 11 2015 at 7 13 PM Permalink The exact location of each ball in the bag may also explain some variation A ball on the outside edges of the bag and mostly only insulated by the bag itself may warm faster than a ball surrounded by other cold balls and further away from warm air exposure Unaware of temperature effects an official could easily grab a ball in the center of the bag followed by one close the surface next one down in the bag etc mpainter Posted Aug 11 2015 at 1 58 PM Permalink The rate of re pressurization would have been dependent on the wetness of the ball and I believe that a simulation would show that a wet ball taken from the bag would warm more slowly than a dry ball There are two reasons for such a supposition 1 The heat capacity of water is high and a wet ball would absorb more heat than a dry ball for any given incremental rise in ball temperature This simply means that a wet ball would require more heat than a dry ball to warm to room temperature hence warming would be delayed 2 The relative humidity of the official s room where the ball pressure was measured at halftime was low at 20 This means that much of the heat absorbed from the air by a wet ball would be returned to the air of the official s room as latent heat of evaporation This would have retarded the warming of the ball IMO the Wells Report fails to take proper account of the effect of ball wetness on the rate of warming editstet Posted Aug 11 2015 at 11 58 AM Permalink I think that the main problem is a belief that the ball boys and then Anderson were overly precise in their measurements The inaccuracies of the gauges the speed at which they would check the balls likely meant that some balls were a little overinflated and some a little underinflated If you ve ever pumped your own tires you know that sometimes a little air may escape and even cars with tire warnings allow for some variance A couple tenths psi here a couple tenths there and soon you ve blown everything up into deflategate Keith Sketchley Posted Aug 11 2015 at 12 55 PM Permalink I m chuckling while shaking my head My impression of the whole affair is that several people organizations did bad work in haste and some incompetence Hence it is not like possible to make an accurate case Though if Stephen were in charge there d at least be a reasonable conclusion which may be that it is impossible to determine guilt or innocence thus the case should be dismissed pdtillman Posted Aug 11 2015 at 2 34 PM Permalink Um Steve maybe you need to rename the blog Sports Audit Richard Drake Posted Aug 11 2015 at 2 50 PM Permalink A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds Chris Posted Aug 12 2015 at 1 04 AM Permalink Steve Are these differences based on dry balls If so could the negative outlier be the ball on the field for most of the final first half drive It appears to me that they really didn t rotate balls much especially in the last minute of the drive which took forever Rick Posted Aug 12 2015 at 10 32 AM Permalink Has it been linked before Brady appears to be the victim of Bugs Bunny Logic Richard Drake Posted Aug 12 2015 at 7 40 PM Permalink An unflattering courtroom sketch of Brady is leading to the usual japes online Here s my current favourite By request of caveboyjones well yeah pic twitter com awE0i19LbH Thunder Dan Weiner DanWeiner August 12 2015 David L Hagen Posted Aug 13 2015 at 3 05 PM Permalink The Legal Issue What is the direct evidence that implicates Mr Brady Judge Richard M Berman repeatedly asked NFL lawyer Daniel L Nash MikeN Posted Aug 13 2015 at 3 35 PM Permalink NFL might be wishing they d gone to Minnesota mpainter Posted Aug 14 2015 at 4 45 PM Permalink Interesting but I can t see a settlement unless Goodell craters Brady has nothing to lose by forcing the issue imo He loses if he fails to clear his name and wins through vindication MikeN Posted Aug 14 2015 at 6 39 PM Permalink The procedural issues are considerably against the NFL Having the judge arguing the facts as well puts them in a tough spot pats1251 Posted Aug 14 2015 at 8 02 AM Permalink Page 68 of the Wells Report As noted eleven different Patriots game balls were tested by the game officials during halftime with each ball tested by each of two officials The football intercepted by the Colts was not included in the group of eleven Patriots footballs tested Nor was a football that Patriots fullback James Develin had caught for a touchdown in the first half which the Patriots set aside for him to retain as a memento Based on the evidence we believe that the Patriots game ball bag initially contained thirteen footballs rather than twelve In fact when interviewed by NFL Security on the night of the AFC Championship Game Jim McNally volunteered that the Patriots game ball bag may have included thirteen footballs McNally s statement which we were unable to discuss with McNally because the Patriots refused to make McNally available for a follow up interview was consistent with information from Walt Anderson who said that it was certainly possible that the Patriots provided a thirteenth ball because teams often include an extra ball or two when inclement weather is expected Subtracting the intercepted ball and the Develin touchdown ball results in a total of eleven Patriots game balls available for halftime testing Certainly possible that the Patriots had a 13th ball before the game I d say it s just as certainly possible that 13th ball was the Colts balls Jackson referenced being on the field while the Pats were on offense pats1251 Posted Aug 14 2015 at 8 04 AM Permalink FYI that is in footnote 39 if anyone is looking for it True to form Wells buried an important point in a footnote and cast it aside with this certainly possible wishy washy hand waving BS chuckrr Posted Aug 14 2015 at 8 32 AM Permalink So there were two balls that were never tested or re inflated at halftime Were those balls ever tested after the game pats1251 Posted Aug 14 2015 at 8 59 AM Permalink Correct The Brady Interception and the Develin touchdown ball reserved for memorabilia were not tested That means assuming the Patriots came in with 12 balls a 13th was introduced We already know thanks to D Qwell Jackson that a Colt ball ended up in play while the Patriots took the field This is a much more intuitive explanation for why there are 13 balls than Wells gives Why would the team provide an extra ball in case of rain when they already have a backup set of 12 Just b c McNally and Anderson couldn t rule out there being a 13th ball doesn t mean that when a better solution presents itself it should not be investigated More shoddy selective and misleading work by Wells pats1251 Posted Aug 14 2015 at 9 00 AM Permalink by thanks to D Qwell Jackson I mean that we have knowledge of the Colts ball being in Patriots play NOT that he introduced the ball Sorry for any confusion chuckrr Posted Aug 14 2015 at 11 07 AM Permalink This point has probably already been made but if those balls were tested after he game it would have pretty much proved the case one way or the other chuckrr Posted Aug 14 2015 at 11 09 AM Permalink Or at least been the strongest evidence MikeN Posted Aug 14 2015 at 10 21 AM Permalink If the referees had not made a record of their halftime measurements we would have been told that it is not plausible that they switched gauges between measurements Carrick Posted Aug 14 2015 at 11 34 AM Permalink Steve is right about my skepticism of how much you can learn forensically I think there are just too many possibilities to allow any particular scenario to be ruled out As I said on a previous thread in my opinion the best you can do is show that a particular scenario is consistent with the data demonstration of plausibility It remains in my opinion more plausible that New England employees tampered with the footballs there are just a lot of coincidences that have just magically lined up otherwise Here are a few addressing this post What if McNally didn t deflate one or more football or was erratic in how much each football was deflated It seems virtually impossible to me to disentangle this one from any other competing and or contributing factors What if the type of treatment of the football surface preferred by New England resulted in a larger variance As I mentioned in a previous comment we know that New England roughed the surface of their footballs and applied more oil to it This could yield less water absorbed than with the Indy footballs and could yield potentially wildly different warming curves for the different New England footballs Anyway it has been suggested here that a better testing protocol needs to be implemented I d suggest having a video camera recording the testing to be paramount here along with pressure sensors that are accurate to 0 1 psi or better Had Brady fully cooperated with the investigation and had they found nothing incriminating in that the way this has played out would have been a travesty As admited by the NFLPA unfortunately Brady didn t cooperate fully assuming he was actually innocent here and this was probably at the bad advise of Michael Yee and the lawyers involved for the NE Patriots shenanigans24 Posted Aug 14 2015 at 4 37 PM Permalink Brady or pretty much any player is probably hesitant to set a precedent of allowing the league to subpoena personal phones The NFL had the CBA negotiation to secure that right to subpoena private phones and they didn t do it Brady would be adding it for all players by precedent I would imagine the NFLPA told him not to And frankly he shouldn t they had the team cell phones with McNally and Jastremski Nothing was on them between Brady and them MikeN Posted Aug 14 2015 at 6 46 PM Permalink Yes a number of coincidences but each one is individually more plausible than not Logo gauge use was testified to by the referee tipping the scales in its favor Wells didn t test Patriot and Colt gauges Deflator text from May combined with the Jets game I think it is exculpatory Saying the referees are at fault and not McNally means deflator must refer to something else Stop in bathroom more probable than not it is because he had to use the bathroom The release of this video in my opinion would settle the issue I suspect if he were breathing heavy or sweating it would have been reported by Wells Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 15 2015 at 7 43 AM Permalink Carrick says As I mentioned in a previous comment we know that New England roughed the surface of their footballs and applied more oil to it I don t think that we know that I recall reading somewhere that Brady did not want Lexol on the balls because they were expecting wet weather and had asked for the balls to be heavily gloved instead I think that that was in the transcript somewhere mpainter Posted Aug 15 2015 at 10 52 AM Permalink Concerning the Patriot practice of gloving the ball there was testimony by Brady Apparently the pebbly surface is sanded to achieve a slight abrasion of the pebbles He stated his preference that the pebbling not be sanded flat but partially removed by sanding This would result in about half of the ball s surface being abraded IMO this would have brought those balls which were exposed to the rain close to the point of saturation Unprotected leather wicks up moisture quickly Dale Syphers professor of physics at Bowdin College Brunswick Maine conducted his own tests with wet footballs He used procedures different from those of Exponent He found that wet cold footballs brought into a warm dry room actually lost pressure He attributed this pressure loss to evaporative cooling Unfortunately I cannot find any details on his controls and procedures He also admits to being a Patriots fan James Evans Posted Aug 14 2015 at 12 29 PM Permalink I m struggling to understand I mean who cares If you devote so much time and effort to something so trivial are you honing your skills or do you really not get what s remotely important in life Playing the advocate here but really enough about trivia already JakeM Posted Aug 14 2015 at 12 50 PM Permalink As admited by the NFLPA unfortunately Brady didn t cooperate fully Yes I believe the attorney stated it this way Your honor on advise of his attorney Mr Brady declined to throw himself in the well the NFLPA wasn t involved in any discussions with Mr Brady on the likelihood of him floating or sinking or if that would help to determine his status as a witch It remains in my opinion more plausible that New England employees tampered with the footballs there are just a lot of coincidences that have just magically lined up otherwise This turns the truth on it s head In order for the NFL to make

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/10/variability-of-patriot-and-colt-footballs/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • exponent « Climate Audit
    Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/exponent/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • nfl « Climate Audit
    2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/nfl/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Letter to Daniel Marlow on Exponent Error « Climate Audit
    letter could cause a resolution of the issue But as I understand Marlow is a consultant paid for his work by Paul Weiss I m sure all would be interested in any reply by Marlow John Faulstich Posted Aug 11 2015 at 10 40 AM Permalink The question is if Marlow ignores this does Kessler quietly spread this around academia Pat Frank Posted Aug 15 2015 at 11 45 AM Permalink It s been a week and I gather no reply from Dr Marlow or we d have heard about it Guess he don t got to show you no stinkin badges Steve mpainter Posted Aug 15 2015 at 1 12 PM Permalink Daniel Marlow was contacted by the New York Times in the preparation of an article by James Glanz May 6 2015 Marlow quoted Paul Weiss has asked me not to comment and to refer questions to the NFL Marlow will of course follow the instructions of his benefactors he is their regularly paid consultant I would imagine that his professional relation with Paul Weiss nets him thousands The world of money is watching There is a good chance that he will be summoned as an expert witness There are times when a scientist must think of himself Can t say that his behavior is not understandable Apparently Marlow carries some weight among physicists in the world of academia according to the article Good read timg56 Posted Aug 20 2015 at 11 19 AM Permalink I just heard yesterday that the judge overseeing the case mentioned something to the effect the science evidence presented by the league was not necessarily that convincing mpainter Posted Aug 20 2015 at 12 49 PM Permalink I could find no such remark Do you have a link because if the judge used such an expression it is the crack of doom for Roger Goodell kim Posted Aug 21 2015 at 7 26 PM Permalink The Boston Globe has a hearing transcript It s 83 pages too long for me to read kim Posted Aug 21 2015 at 8 01 PM Permalink Oh well skimmed it Not much about the science but quantum leap on p 6 is curious mpainter Posted Aug 21 2015 at 9 11 PM Permalink I saw a legal blog where the 8 19 hearing was discussed Judge Berman asked some more pointed questions of the NFL counsel and made even more pointed remarks directed at same It does not look good for Goodell IMO this is what Goodell is looking at possibly Goodell is pushed aside and Bradey s suspension is suspended while an arbitrator appointed by the judge re opens the whole issue allowing all rights to Bradley and the NFLPA to examine documents and take testimony from whomever including Goodell Goodell will come out with a foul odor clinging to him and Bradey will have all he needs to proceed with a successful defamation suit against Goodell Everything depends on how dumb Goodell is and he might just be dumb enough to risk such an outcome John Faulstich Posted Aug 21 2015 at 8 44 PM Permalink so do we think the to the eye small errors in the transients were intentional or mistakes http www robertblecker com deflategate the smoking gun John Faulstich Posted Aug 21 2015 at 9 21 PM Permalink I think Goodell weighed his options and decided that he could not afford to back down as questions would arise as to why so he thinks he either wins or loses in court and if he loses it s based on the process which will hurt him some but not on the facts which would hurt him a lot But there are some saying since the League went to the court requesting it to basically validate the decision they risk the judge ruling on the facts as well as the process I think brady has ammo for the defamation lawsuit and I hope he uses it mpainter Posted Aug 23 2015 at 4 57 PM Permalink I read the 8 19 hearing transcript all 83 pages skimming over some Kessler argued law and precedent and the bench seemed impressed Nash NFL attorney basically argued that Goodell acted within his authority and discretion The bench took issue with some of it obviously not much impressed by NFL arguments It seems obvious that the NFL is in a very weak position for settlement talks the bench s attitude having been so obvious IMO NFLPA Brady will not feel the need to cede anything to the NFL They can hope for the best from the court It seems that the bench is doing Goodell the favor of extracting himself from the mess he has created mpainter Posted Aug 23 2015 at 4 59 PM Permalink Rather doing Goodell the favor of providing the opportunity to extract himself Ian Posted Sep 10 2015 at 2 15 PM Permalink A bit late for this thread but there s a parallel story on Formula 1 tyre pressures An unexpected alarm That margin was again clear gap to next driver when Hamilton s engineer Peter Bonnington came on the radio with seven laps to go and told him he needed to put in some flat out laps or hammer time as he put it Hamilton was flummoxed by the request but Bonnington merely replied Don t ask questions just execute The need for this became apparent just before the end of the race when it emerged that Mercedes had been referred to the stewards because the starting pressures of the left rear tyres on both cars were below the minimum permitted by Pirelli on safety grounds In Hamilton s case the margin was only 0 3psi a 1 5 margin that engineers from rival teams admitted would make almost no difference while adding that that was hardly the point Rules are rules they said You re either within them or you re illegal Except in F1 it is not always

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/08/letter-to-daniel-marlow-on-exponent-error/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • marlow « Climate Audit
    2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/marlow/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Exponent’s Trick to Exaggerate the Decline « Climate Audit
    pursued after dealing with Exponent s misrepresentations Q They are not consistent with what physical fact A The fact that if that was happening then the Patriots gave the referees 12 17 psi balls below the League minimum Q How do you know that the Colts and I m sorry How do you know that the Patriots and the referee were both not using something equivalent to the logo gauge A So you re asking me to assume that all three of these people the Patriots pre game the Colts pre game and Mr Anderson pre game all used the same gauge that were exactly the same amount off All the tests Q No A I m sorry go ahead Q I am asking the following You have never seen or tested or looked at the Colts gauge or the Patriots gauge pre game right A That s correct This line of questioning then spiraled off into a discussion of gauges an important topic but again without confronting Exponent s misrepresentation While the transcript is not as on point as one would like it certainly supports the surmise that Exponent calculated the transients in Figures 26 27 and 30 with pressures set at 12 5 and 13 0 psig using the Master Gauge not the Logo Gauge as shown in the figures which misrepresented the procedure Caligiuri explained why he thought that initialization of transients with the Master Gauge was the right procedure but did not explain why Exponent s report stated that they had set the footballs using the Logo Gauge when they had actually used the Master Gauge Kessler apparently one of the finest litigation lawyers of his generation advised by an able and experienced expert then totally fanned on an essential question much to the detriment of the truth in the matter and to the detriment of his client The net result is that Exponent s misrepresentations were left unchallenged together with Exponent s false findings based on these figures The incident should be a warning about the vagaries of legal processes even with very competent lawyers That Exponent s misrepresentation lingers on is disquieting On the other hand it s the sort of thing that could give the parties a basis of face saving settlement for Goodell at Exponent s expense Suppose that Goodell said something along the following lines I have learned that the technical analysis in the Wells Report contained an important and erroneous mis statement of procedure in key figures simulations and transients said to have been set using the Logo Gauge were actually set using the Master Gauge After correcting this error we can no longer say that there was unexplainable deflation regardless of assumptions on gauges While there are disquieting texts without being sure that there was unexplainable deflation we can no longer conclude that an offence took place We have already announced strict measures to ensure that a similar controversy cannot arise in the future Doesn t that seem like the only sane ending Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Aug 7 2015 at 10 39 AM filed under Uncategorized and tagged brady caligiuri exponent kessler Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Who Told Exponent Not to Consider Switching Scenario Letter to Daniel Marlow on Exponent Error 14 Comments ElGee Posted Aug 7 2015 at 11 03 AM Permalink Steve you literally saved me from writing this post I found this to be one of the most astonishing exchanges in the appeal and one of the few times Kessler really whiffed MikeN Posted Aug 7 2015 at 2 31 PM Permalink 6 minutes average time Exponent calculate 30 seconds to measure each football which would place the total time for 11 footballs around 6 minutes allowing for a start time as late as 3 minutes into halftime If they measure in an assembly line fashion with ref 1 measuring ball n 1 while referee 2 is measuring ball n then total time is just 3 minutes This graph also is in line with the Colts being measured at the end of halftime There is still the issue which was brought up by one witness that the Patriots balls are moving in the wrong direction with regards to pressure Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 7 2015 at 2 55 PM Permalink There is still the issue which was brought up by one witness that the Patriots balls are moving in the wrong direction with regards to pressure The trend is not significant Nor given the noisiness are the observations necessarily inconsistent with warming MikeN Posted Aug 7 2015 at 8 27 PM Permalink You can t say the noisiness means the numbers are consistent with physics when the noisiness is being used as evidence of tampering MikeN Posted Aug 7 2015 at 8 30 PM Permalink Would evaporative cooling had been detected during the tests Exponent reported Steve McIntyre Posted Aug 7 2015 at 2 57 PM Permalink Exponent calculate 30 seconds to measure each football which would place the total time for 11 footballs around 6 minutes allowing for a start time as late as 3 minutes into halftime It seems to me that they would have needed more time to reflate and regauge the 11 footballs than to do the original measurements MikeN Posted Aug 7 2015 at 8 25 PM Permalink They reported deflation could be done in 1 minute 40 seconds so it s not difficult I was just pointing out that 3 9 minutes is average of 6 ElGee Posted Aug 8 2015 at 11 04 AM Permalink A couple things 1 They tested blind deflation It makes sense that Inflating to a specific level e g 13 PSI takes longer because they have to check how much they inflated the ball 2 If you follow their estimations 2 4 minutes to set up

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/08/07/exponents-trick-to-exaggerate-the-decline/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •