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

Total: 111

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

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Data Torture in Gergis2K « Climate Audit
    established before analyzing the data Or in what field that all the data collected isn t included in the analysis The medical field certainly comes to mind when inconvenient results aren t included in final reports for which there are consequences but all the data was at least part of the analysis by the before prescribed methodology It s hard to imagine Big Pharma being able to make up their own rules methodologies and get away with it ian005 Posted Nov 22 2014 at 11 10 PM Permalink BER Read the two papers to which Steve has provided links above it appears that experimental and social psych is rife with the same problems That the problem exists elsewhere in no way excuses the way statistical analyses are managed in the AGW field but it does illustrate that it is not entirely unusual And if you read the stuff on Retraction Watch numerous other fields such as oncological research seem to have endemic issues with how research is conducted and analyses performed MikeN Posted Nov 22 2014 at 3 31 PM Permalink I suspect there more of an established basis but I have the same reaction when I see studies that assess the proxy by calculating correlations against temperatures in all seasons months or smaller periods and whichever gets the highest correlation it is now declared that this is what the proxy is a proxy for eg temperatures in August barn E rubble Posted Nov 22 2014 at 4 31 PM Permalink RE Posted Nov 22 2014 at 3 31 PM it is now declared that this is what the proxy is a proxy for eg temperatures Well that s another problem isn t it I m thinking of varve thickness where apparently the proxy can be whatever you want it to be thicker is warmer or thicker is cooler as has been discussed here on many threads From what I ve read and understood it appears only isotope ratios have a clear and declared meaning IE the same methodology ratios have not been used to determine both warming and cooling The same methodology ratios are always used to calculate one way or the other Which I suppose is another problem for those not really interested in what the data actually show s as opposed what they d like it to The University Of Saskatchewan has been doing a lot of interesting research RE climatology with isotopes shells fish bones They believe they can not only get seasonal resolution but right down to a weekly or near daily resolution for temperatures Jeff Alberts Posted Nov 22 2014 at 7 53 PM Permalink Well that s another problem isn t it I m thinking of varve thickness where apparently the proxy can be whatever you want it to be thicker is warmer or thicker is cooler as has been discussed here on many threads Not to mention all the other environmental factors which can affect the proxy in different ways It always seems to be assumed that temperature is the dominant factor Joe Posted Nov 22 2014 at 3 54 PM Permalink A layman s question Can someone explain the difference in trenched data and detrenched data detrended data and the significance I recall several months ago as study by Mann using detrenched data which showed the current pause was likely caused by the amo pdo without any attribution to the prior warming to the amo pdo Just looking for a good explanation without any editorializing Thanks Steve I do not regard AMO and PDO as explanations of anything better to ask someone who does HAS Posted Nov 22 2014 at 4 15 PM Permalink I assume you me trended throughout Coincidentally Judith Curry has the following in her Week in review post this week Superb post by Matt Briggs on the bogus use of statistics on temperature series Don t use statistics unless you have to http wmbriggs com blog p 14718 C2 A0 It takes you through the problems in reasonably easy steps Richard Drake Posted Nov 22 2014 at 4 32 PM Permalink Briggs calls the post Netherlands Temperature Controversy Or Yet Again How Not To Do Time Series EdeF Posted Nov 22 2014 at 7 25 PM Permalink Nor does it seem reasonable to data mine after the fact for significant correlations between three different lag periods including one in which the proxy leads temperature Apparently some proxies are intuitive or have ESP and can guess ahead of time if the temperature is going up or down John Ritson Posted Nov 23 2014 at 6 34 AM Permalink They might be able to if they are made of Thiotimoline http en wikipedia org wiki Thiotimoline Peter Dunford Posted Nov 23 2014 at 1 11 PM Permalink An earlier example was the magic trees in Yamal Nicholas Posted Nov 22 2014 at 7 35 PM Permalink If you re checking for correlation to one of 27 temperature series don t you have to raise your pass correlation threshold significantly to retain p 0 05 confidence interval If so how do so many more proxies manage to pass the test Nicholas Posted Nov 22 2014 at 7 37 PM Permalink Apologies this is affirmed in the post Given that I an amateur at statistics know this how is it that the authors and reviewers of PAGES2K don t Steve PAGES2K was extremely rushed and contained too much material for reviewers to review It was rejected by Science for this reason However IPCC had cited it in a prominent graphic and needed it So Nature had to accept it It was accepted on deadline eve Briffa was one of the reviewers for Nature and needless to say he was aware of IPCC requirements Nature published it in an article category that didn t require stringent reviewing if you look back at contemporary discussion Clark Posted Nov 24 2014 at 1 52 PM Permalink You have to remember that reviewers are volunteers working on their own time With the ability to dump an encyclopedia into supplemental online data paper submissions are getting longer and longer every year I just re reviewed a paper for Nature Submission text 34 pages Supplemental text 12 pages Response to first reviews 26 pages Figures in paper supplemental 240 panels And Nature wants a review in about a week after which they send you increasing worried emails What are the chances I can in my spare time from a busy job go through each legend carefully For example my field is much less statistical biology but still uses simple things like standard error standard deviations t tests etc I would guess that 50 of figures with a SD or SE show an error bar and never define it or provide sample sizes in the figure legend For journals where they let you see all the reviews as a reviewer I cannot recall a single instance where a reviewer other than myself asked for those statistical details Tom Fuller Posted Nov 22 2014 at 8 08 PM Permalink In bridge they occasionally warn against sending a man to do a boy s job i e taking a trick with a higher card than necessary As Mr McIntyre has often warned in the past using obscure or brand new statistical tricks to prove the point you already believe is fraught I have described it in the past as using lower math as long as you can Again I find it hard to find fault with Gergis et al for trying to salvage what must have been extensive prior work that came to nothing What is amazing is that they seem to have learned nothing from their prior experience It is this type of thing that leads to the accusations that the scientific has become the political Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 22 2014 at 11 14 PM Permalink one of the oddities of this case is much of their data mining was probably unnecessary In the original studies there is generally a fairly strong correlation between summer temperature and gridcell instrumental temperature as long as the two series are dated consistently But look at the start dates for the Kauri NZ series used in Gergis et al 2012 PAGES2k 2013 and Neukom et al 2014 each study places the series one year apart All three versions match closely when offsets are synchronized the numbers in the Gergis series are just scaled a little differently The differences between the three dsets are one year offsets all over the place with no pattern If a substantial number of series are off by one year they will fail detrended correlation Look at the example shown here which is dated in different years in each of Gergis et al 2012 PAGES2K and Neukom et al 2014 It looks to me like the majority of series in Gergis et al 2012 were dated inconsistently to the instrumental series Obviously I m opposed to ex post correlation screening and IMO the real problem in this particular reconstruction is the validity of splicing short trending coral O18 series onto long tree ring and ice core O18 series with little variability But oddly enough it looks to me like Gergis might have been able to salvage their original screening strategy if they hadn t screwed up the dating of their proxies And that their need to datamine for lags and leads arose almost entirely from inconsistent proxy dating I m doublechecking this before posting on it but right now it looks like a real clusterf Steven Mosher Posted Nov 23 2014 at 1 34 AM Permalink somebody is writing a mail now alerting others to his independent discovery of this problem Skiphil Posted Nov 23 2014 at 2 06 AM Permalink Let s not be cynical no doubt Neukom has been all over this issue for HOURS now and did not need any info or prompting from CA to discover the problem himself Gergis and Karoly will be able to re assure themselves and the world that all is right with Team GERGIS2K largolarry Posted Nov 23 2014 at 8 48 AM Permalink the real problem in this particular reconstruction is the validity of splicing short trending coral O18 series onto long tree ring and ice core O18 series with little variability Has there ever been a peer reviewed study that shows that these type of data splicing is valid Until the method is validated all results using the method are at least questionable and probably should never been allowed in a peer reviewed publication Richard Drake Posted Nov 24 2014 at 12 31 AM Permalink Steven Mosher 1 34 AM somebody is writing a mail now alerting others to his independent discovery of this problem Amazing we haven t heard about this independent discovery yet Maybe it s a northern southern hemisphere thing mrsean2k Posted Nov 24 2014 at 1 52 PM Permalink Ace timing bernie1815 Posted Nov 23 2014 at 7 53 AM Permalink Steve What a neat catch How on earth did you spot this discrepancy What drew your attention to it Steve recall my detailed examination of the Oroko dataset which looks like it spliced instrumental data in its post 1957 portion and had a high correlation to instrumental temperature before that So it should pass a detrended correlation test with flying colors But when we tested Gergis et al 2012 a couple of years ago it failed I joined the G12 and P2K versions and to compare them scaled them and plotted them together in a 100 year window for clarity One version was displaced one year from the other version So I checked all the overlapping G12 and P2K later looking at N14 versions In some cases the P2K version was displaced offset one way and in other cases it was offset the other way In a couple of cases there is a two year offset When the Oroko series was lined up properly it has a high t value when it is offset it has a low t value Same for other series I suspect that the problem crept in when they were converting SH summer series to NH calendar years but all the more reason why they should have taken care If series are are lined up ex ante correctly it looks like many of the series pass detrended correlation without the data mining in PAGES2K There are some loose ends that I m trying to figure out Craig Loehle Posted Nov 23 2014 at 2 35 PM Permalink 1 massive data offset problem in the Australasia data 2 hockey stick results from 1 3 big trouble for the global recon 4 retract Nicholas Posted Nov 23 2014 at 3 47 PM Permalink Actually the fact that the series pass the detrended correlation test against the nearest temperature record when aligned properly and don t when even slightly misaligned is pretty good evidence that they are actually proxies for temperature I am actually quite impressed I think therefore it s more appropriate for there to be an alteration to the paper rather than retraction This whole mess just goes to show yet again that peer review is no guarantee of quality It s particularly problematic that peer review was essentially glossed over for political reasons Science shouldn t be politically driven it should be the other way around Nicholas Posted Nov 23 2014 at 3 49 PM Permalink Well impressed except for the Oroko dataset no surprise that temperature should be correlated with temperature But for the rest of the proxies if they aren t spliced it s a pretty interesting result Steven Mosher Posted Nov 23 2014 at 3 57 PM Permalink craig note the wiggle room http www nature com authors policies corrections html Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 23 2014 at 5 05 PM Permalink Actually the fact that the series pass the detrended correlation test against the nearest temperature record when aligned properly and don t when even slightly misaligned is pretty good evidence that they are actually proxies for temperature I am actually quite impressed I think therefore it s more appropriate for there to be an alteration to the paper rather than retraction I have looked at a number of proxies and particularly tree ring proxies and I am not impressed with a detrended correlation As I noted before it is easy to show that a paired series with relatively high and significant detrended correlation or a non detrended high correlation can have decadal trends that are very different Tree rings can respond to temperature in near lock step but to pass the true test of whether the proxy is valid in tracking decadal temperature trends the tree rings have to respond to match the magnitude of the temperature changes It is here that the tree ring responses can fail and no doubt because other variables can affect that response and those other variables are not necessarily the same over time or even random I have been using the R function mtm coh in the library multitaper to quantify the coherence of paired proxy to proxy proxy to temperature and temperature to temperature series I have found by using simulations that the coherence measure is a good indicator of whether the linear or non linear decadal trends seen in these paired series are out of phase and by how much As a whole the proxies I have studied in the Kaufmann Arctic 2K reconstruction do not have good coherence with each other over long stretches of time or with temperature over the shorter time period of the instrumental record There are a very few proxies that are much better in coherence that I am studying further I need to look into the reconstruction under discussion here by measuring coherence of decadal trends and not letting correlations detrended or trended and linear or non linear get me excited It might impress some that relatively high correlations or at least significant ones can be obtained from both trended and detrended paired series and after that impression it might be easier to not talk about the more critical measure of the decadal trends in these series Further to that selling point approach for this reconstruction is with regards to something SteveM mentioned about the hockey stick being garnered by the composite of the short series coral proxies being tacked onto the mundane composite of the longer series The short to long series is a very important critique of the authors methods since with the short series we never know how those proxies responded in historical times compared to the instrumental near instrumental period Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 23 2014 at 11 25 AM Permalink If indeed on double checking SteveM finds that the authors of the paper under discussion here made errors in the proxy dating and if further one combined that error with the failure of these same authors to see in an earlier failed paper that the data had not been detrended I would consider that evidence that these authors are more interested in the end result than the methods and the application of those methods that got them to that conclusion MikeN Posted Nov 24 2014 at 1 57 PM Permalink Usually it s sending a boy to do a man s job trumping to low and getting overruffed Now in this case did they send a boy to do a Mann s job or did they send a Mann to do a boy s job John Bernoulli laid out a challenge of finding the fastest path between two points and solutions were received from L Hopital Liebniz and an unsigned one from Newton Bernoulli declared I recognize the lion from his paw charles the moderator Posted Nov 23 2014 at 1 15 AM Permalink One has to wonder if this particular Australia Rat Pack has the moral compass to feel embarrassment Probably not Alexej Buergin Posted Nov 23 2014 at 2 04 PM Permalink Why do you blame Australia for the Rafi solomon green Posted Nov 23 2014 at 8 13 AM Permalink barn E rubble I can t think of another field where the methodology for analyzing data isn t established before analyzing the data True but in the fields in which I work it is very often necessary to examine the data before determining the best methodology to use for analyzing it Unless of course one has set up the experiment to produce the data in the first place observa Posted Nov 23 2014 at 5 07 PM Permalink For a long time climate blogs have criticized ex post screening as a bias inducing procedure a bias that is obvious but which has been neglected in academic literature For the most part the issue has been either ignored or denied by specialists Well some mainstream scientists like Walter Starck are calling that loud and clear now https quadrant org au opinion doomed planet 2014 11 climate scams meltdown Interestingly enough The Australian s reporter Keith Delacy writing of Starck s work in June 4 2012 had this to say I HAVE just read a report written by marine biologist Walter Starck of Townsville for the Australian Environment Foundation in response to the proposal to add further to our Marine Protected Areas Starck is an unusual scientist in that he advances his knowledge by practical hands on experience observation and evidence sometimes putting him at odds with the mainstream scientific establishment However I would venture to say that no one knows more about marine biology and certainly the Great Barrier Reef than Starck He has spent a lifetime getting his hands dirty or should that be clean if you are out on the reef An unusual scientist indeed Steve that article has nothing to do with ex post screening observa Posted Nov 23 2014 at 5 44 PM Permalink I would have thought Steve it and it s author are a much broader vindication of the challenges to the scientific methodology of CAGW climatology which includes the lesser subset of ex post screening here Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 23 2014 at 8 37 PM Permalink The G2012 description of SONDJF warm season is inaccurate Of the 27 proxy locations used 12 are in the Tropics At least two have coordinates wrongly labelled in my original copy as first released resulting in these being north of the Equator This Wikipedia graph shows the variation in daylight hours with latitude There are plausible physical mechanisms linking day length to ground temperature Note that at the Equator there is essentially 12 hours of sunlight every day so ground temperatures would vary little from month to month Therefore the SONDJF month record would be very flat and could not be called significantly warmer than the rest of the year especially in the Northern hemisphere as some sites are The New Zealand proxy site at 47 degrees South latitude has day length variation from about 9 to 15 hours with pronounced seasonality and so SONDJF is correctly a warm season There are consequences Seasonal detrending of tropical data involves removal of a small part of the signal whereas detrending of mid latitude data requires a much larger removal To the extent that noise is involved there is likely to be more inherent character in the mid latitude detrended data than in the tropical data The simple calculation of correlation coefficients between proxy response and temperature in not easily comparable in the two cases given some dependence on wriggle matching to create higher coefficients The data were correlated not only for the year but also for the year before and the year after Again the relatively constant Equatorial temperature would not be expected to benefit much from this procedure while the mid latitude data would Again one is not comparing similar cases when using a single correlation coefficient for a cut off as to which proxies are used The selection process is questionable There are more complicated procedures in G2012 than I have described but some of the more basic assumptions and errors in the paper need to be overcome before similar data are used in later papers Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 23 2014 at 11 44 PM Permalink I have downloaded standardized and plotted the Australasia section of the Pages2K temperature reconstruction and found a few items of interest immediately First there are a number of proxy sources in close proximity and that have very different looking series and including in the instrumental period Second there are 2 tree ring proxies that are used upside down Third some proxies and in consideration that the coral proxy values go down when temperature goes up trend up some trend down and some have little trend in the instrumental period With these differences it is difficult to take these reconstructions seriously even when forgetting for the moment the basic flaw in selecting proxies after the fact I plan to measure the coherences of these proxies in pair wise fashion Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 24 2014 at 2 02 PM Permalink Below I have linked some graphs of the Pages2KAustralasian 28 proxies used in the Pages2k temperature reconstruction The proxy series have been standardized and the proxy responses reported in standard deviation units I included in red a decadal trend line that was derived from the first 2 principle components after applying the Singular Spectral Analysis function from Rssa from the library Rssa in R The function decomposes each proxy series into principle components that can be reconstructed to present the secular trend cyclical components and white red noise residuals I think this analysis visually brings to the fore the differences in the proxy series from a decadal trend and spectral point of view I plan on using the coherence function in R on these proxy series to quantify those differences in pair wise fashion The title of each graph gives the proxy name latitude and longitude of the proxy location and the type of proxy All proxies that gave expected negative responses to temperature by the authors were flipped for this presentation except the 2 tree ring proxies for which I could not find justification for the authors flipping Of particular note are the proxies of the same type that are located in close proximity and how different the series and decadal trends appear in many cases I think that these differences should be instructive in judging the validity of the proxy response to temperature If one wants to conjecture that the large variations in temperature changes in locations in close proximity could create these differences then another problem arises With large differences in temperature changes in tightly spaced locations the attempt to estimate a mean regional temperature and trends with these few proxies becomes a problem of having huge confidence intervals Follow the Money Posted Nov 24 2014 at 5 36 PM Permalink A few posts ago I gave my eyeball assessment that the numerical data for the Celery Top trees and Pink Pine would produce hockey sticks I see here Mangawhero is also a player The Australasian and Arctic Pages2k graphs are the most hockey stickish of the regional representations I am curious whether these trees were weighted heavier among the Aus proxies in or to produce the Pages 2k Aus graph William Larson Posted Nov 24 2014 at 8 34 PM Permalink I know very little about statistics and nothing about library Rssa in R OK with that lack of understanding on my part would you please tell me what s with the quasi sine waves red lines in some of these proxy graphs Other black line graphs with somewhat similar appearance do not have such sinusoidal red lines And while we re at it what s with that strange red line in the Celery Top Pine East graph Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 28 2014 at 11 24 AM Permalink William Larson my purpose here was to use the same spectral analysis on all these series to determine whether differences would appear that are not as apparent or at all for that matter in the original series The red line is an estimation by the spectral analysis method to find a secular trend in the series The Singular Spectrum Analysis the ssa Rssa function library from R attempts to separate a series into cycles secular trends and residuals where the residuals are red white noise I think that when their are longer secular trends the method picks up on those and non linear longer traces are found When these longer term trends are not found the higher frequencies of decadal or lesser periods are picked up and can appear as reoccurring cycles which in effect is the case I could have plotted the cyclical patterns found in these series and the leftover residuals which could have made more sense of the secular trend patterns I am not an expert in interpreting the output of ssa and again my purpose here was simply looking for differences in proxy series Differences can be seen in the original proxy series which is a particularly good comparison when comparing series in near proximity and the Australasian proxy series have plenty of those The thickening and narrowing red line in the Celery Top Pine East is actually some high frequency oscillations in trends Further I should be clear that ssa uses principle components and there is no objective way of which I am aware in selecting the particular PCs for determining secular trends and high and low frequency cycles My point here is that I used the same ordered PCs for all the series in an attempt to be objective I hope to show at this thread a comparison of some closely located proxies with each other and with close by temperature stations If you are asking me what property in the proxy is behind these different responses I have to plead ignorance although I am willing to conjecture I do however know that the authors of temperature reconstructions using these proxies should at least show interest in studying and understanding these differences and get beyond their black boxes that are more opaque than what I have shown here and on other posts concerning reconstruction proxies and that SteveM has been analyzing over many years and in many different ways admkoz Posted Nov 25 2014 at 9 48 AM Permalink Thanks So looking at these I see two that ultimately went up by anywhere close to 4 in SD units How is it possible to average these together and get 4 SDs of uptick AntonyIndia Posted Nov 24 2014 at 4 07 AM Permalink Eric Jan Wagemakers is also co author of The Fallacy of Placing Confidence in Confidence Intervals 2014 a manuscript submitted for publication http www ejwagenmakers com submitted fundamentalError pdf admkoz Posted Nov 24 2014 at 9 21 AM Permalink it ought to pass a detrended correlation test given the splicing of instrumental data and therefore failure of a detrended correlation test requires close examination Is the author really saying that since they spliced in instrumental data it sure should correlate with instrumental data How is there any validity to this whatsoever steve read my post on Oroko There is no official archive of Oroko data Some grey versions spliced instrumental data It s hard to tell exactly what is in the Gergis version as there is no official record and the article says that it was disturbance corrected in pers comm data Svend Ferdinandsen Posted Nov 24 2014 at 12 55 PM Permalink Could anyone give references to papers that show how well these proxies reflect temperature and not anything else like rain draught sun nutrition windspeed CO2 I find sometimes that these studies just calibrate an unknown proxy variation with known temperature and then assume it reflects temperature according to the calibration Next time they may use the same proxy to measure draught Steve I d appreciate such references as well And yes sometimes the same proxy is used to measure both wind speed and temperature I m thinking of a post on one example Richard Drake Posted Nov 24 2014 at 3 35 PM Permalink sometimes the same proxy is used to measure both wind speed and temperature That s the power of statistics man stevepostrel Posted Nov 24 2014 at 6 57 PM Permalink Some know how to multitask Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 24 2014 at 11 34 PM Permalink Sites near the Equator show quite small changes in temperature patterns from month to month One can infer that the annual patterns would be almost flat line but are not because of exogenous items Singapore s pattern for example admits that some of the T variation could be explained by rainfall as do many other sites One can then propose that the inputs should be detrended for known exogenous influences to make the math purer Incidental question should estimates of climate sensitivity to GHG also use T detrended for known exogeneous factors Hoi Polloi Posted Nov 25 2014 at 2 46 AM Permalink Weak statistical standards implicated in scientific irreproducibility by Valen Johnsonwww nature com news weak statistical standards implicated in scientific irreproducibility 1 14131 Comment from E J Wagemakers It shows once more that standards of evidence that are in common use throughout the empirical sciences are dangerously lenient says mathematical psychologist Eric Jan Wagenmakers of the University of Amsterdam Previous arguments centered on P hacking that is abusing standard statistical procedures to obtain the desired results The Johnson paper shows that there is something wrong with the P value itself Jeff Id Posted Nov 25 2014 at 10 19 AM Permalink I suppose that pick 12 was a predictable extension of the pick 2 Like carrot top s prediction of the 7 blade razor a genius visionary if ever there was one well before his time Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 25 2014 at 12 01 PM Permalink Neukom et al 2014 take the pick 9 to an even greater extreme they increase their search distance to 1000 km from 500 km We consider the local correlation of each record as the highest absolute correlation of a proxy with all grid cells within a radius of 1000 km and for all the three lags 0 1 or 1 years A proxy record is included in the predictor set if this local correlation is significant p 0 05 Reconstruction results using an alternative search radius of 500 km leading to a smaller predictor set 85 instead of 111 records are similar Supplementary Figure 20 see section 3 2 2 Proxies from Antarctica which are outside the domain used for proxy screening are included if they correlate significantly with at least 10 of the grid area used for screening latitude weighted An alternative reconstruction using the full un screened proxy network yields very similar results Supplementary Figure 20 see section 3 2 2 However they also say that their screening procedure doesn t impact their results all that much As I previewed in an earlier post I think that their stick is mainly a result of pasting trending coral O18 data onto shafts of relatively little changing tree ring and ice core O18 data More on this on another occasion Sven Posted Nov 25 2014 at 10 23 AM Permalink I m quite sure there ll be no retraction this time It would be much too embarrassing They ll rather sit as still as they can and hope that it ll pass Richard Drake Posted Nov 25 2014 at 10 35 AM Permalink I tend to agree this one s an embarrassment double bind Mickey Reno Posted Nov 28 2014 at 11 40 AM Permalink Steve wrote The Gergis article was not retracted The University of Melbourne press statement continues to say that it was published on May 17 2012 but has been submitted for re review and has apparently been under review for over two years now The Gergis team is attempting to revise history in a very surreptitious and dishonest manner IMO The original Gergis et al paper is NOT under review and the paper was NOT published in any but the most Bill Clinton esque meaning of that word It was originally accepted for publication and it was hosted online But it was never actually published in the journal and prior to it s actual publication Jean S found the error notifying the world on Climate Audit His post set in motion Gergis desperate and sloppy attempt to save the paper and their team s disgraceful claim to have coincidentally discovered the Jean S error shortly after he posted to CA Ms Gergis asked the journal if she could merely modify the methodology description within the paper as a post acceptance correction while leaving the rest of the paper intact and with it the claims of many Southern Hemisphere hockey sticks Her desperate plea ignored the fact that per Neukom approximately 19 of their 26 selected proxies would no longer qualify for inclusion in the paper This was too much for the editor of Journal of Climate who flatly said NO to Gergis suggestion He stated unequivocally that such an edit would require a whole new analysis which could not and should not presume the same outcome and with that he rescinded acceptance of ie he rejected the paper So no the paper was never retracted because it was rejected The paper is not now under review because it was rejected The ongoing claims that it was published and or under review are at best misleading and wrong and at worst blatant lies The Pages 2K paper was their attempt to reintroduce some of the contents of the rejected paper in a new form without needing to address correct or mention the prior rejection to the IPCC for AR5 And all this scientific dissembling

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/22/data-torture-in-gergis2k/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • wagenmakers « Climate Audit
    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 Click

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/wagenmakers/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Gergis2K and the Oroko “Disturbance-Corrected” Blade « Climate Audit
    the revised chronology remains close to the 2000 versions Figure 6 Excerpt from Cook et al 2006 Figure 7 top panel showing Oroko chronology inclusive of post 1957 decline As in the earlier articles the temperature reconstruction of Cook et al 2006 includes spliced instrumental data shown after 1957 in the diagram below In this case values from the 2005 Climategate email equivalent to Mann et al 2008 are shown in gold prior to 1957 after 1957 the amplitudes are amplified by 1 5 for reasons that are not evident The values go up rather than down as in the chronology shown above Figure 7 Excerpt from Cook et al 2006 Figure 6 showing Oroko temperature reconstruction of Jan Mar temperatures After 1957 instrumental values are splice additionally being shown in the diagram with increased amplitude IPCC AR4 The Oroko version sent to IPCC authors by Cook was subsequently shown in IPCC AR4 Figure 6 12 truncated in 1957 as shown below with the commentary shown below Another tree ring reconstruction of austral summer temperatures based on data from South Island New Zealand spans the past 1 1 kyr and is the longest yet produced for the region Cook et al 2002a Disturbance at the site from which the trees were sampled restricts the calibration of this record to the 70 years up until 1950 but both tree rings and instrumental data indicate that the 20th century was not anomalously warm when compared to several warm periods reconstructed in the last 1 kyr around the mid 12th and early 13th centuries and around 1500 Figure 6 Excerpt from IPCC AR4 Figure 6 12 showing two Southern Hemisphere proxies including Oroko New Zealand Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2008 used exactly the same data as Cook had sent to the IPCC authors including the instrumental data spliced together with proxy data the data is plotted below Unlike the original chronologies the series closes on an uptick Figure 7 Oroko temperature reconstruction from Mann et al 2008 data instrumental data is spliced after 1957 to proxy data before 1957 Neukom and Gergis 2012 Neukom and Gergis 2012 is cited on several occasions in PAGES2K but no data was archived in connection with this article Worse Neukom refused to provide data even on request Neukom saved a short 1900 2000 portion of the Oroko series attributed to Cook pers comm which matches the Climategate 2005 Mann et al 2008 version up to 1957 but its post 1957 portion doesn t appear to match either the earlier or later versions PAGES2K and Gergis et al 2012 The PAGES2K version of Oroko is a temperature reconstruction that is highly related to the earlier version but which has been recalculated somewhere along the way its subset up to 1957 has a correlation of 0 80 with the earlier version Both versions have centennial variation and cold 11th centuries Unlike the earlier temperature reconstructions in which temperature data was spliced it shows a decline opening the possibility that it uses actual data after 1957 rather than spliced instrumental data its appearance looks related to the chronology in Cook et al 2006 as opposed to the spliced instrumental data seemingly with an upward bodge reminiscent of the Briffa bodge of Cook s friend Perhaps disturbance correction mentioned in Gergis et al 2012 Figure 8 Oroko temperature reconstruction from PAGES2K Its post 1957 is reminiscent of the chronology in Cook et al 2006 rather than the spliced instrumental data Both Gergis et al 2012 and Gergis2K purported to reconstruct summer SONDJF temperature but there is 0 correlation between the two versions as extracted from the respective archives code cor ts union gerg pages use use0 1 2 0 000339041 code However if the Gergis 2012 version normalized is dated one year earlier it has an exact correlation to the PAGES2K version deg C code cor ts union lag gerg lag 1 pages use use0 1 2 1 code In other words the Oroko ring width reconstructing SONDJF is assigned to the following NH calendar year in Gergis et al 2012 and to the previous NH calendar year in PAGES2K The same pattern holds with the AUS regional reconstruction if the Gergis et al 2012 version is dated one year earlier it matches the PAGES2K To further confuse matters and I ve triplechecked this it appears to me that the Neukom et al 2014 Oroko version and SH reconstruction is in effect assigned to the calendar year one year before that i e it implies that summer temperatures of the preceding year force ring widths not temperatures of the current summer code cor ts union lag lag gerg neuko use use0 1 2 1 code The Neukom et al 2014 version also contains a substantial extension of the reconstruction into the first millennium an extension that is thus far unreported elsewhere and a couple of additional recent values that continue the decline the series closes slightly below its long term average Figure 9 Oroko temperature reconstruction extracted from Neukom et al 2014 The normalized values of N14 are converted to temperature reconstruction by the exact linear relationship between the versions Revisiting Temperature Correlations It s not entirely certain that the PAGES2K version is an unspliced chronology In the figure below I ve done a comparison of reconstruction to Hokitika summer temperature in the style of the original Cook article but using the more recent PAGES version and updated Hokitika temperature using a slightly dated CRU version In the updated calculation I obtained slightly higher 1894 1957 correlation than reported by Cook 0 72 versus 0 62 as well as in the 1866 1893 period 0 67 versus 0 65 though for this step I didn t bother interpolating to missing data In the post 1957 I got a much higher correlation 0 39 versus the previous 0 11 The import of this calculation depends on precisely how the disturbance correction was implemented Figure 10 Comparison of reconstruction to Hokitika summer temperature in style of Cook et al 2002 Figure 2 using updated data Discussion What if anything does this mean First the continuing failure of IPCC authors to archive measurement data and chronologies as used makes the interpretation of these results far more onerous and uncertain than ought to be acceptable for results later cited in policy documents PAGES2K used yet another grey version of the Oroko chronology Because the properties of disturbance correction are unknown it is impossible to assess whether the statistically significant relationship to temperature claimed by Gergis et al is impacted by a temperature splice or not Second while Cook clearly marked his own replacement of proxy data with temperature data it really is an unacceptable practice The poor practice is exacerbated when spliced data is used downstream without the downstream authors attaching red flags This happened with the Briffa bodge of the Tornetrask data and happened again with Mann et al 2008 s use of the spliced series Third the negative correlation asserted by Mann and Jones 2003 seems unlikely one wonders where it came from On a previous occasion here I noted that Gergis2K only had two proxies that reached back to the medieval period While late 20th century values are elevated they are not exceptional and do not explain the 4 sigma blade of the Gergis2K reconstruction In a subsequent post I ll discuss the construction of the Gergis2K blade which I have not yet parsed Readers will recall that undetrended screening applied to the Gergis et al 2012 network resulted in only a few passing proxies Gergis2K claim to have used undetrended screening but permitted relationships with any gridcell within 500 km and or with lag lead of a year I will try to determine whether their definition of statistical significance was amended to reflect this expansion of targets I doubt it As previously noted the Gergis2K network changed from the Gergis et al 2012 only on the edges 20 of 27 proxies carried over a few shuffled out and a few shuffled in But while screening undoubtedly plays a role I think that the main methodological issue will be one that it has been underdiscussed how to combine short proxies with long proxies The vast majority of Gergis2K proxies are short corals with strong trends Stapling such data onto long tree ring data with centennial variability but negligible trend will create a HS This sort of stapling has occurred in previous reconstructions Jones et al 1998 is an example but has received less attention than more exotic techniques At some point I ll try to figure out Gergis methodology and see the effect of their presumptive stapling Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Nov 11 2014 at 12 13 AM filed under Uncategorized and tagged cook gergis neukom oroko pages2k Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed Gergis and the PAGES2K Regional Average PAGES2K and Nature s Policy against Self Plagiarism 57 Comments thisisnotgoodtogo Posted Nov 11 2014 at 2 31 AM Permalink The proxy stapling on seems reminiscent of Marcott Shakun proxy dropout in reverse Rob R Posted Nov 11 2014 at 2 49 AM Permalink Sooner or later someone will insert a comment about the Hokitika temperature record so let it start with me as I live about 25 minutes drive away from that airport The station has had several site moves in and around the town of Hokitika population something like 5000 It is now at the local airport but this has not always been the case There will also have been changes to the screen and thermometers About 5 or 6 years ago there was a major clearance of encroaching vegetation that was starting to surround the meteorological enclosure There are several versions of the mean temperature record which is one of the longest in NZ The temperature trend you get depends on how one splices the sections with corrections or without corrections The R2 you get with a tree ring correlation will depend somewhat on which spliced temperature record you use as the target Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 11 2014 at 4 58 AM Permalink There is so much detail to chase Thank you Steve You started with Mt Read and Huon Pine tree rings by Ed Cook His early papers include http eprints utas edu au 14433 1 1996 Cook Huon pine pdf This uses instrumental temperatures from different climate zones in Tasmania since there are no long records close to site He calibrated on Launceston and Low Head that are some 130 km to the NE and Hobart even more distant and not on mountain wetlands but on dry wet seasonal lowlands probably with rather different rainfalls The paper gives a graph showing a temperature increase from 1950 to 2000 of 14 4 to 15 6 deg C a warming of 1 2 deg on his smoothed curve There are reconstructions for all of Tasmania such as by Ken Stewart that show warming closer to 0 6 deg C from CRUTEM4 http kenskingdom wordpress com 2014 02 08 crutem vs acorn tasmania As an aside the official record has at least 7 stations for Launceston that need to be cobbled together to duplicate the time span In such homogenising there is ample room for trends to increase plausibly wrongly as by the Acorn Sat method used by BOM Cook ends up with a hockey stick shape in his figure 1 for Mt Read back to year 2750 The hockey stick results in part from his choice of recent warming being 2X reasonable If the temperature for calibration is unreasonable of course it affects the whole response and renders is most questionable Cook went on to publish more papers but if you are chasing hockey sticks this paper has a nice one There is so much that is questionable with Pages 2K that I am embarrassed by Australian climate science Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 13 2014 at 8 30 PM Permalink Correction to my post of 4 58 am Please replace the chosen temperature range 1950 to 2000 with 1950 to 1989 or 1950 to 1990 The end date is not clear Rick Posted Nov 11 2014 at 9 28 AM Permalink Three Rings for the Elven kings under the sky Seven for the Dwarf lords in their halls of stone Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie One Ring or Staple to rule them all Delete I won t care Craig Loehle Posted Nov 11 2014 at 9 57 AM Permalink Stapling is bad There is little to guide you to do it right It is possible for growth this year to correlate to the previous year weather though usually precip This occurs when trees store lots of sugar in a good year and their growth is mainly a short pulse early in the growing season early wood This could account for correlation with last year s weather In a site like this with lots of rain but cool this effect is even more likely Jeff Id Posted Nov 11 2014 at 5 31 PM Permalink How likely do you think this is vs misdating Craig Loehle Posted Nov 11 2014 at 10 08 AM Permalink There is another type of data mining going on Cook and almost all other dendros test a bunch of climate variables such as several from previous year and multiple month combinations Lets say they test 8 variables and pick one or 2 They get correlation of 0 6 as above The true correlation is much less than 0 6 Doing this as an exploratory science to see what variables influence tree growth is one thing but building castles in the sky from very low correlation reconstructions Steve in fairness the summer relationships were what they were expecting and they could easily have done many of these analyses as confirmatory analyses using summer temperatures So I m not willing to penalize them too harshly for summer temperature reconstructions If they got something different then one could penalize them kim Posted Nov 11 2014 at 11 55 AM Permalink There s a disturbance in the force holding castles in the sky stan Posted Nov 12 2014 at 11 50 AM Permalink The Disturbance the pixie dust used by the unicorns is losing potency Wizard s not as powerful now that a dog named FOIA pulled that curtain phi Posted Nov 11 2014 at 10 30 AM Permalink Third the negative correlation asserted by Mann and Jones 2003 seems unlikely one wonders where it came from The correlation being calculated on decadal values a negative value does not seem impossible at first sight Such a selection on the basis of low frequencies is problematic because low frequency of instrumental data are much less reliable than high frequencies Jeff Alberts Posted Nov 11 2014 at 10 52 AM Permalink snip too much complaining Jeff Alberts Posted Nov 12 2014 at 10 38 PM Permalink Ok so maybe I complained a bit But you don t think Ed s own words are relevant here Craig Loehle Posted Nov 11 2014 at 11 11 AM Permalink Many years ago I was at a meeting and Ed Cook saw my talk on the upside down parabola problem for tree response that tree growth can decline if too warm OR too cold At the break I asked what he thought He said I was not wrong and encouraged me to publish it which I did When I asked what he thought about implications for long term reconstructions he got tight lipped and refused to answer Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 11 2014 at 11 52 AM Permalink Craig here is an upside down quadratic from an article coauthored by Cook link about Tasmania Huon pines Craig Loehle Posted Nov 11 2014 at 12 26 PM Permalink yep Jeff Id Posted Nov 11 2014 at 5 34 PM Permalink I think all you need to do is use some form of regression that is insensitive to sign and it solves the problem Dunno what people worry about michael hart Posted Nov 13 2014 at 9 53 PM Permalink So what happens if the actual temperatures were close to the optimal 20 deg That is how would decreased photosynthesis due to lower temperatures be distinguished from decreased photosynthesis due to higher temperatures Craig Loehle Posted Nov 14 2014 at 9 48 AM Permalink Michael hart that is exactly the problem From past tree ring width you can t tell if you are warmer or colder than the optimum So the inverse problem has no unique solution Therefore I argued Loehle C 2009 A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology Climatic Change 94 233 245 that tree rings can only be used going back 100 yrs or so not 1000 michael hart Posted Nov 14 2014 at 1 29 PM Permalink Thanks for the reply Craig and the reference I ll give it a read admkoz Posted Nov 17 2014 at 4 48 PM Permalink For the benefit of Americans 20 C 68 F so this peak is a pretty typical temperature in a warm climate Pat Frank Posted Nov 11 2014 at 5 39 PM Permalink snip Steve please cool the editorializing kim Posted Nov 12 2014 at 4 10 AM Permalink The zamboni disdains motive though it s scraping clear the view david eisenstadt Posted Nov 12 2014 at 10 28 PM Permalink hey he s the host let him manage the party he created Richard Drake Posted Nov 13 2014 at 11 33 AM Permalink Agreed But party has two meanings of note enjoyable and political Although it s sometimes enjoyable for the individual to editorialise it can be deeply counterproductive in enabling change in the many Even with the brilliance of the view scraping here it s hard to see how it s is going to happen It s just far more likely this way david eisenstadt Posted Nov 14 2014 at 11 01 AM Permalink I just trust steve more than pat frank I mean my ramblings aren t snipped so he must have at least some tolerance for the inane Follow the Money Posted Nov 11 2014 at 4 57 PM Permalink Pages2k proxies Aus 4 5 and 9 could each be a HS Ascertained by my corporeal visually scaling eyeballing sensor Not double checked TimTheToolMan Posted Nov 11 2014 at 9 09 PM Permalink I think if I was a tree that witnessed the 1957 Oroko Swamp chainsaw massacre I d be disturbed too So now we have disturbance and divergence as excuses for the decline tty Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 27 PM Permalink The odd thing is that normally you would expect the remaining trees to grow faster warmer after logging That is certainly what happens to northern hemisphere conifers In Swedish forestry young forests are routinely thinned gallrade to increase productivity The young trees cut down are used for pulp or firewood while the remaining are left to grow until large enough to cut down for lumber And indeed it seems to me that this is what you can actually se in the tree ring record The decline only sets in from c 1975 and is quite possibly not related to the logging at all Craig Loehle Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 42 PM Permalink As a forester I support tty on the positive effect of thinning on remaining trees The reference by Cook to wind throw is silly only trees that blow down are negatively affected by wind throw However thinning out a stand in a swamp can cause the water table to rise due to reduced water loss from the canopy This higher water table can impede the growth of remaining trees tty Posted Nov 12 2014 at 5 59 PM Permalink I agree that a higher watertable and stunted growth or even dying trees may result from thinning a forest on wet ground I ve seen a number of cases where this has happened However this effect occurs quite quickly normally the effect is obvious within a year after the thinning In this case the decline only seems to come after 15 or 20 years ian005 Posted Nov 13 2014 at 12 15 PM Permalink Craig Cook however claims that the hydrology changes were actually the opposite of your surmise Drainage was added somewhere in the area apparently though he s opaque on just where and whether there was a measurable impact in connection with road construction and light rail access for milling The anomalous 20th C mortality moreover appears in his figure 2 Cook 2002 p 213 to be clustered in the drier portion of the swamp if I m reading that graphic correctly I find these types of graphs challenging to interpret at times so that may be a complete misreading of what he s saying With regard to wind throw wouldn t it be obvious if the trees had died in that fashion If he knows the tree has died wouldn t it be possible to determine whether its from wind throw so uprooted or snapped EdeF Posted Nov 11 2014 at 9 45 PM Permalink Very iffy using data from trees in an area that has been logged To his credit Cook in the 2002 paper talks about this in his disturbance report indicating that logging likely opened up the forest to possibel wind blow down and possibly the change in drainage from the installation of roads and a tram line in the area This was my thoughts before reading the article having grown up in a logging town in N Calif I just think you say adios to any tree ring data from Oroko Swamp from mid 1950s onwards Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 12 2014 at 10 55 AM Permalink To his credit Cook in the 2002 paper talks about this in his disturbance report indicating that logging likely opened up the forest to possibel wind blow down and possibly the change in drainage from the installation of roads and a tram line in the area EdeF I have a problem with Cook making this judgment after the fact of looking at the data and then attempting to explain away the divergence In the bigger picture divergence is not a site specific problem nor strictly related to logging Anybody like Cook who then decides truncate and to tack on the instrumental record is surely more motivated by advocacy than science Perhaps the changes to the tree site from logging if indeed that activity can be shown in detail to have effects beyond mere hand waving about it would be an opportunity for learning more about the sensitivity of tree ring response to climate variables other than temperature That would be a real science adventure Steve from a data analysis perspective I can see how Cook would be interested in explaining the divergence ex post I have no more difficulty with that than someone explaining the Igaliku or Korttajarvi sediments as due to agricultural activity There does seem to be an element of arm waving of Cook s attribution of the decline to loggiing without clearly showing a connection The larger frustration is surely due to the acuteness of COok and others to noticing divergence problems when they go down but their blindness to upward divergence problems e g Gaspe bristlecones Igaliku Korttajarvi And whether one can draw any conclusions from such troubled data remains very much in question for me as with you Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 12 2014 at 1 04 PM Permalink Steve if one goes the route of there being a temperature signal buried somewhere in the proxy response data and without independent evidence then it would behoove one to include all the data whether it ends in a upward downward or no trend A very noisy signal would exhibit such trends and by excluding the ones that do not fit the current warming trend is going bias the end result Of course one can exclude outliers if there is good independent evidence for doing so The varve and sediment proxies I have plotted whether they go up or down at the end do not pass the smell test in my judgment The rather non descript and unvarying series leading up to a sudden 4 to 6 sigma trend upward or downward depending on inclination would eliminate its use before anyone had to decide or use a method to decide how it should be orientated ian005 Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 34 PM Permalink Cook s actual evidence of anthropogenic disturbances accounting for the divergence is not particularly compelling He notes Cook 2002 at p 212 The cluster of tree mortality occurs in the 20th Century and has a median mortality date of 1956 We interpret this clustering to be related to the logging activity known to have occurred around that time Although there was no evidence of cut stumps along the transect line the cutting nearby would have opened up the forest and perhaps made it more susceptible to wind throw L colensoi is also known to form root grafts between individuals producing an interlinked network Moar 1955 Alternatively the hydrology of the swamp may have been altered when drains associated with road construction and light rail access for milling were put into the area So he throws out 2 possibilities logging and changes in hydrology On the former there is no evidence of direct logging in the area that experienced the mortality event He speculates that cutting nearby increased wind throw which one would assume would be detectable or that there is a shared rooting system that was somehow affected again no investigation He also suggests that maybe hydrology changes had an impact Two things jump out 1 There s no hard evidence to support his claims that the mortality cluster results from anthropogenic disturbance Cook acknowledges that he is being speculative the exact mechanism that led to widespread mortality is presently unknown Ibid 2 There is no explanation of how the mortality event actually led to a loss of correlation with temperature On p 215 he states This catastrophic loss of climate correlation in the surviving trees confirms that a stand level disturbance occurred It is likely that the cause is the known logging activity described earlier However the exact effects of this disturbance on the surviving trees are unknown As with so many dendro reconstructions it leaves one wondering whether the correlation that has been discovered for a certain calibration period is just accidental Absent a clear identification of the cause of the 1950s mortality event and a connection between that cause and the subsequent catastrophic loss of climate correlation it makes it challenging to accept the argument that the treemometers involved correlated well with temperatures over the last thousand years Indeed it appears there also was something of widespread mortality in the mid 19th C as well if I m reading figure 2 correctly So he also needs to explain why one mortality event has an impact 1950s or thereabouts though the cut off date is a median of 20th tree mortality why is the impact only felt after 1956 while the other does not More significantly perhaps the fact that Cook was merely speculating that logging was the cause of the divergence is lost in subsequent treatments it becomes fact without further investigation So in his follow on 2002 paper Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period in a 1 100 year tree ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand published in GRL Volume 29 Issue 14 pages 121 24 July 2002 Cook now authoritatively states As before Cook et al 2002 the post 1957 tree ring data were severely affected by known logging of the stand and therefore not used for either calibration or verification Tree growth after 1957 was severely disturbed by known selective logging of the site which resulted in a collapse in the fidelity of the tree ring response to climate So the speculation from the earlier paper now becomes entrenched as fact Needless to say although Cook s original assessment was heavily qualified and contained no confirmed explanation for either the mortality event or how that event linked to loss of fidelity to climate it now becomes part of the rote for subsequent researchers who use this speculation uncritically Gergis 2012 picks it up in her failed paper The only exceptions to this signal free tree ring detrending method was the New Zealand Silver Pine tree ring composite Oroko Swamp and Ahaura which contains logging disturbance after 1957 at p 8 53 of the pre publication release Cook speculates in his seminal Oroko Swamp paper regarding the cause of 20th C tree mortality in the Oroko Swamp and as to the link between that mortality and the post 1956 lack of temperature fidelity although half the trees involved in the event had already died by that point This speculation becomes fact in his subsequent paper looking at a possible MWP in New Zealand and is accepted uncritically by Gergis in her failed 2012 paper Kenneth Fritsch Posted Nov 13 2014 at 10 10 AM Permalink This speculation becomes fact in his subsequent paper looking at a possible MWP in New Zealand and is accepted uncritically by Gergis in her failed 2012 paper This process is not uncommon in the climate science literature with which I am familiar I would like to call it hand waving with references I think it might have something to do with the fact that for whatever reasons there is a dearth of skeptical papers coming out of this community and that clears the unimpeded path for one authors conjecture to become another s factual I recall Mann in a paper about North Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequency stubbornly maintaining that these weather events occurring at sea going back in history were not missed because ships at sea had no radar or other modern detection methods to avoid these events and thus the ships would unknowingly sail into or near the paths of these events and providing they survived I guess would report the event Some of us on reading this conjecture thought it is was more or less a joke and dubbed it the dumb ships conjecture Lo and behold not months after Mann s work was published did I see another paper referencing this conjecture from Mann s paper as if it were considered a reasonable theory I should have added above that part of the cause of these conjectures to fact without any additional evidence provided is the advocacy issue in climate science Clark Posted Nov 13 2014 at 1 56 PM Permalink So the speculation from the earlier paper now becomes entrenched as fact This is disturbingly common even outside of climate science and is one of my pet peeves as a reviewer It makes it much easier to write papers if you don t have to include all the nagging details from the original citation Am I correct in reading that Mann in Mann and Jones 2003 first rejected Oroko with the disturbance from his recon but later used it in the 2008 recon with disturbance replaced by instrumental record That reminds me of my field where a lab will publish a remarkable finding but all subsequent papers from the same lab will ignore it without comment and often publish a subsequent opposite conclusion Steve it sa rejected in 2003 but I don t know whether they had a version with the distrubance The grey version in the archive ends in 1957 And yes they did use the rejected data with temperature splice in 2008 Jeff Alberts Posted Nov 12 2014 at 10 44 PM Permalink And whether one can draw any conclusions from such troubled data remains very much in question for me And for me which is why I posted the quote from his CRU email I don t understand why you don t feel it s relevant I know I m not even a bit player in this I m just some guy But it seems REALLY important when as you ve pointed out about Mann Jones Briffa etc how their private conclusions don t match their scientific ones Steve then lay off the superfluous editorializing Jeff Alberts Posted Nov 13 2014 at 1 19 AM Permalink Understood TimTheToolMan Posted Nov 12 2014 at 2 24 AM Permalink Proxy data has a reason for being At least there is an argument that trees on the tree line at high altitude might be temperature sensitive but where is the justification for trees in a swamp They seem to correlate really doesn t cut it Neville Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 54 AM Permalink Just another look at the last 1 000 years using NOAA data to reconstruct the PDO http en wikipedia org wiki Pacific decadal oscillation mediaviewer File PDO1000yr svg Another new study has ound that the MedWP had more La ninas and the LIA had more el ninos backing up this finding If this is correct the USA west coast must have had severe droughts for hundreds of years from 1000 AD and then a much wetter period during part of the LIA Australia east coast would have had a super wet Med WP and much middle LIA tty Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 48 PM Permalink Actually if disturbance nullifies the reliability of treerings as a temperature proxies I don t see how they can be used at all anywhere at any time No forest is ever undisturbed for very long even if no humans are around There are storms that fell trees fires unseasonal frosts insect infestations fungal diseases or even a beaver family that builds a dam half a mile away and waterlogs the whole area or there might be more deer grazing which prevents young saplings from surviving or more boars cultivating the forest floor which has the opposite effect Matt Skaggs Posted Nov 12 2014 at 3 52 PM Permalink The hook on Cook GRL 2002 was that it showed a MWP in the SH The peaks shown in Fig 7 above at around 1150 and 1250 were interpreted as evidence of the MWP although as Steve points out it was quite cold at the beginning of the NH MWP The Climategate e mails describe Cook s frustration with Mann s attempts to get rid of the MWP by claiming that it was NH and not global and I think the GRL 2002 paper is some pushback I guess that was a battle for the last decade now the Pages2K version shows the temperatures around 1150 as higher than any other period Either the Hockey Team is asleep at the switch or the consensus has finally conceded a global MWP Steve while COok was frustrated with Mann I am unaware of any criticism from Cook of Mann s efforts to get rid of the MWP Nor do I regard Cooks 2002 paper as a pushback against Mann The idea is ludicrous It s nothing of the sort Cook was writing about a site where he had done a considerable amount of field work Matt Skaggs Posted Nov 13 2014 at 12 19 PM Permalink Steve wrote I am unaware of any criticism from Cook of Mann s efforts to get rid of the MWP Perhaps since you are unaware you should refrain from insults The actual get rid quote came in another context from Bradley I think but it is a perfectly accurate description of what Mann was doing at the time In May 2001 Cook and Mann

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/11/gergis2k-and-the-oroko-disturbance-corrected-blade/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cook « Climate Audit
    survey gci uq edu au survey php c 1R9YT8YMZTWF and from Rabett hereis http survey gci uq edu au survey php c II7WP4R4VRU7 More IDs are available at Lucia s It is easy enough to access both By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Comments 79 Tom Curtis Writes Apr 3 2013 8 55 AM While CA readers may disagree with Tom Curtis we ve also noticed that he is straightforward Recently in comments responding to my recent post on misrepresentations by Lewandowsky and Cook Curtis agreed that Lewandowsky s new addition to his paper is silly beyond belief but argued that the FOI data does not show Cook to have lied By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged curtis lewandowsky Comments 141 Lewandowsky Doubles Down Mar 28 2013 12 05 PM Last fall Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science SKS blog Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged chambers lewandowsky sks Comments 217 Older posts 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

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/cook/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • oroko « Climate Audit
    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 2006 May 2006 April

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/oroko/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Kaufman Tautology « Climate Audit
    delaying publication of valuable new results The real and most important verification by peers takes place later It s done by all the other scientists who study the paper If the findings of the paper appear important it will be scrutinized by many Some of them are also likely to use the paper as starting point for further research Such further research will ultimately provide the most stringent tests of the results of the paper Peer reviewed papers published in high impact factor journals are more reliable than other papers because they get much more widely and rapidly scrutinized by other scientists of the field The verdict of the community may however remain hidden from the outsiders because refutations and erranda are not always published even when errors are significant Those with good contacts to other scientists of the field are most likely to learn about such cases Similar development from early attempts to more sophisticated research seems to have happened also in paleoclimatology but as discussed by Steve and Robert the expansion in the volume of input data and improvements in the quality of the input data have been rather slow Therefore the situation seems still to be such that methods are chosen based on their apparent power rather than on good understanding of their limitations and reliability With large amounts of high quality data scientists would automatically choose their methods differently MikeN Posted Nov 2 2014 at 4 43 PM Permalink The difference is that the examples pointed to above are following a recent trend of individuals publishing in out of topic journals to circumvent the review process and avoid those with expertise on the subject matters in question Isn t that what happened with Mann in PNAS Or had he not yet earned fast track privileges there Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 2 2014 at 9 06 PM Permalink Robert I suspect that we re in agreement on many points However out of all the issues to worry about I think that eout of topic journals is very small beer and if the climate community believes that a lousy paper is worth criticizing they are free to do so My own experience with peer review from the climate community is that reviewers are too often concerned with gatekeeping I can vouch for that from my personal experience For example Ross and I tried to publish a comment on Santer et al 2008 pointing out that they had used data ending in 1999 and that their results did not hold up with up to date data A simple enough comment but flatly and firmly rejected with exchanges behind the scenes among Climategaters By keeping our comment out of the literature Santer et al was unrebutted for a long time and the failure of anyone to publish a rebuttal was specifically claimed in the EPA RTP documents as support for their false claims Eventually Ross re did the results with a varied econometric method the variation in my opinion being irrelevant to the point and managed to get the article published in a different journal but the initial peer reviewers had been doing nothing more than gatekeep O Donnell et al 2010 which has also been cited by IPCC and others was perniciously reviewed by Eric Stieg who despite his conflict of interest did not identify himself as a reviewer and delayed and tried to prevent its publication and in his capacity as an anonymous reviewer required changes that I would not have accepted if we had known that we were dealing with a party with a known adverse interest Pielke Jr and I submitted a short article some years ago on hurricane distributions and more because of me than him received unbelievably angry reviews which were laughably inconsistent One reviewer said that our results were already well known and established in the literature and recommended rejection The other reviewer said that the results were not merely wrong but fraudulent and recommended rejection The editor said that there was a consensus in favor of rejection So yes going to out of topic journals may yield an occasional paper that may not stand the test of time But so what Out of all the things that the climate community should concern itself with trying to plug the leak at such journals is surely not one of them barn E rubble Posted Nov 2 2014 at 9 20 PM Permalink RE Robert Way Posted Nov 2 2014 at 2 49 PM There is no doubt in any field that there are times when the peer review process fails to recognize substantial and important issues in submissions And yet you and the Team have not recognized or criticized what has been posted here and often where clearly errors have not just been pointed out but written about with calculated graphed and well audited submissions From data known to be used upside down but doesn t matter to using data known to be contaminated but doesn t matter are still being used and cited and are still passing peer review When obviously as most or all of these issues are years old every peer reviewer must be aware of them Puh leese This is nothing more than willful RE Pekka Pirilä With large amounts of high quality data scientists would automatically choose their methods differently Onnea For the the non finns Good luck with that peter Posted Nov 2 2014 at 10 40 PM Permalink If I publish a paper on regional climate trends should I expect the reviewer to go check every individual station used as input to check for inhomogeneities My view is that the onus should not be on the reviewer for that type of work A reviewer is there to ensure that a contribution is seemingly sound science and that it is properly translated not to audit a study The broader community does have a responsibility however to self police and identify issues when they exist And yet the peer review process is presented as the gold standard to the general public Perhaps climate scientists should correct that misconception The gold standard for things that matter Engineering is auditing and close scrutiny The general public expects no less of climate scientists than it does of its Engineers infact we expect more given the huge stakes Robert Way Posted Nov 2 2014 at 11 39 PM Permalink Steve Mc RW I m only new to the academic scene and I certainly am not sure I will remain there too stressful on the home life but I can say that I ve had multiple papers that had very long tough review processes and multiple rejections but I don t have the same opinion as you with respect to both the prevalence and nature of gatekeeping I think there are probably some individuals out there who probably partake in that sort of thing but the same could be said in many fields and it is certainly only a minority There s a certain sense of naivety in expecting that scientists in any field are going to be immune to the very same qualities people in other professions display As such I really very strongly disagree with any perspective that instances of gatekeeping are caused by inconvenient results on the contrary I believe it s largely driven by personal differences and egos If someone doesn t like you or your actions then they re probably going to give you a harder review Hate to say it but its human nature This is why there are advantages to both open review processes and double blind reviews it can limit those issues But expecting perfection from the academic review process will always lead to disappointment The lucky thing is that if you re right and can prove it then your work will be published eventually RW In my experiences I have had some incredibly harsh reviews I ve also had papers rejected wrongly if you ask me multiple times from journals At the end of the day I can either choose to have sour grapes or just keep on working away and when I get the chance to respond to a tough reviewer I do so in a frank convincing manner but still remaining respectful So much in life is about how you say things not what exactly is said The academic lifestyle is not for the faint of heart and bruised egos are something that has to be accepted Our coverage bias paper for another example received a very tough review process with two rounds of review that lasted 7 months yet this was scolded by the contrarian community as being an alarmist paper that received pal reviews RW All the above comments being said these experiences are the exceptions not the rule Most researchers I have known have been thoughtful nuanced and keenly skeptical of extreme results Reviews have always been rigorous and tough with it being rare for there to not be major revisions suggested The real pity is that there is so much focus on the few high profile climate scientists while little attention is paid to the majority working and publishing in the field It is too bad that you ve had some bad experiences with the review process at some journals I do think that for instance the O Donnell et al paper was an interesting contribution that deserved to be published but it s like anything sometimes things are more difficult than they need to be RW As for the out of topic journal discussion we will agree to disagree I ve seen way too many crappy papers this year in out of topic journals getting bandied about as proof of the great AGW fraud Geoff Sherrington Posted Nov 3 2014 at 2 21 AM Permalink The de Freitas et al 2014 paper showed an alternative derivation of the NZ seven station temperature record I ve been working on Australian data for some years Reasoning suggests we do a similar exercise to deF14 One might expect broadly similar temperature trends each side of the Tasman People like Dr David Stockwell are preparing more evidence of questionable assumptions in the official Australian record named Acorn sat So the NZ paper is having an effect already The material consideration is the strength of the science not who published the paper or from which club one fires a social comment TimTheToolMan Posted Nov 3 2014 at 3 40 AM Permalink Robert Way writes My view is that the onus should not be on the reviewer for that type of work A reviewer is there to ensure that a contribution is seemingly sound science and that it is properly translated not to audit a study There is certainly room for criticism of a paper where a new method results in a result that differs from the mainstream but without the detailed analysis its little more than an arm wave miker613 Posted Nov 3 2014 at 9 12 AM Permalink All the above comments being said these experiences are the exceptions not the rule Robert Way these comments are avoiding the point You are discussing the issues that reviewers are human beings sometimes with large personality flaws Steve McIntyre is discussing something entirely different that a important faction of the paleo climate scientists consider him to be an enemy They are fighting a war against him and some others and as McIntyre claims and Climategate shows peer review was one of their weapons I don t see how you can claim that you don t know this as you discussed it on the private SkS forum You were talking to a group of people who think they re in a war and you were helping them discuss tactics and strategy Sounded like there were two groups there the ones you who respected McIntyre as a competent enemy and the ones who just thought he was an enemy Tom T Posted Nov 5 2014 at 4 25 PM Permalink Given that spurious inversion of series is a very common error in statistical reconstructions shouldn t that be one of the first things that reviewers look for Pat Frank Posted Nov 2 2014 at 10 19 PM Permalink Agreed Steve M I ll reply to Geoff by email Barclay E MacDonald Posted Nov 1 2014 at 6 52 PM Permalink Nice post The information and analysis that you and Jean S provide continues to be quite clear Even to a member of the general public such as myself at least on a conceptual level what you are presenting is quite understandable and if what you are presenting is wrong it should not be difficult for the authors and their supporters to point out the errors The silence continues to be deafening Thank you scf Posted Nov 1 2014 at 7 16 PM Permalink I am no expert in these fields but I am highly skeptical that a varve could be a reliable predictor of anything specific such as temperature There are just too many potential biological and environmental variables potentially and unpredictably affecting sediments So it is interesting to see that an expert such as yourself is critical of their current use in proxy studies confirming my armchair suspicions Andy Posted Nov 1 2014 at 8 00 PM Permalink Nick Stokes will be along soon to claim it s all Marie Antoinette s fault and you should not eat sausages on a Thursday Patrick M Posted Nov 2 2014 at 10 50 AM Permalink I think the graph of the weights should be required on the first page of every one of these proxy reconstructions publications It is really the DNA of the reconstruction It would be even better if each proxy was issued a global ID and the graph listed ALL the proxies at the bottom of the graph then you would clearly see the weights AND see what proxies were omitted completely At the time of issuing the global ID the proxy could be evaluated by a committee for proper orientation and that could be set without regard to what is was being combined with or compared with Just my 0 02 Patrick M Posted Nov 2 2014 at 10 52 AM Permalink what it was being Craig Loehle Posted Nov 2 2014 at 3 21 PM Permalink Robert Way if you think there is no gatekeeping in science and especially in climate science then I suggest you go read the ClimateGate emails As to your paper on climate sensitivity it uses circular reasoning you assume the GCMs are correct in order to derive sensitivity Rob R Posted Nov 2 2014 at 3 59 PM Permalink Robert Way If the de Freitas et al paper is flawed and if you consider that it should not have been published then perhaps you should look at the truly awful dogs breakfast produced by NIWA which purports to be the official temperature record for NZ The de Freitas et al paper is a vastly improved effort over the NIWA version The de Freitas et al paper will be very helpful going forward It will force NIWA who are the official gate keepers for the orthodoxy in New Zealand to man up and properly explain their own bloated excuse for a land surface temperature trend Tom Fuller Posted Nov 2 2014 at 9 05 PM Permalink Sampling is one of the greatest challenges in commercial and sociological research studies Insuring you are talking to the right people reading the right material etc is pretty much 90 of the battle Perhaps some of the lessons learned in those subsectors are relevant to some of the discussions here The idea of random sampling has been more or less abandoned for research purposes Lack of true accessibility to a random sample was the primary reason Fortunately researchers experimented often enough to devise ways of conducting credible research without a random sample mostly through the use of screening or qualifying questions and the development of sample frames or quota groups to insure representativity rather than randomness I don t know how many paleoclimatic data series exist nor how many of them are claimed to have a strong temperature signal I don t really care In order to study a data series of this type you would ideally try to identify a random sample of data series that covered all or a significant portion of the time period being investigated That does not appear to be what happened Proxies were chosen for a pre determined degree of fitness matching trends with real temperature trends for a calibrating period This does not have to be a fatal flaw in the study Thousands of accurate research projects are conducted successfully each year with similar constraints They accurately predict elections success of movies and television shows the geographic range and rate of spread of illnesses etc etc You can do excellent research under challenging conditions If the data series were screened for fitness it would be okay if there was a sample frame constructed beforehand to insure representativeness of the data included for analysis I don t know if this was done And perhaps to the horror of some I would even hold that you could create such a sample frame post hoc if adequate care was taken To me the more serious problems with these experiments for that s what I consider them experiments in analysis are first that the period of calibration was a time of significant change in the data of interest and second that the calibration period is also one of the primary subjects of such analyses That s a really bad combination Too much can go wrong and apparently did It would have been far better to use as a calibration period some time before the current warming period IMO But I do think it would be possible to assemble a data set that would be fit for purpose and I hope all our criticism of efforts to date does not chill further research efforts Political Junkie Posted Nov 2 2014 at 10 56 PM Permalink Barn E Rubble is not a common name for a Suomalainen Anteeksi Steve Means sorry Steve Finnish speakers seem to be over represented on your fine blog Richard Drake Posted Nov 3 2014 at 3 07 AM Permalink The statistical methods I use to deal with this are too complex to spell out in detail but as Steve has pointed out elsewhere they come down to a weighting little polyp Posted Nov 3 2014 at 5 33 AM Permalink I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature This is new territory for me but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us Now theres a challenge for Nick Stokes Too demonstrate that even an experts own admission that he was wrong is wrong Richard Drake Posted Nov 3 2014 at 6 13 AM Permalink Nick s never been keen to discuss the details of Climategate emails Private messages unethically obtained is one way to justify the lacuna They also make it far harder for Racehorse to win the case I ve never known which it is Nick Stokes Posted Nov 3 2014 at 7 22 AM Permalink Nick s never been keen to discuss the details of Climategate emails In fact I often found it necessary to point out to someone who had discovered a secret email admission that in fact what he was waving was just what was in due course published And so it is here Kaufman published a corrigendum in line with the email discussion But what people here never seem to deal with is that Mann too acknowledged the issues with Tiljander calling it a potentially problematic series and publishing s calculation which omitted it It s all in the SI p 2 of the 2008 PNAS paper Potential data quality problems In addition to checking whether or not potential problems specific to tree ring data have any significant impact on our reconstructions in earlier centuries see Fig S7 we also examined whether or not potential problems noted for several records see Dataset S1 for details might compromise the reconstructions These records include the four Tiljander et al 12 series used see Fig S9 for which the original authors note that human effects over the past few centuries unrelated to climate might impact records the original paper states Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at A D 1720 and later In the case of Lake Korttajarvi it is a demanding task to calibrate the physical varve data we have collected against meteorological data because human impacts have distorted the natural signal to varying extents These issues are particularly significant because there are few proxy records particularly in the temperature screened dataset see Fig S9 available back through the 9th century The Tijander et al series constitute 4 of the 15 available Northern Hemisphere records before that point In addition there are three other records in our database with potential data quality problems as noted in the database notes Benson et al 13 Mono Lake Data after 1940 no good water exported to CA Isdale 14 fluorescence anthropogenic influence after 1870 and McCulloch 15 Ba Ca anthropogenic influence after 1870 We therefore performed additional analyses as in Fig S7 but instead compared the reconstructions both with and without the above seven potentially problematic series as shown in Fig S8 Nick this is very old terrtory I am completely familiar with Mann s SI as well as his denial of the error in his reply to our Comment at PNAS and his refusal to issue a corrigendum Mann s sensitivity conspicuously omitted the dependence of his vaunted no dendro reconstruction on contaminated data Mann falsely denied that it was a problem Mann failed to publish a corrigendum acknowledging the error at PNAS Mann s failure to publish a corrigendum instead placing the acknowledgement of the problem deep in the SI to a different paper tricked EPA into thinking that the nodendro reconstruction was valid despite the contamination Mann s pal Gavin Schmidt acted as peer reviewer for EPA accepting Mann s contaminated nodendro reconstruction in the RTP documents The acquiescence of the larger climate community in this sort of nonsense diminishes their standing as the defence of it diminishes yours AndyL Posted Nov 3 2014 at 7 40 AM Permalink Nick You miss the point of why Mann chose to include a series he know was potentially problematic though contaminated would have been a better word Clearly he included it for a reason and that reason is obvious It was included so that he could do his skip one test leaving out Tiljander and still get a hockey stick from bristlecones He could then do a skip one test leaving out bristlecones and get a hockey stick from Tiljander It is tricks like this that lead sceptics to have such a poor opinion of Mann bernie1815 Posted Nov 3 2014 at 8 20 AM Permalink Nick Are you saying that Mann s HS holds if he dropped both Bristlecones and Tiljander Are you saying that Mann did not know Tiljander was problematic before he included it in his pool of proxies Steve this is another threadjack by Nick Stokes Mann s misuse of contaminated data has been extensively discussed Nick is in full out denial on the topic ehak Posted Nov 3 2014 at 8 47 AM Permalink Perhaps McIntyre could answer the question from bernie1815 Does Mann s HS hold if he dropped both Bristlecones and Tiljander Nope McIntyre will not do that We all know why bernie1815 Posted Nov 3 2014 at 9 14 AM Permalink ehak I am sure Steve could cite more posts It took me 10 seconds to find this post I am sure there are more http climateaudit org 2011 07 06 dirty laundry ii contaminated sediments I think you owe Steve an apology or at least a corrigendum Jean S Posted Nov 3 2014 at 12 07 PM Permalink Nick But what people here never seem to deal with is that Mann too acknowledged the issues with Tiljander calling it a potentially problematic series and publishing s calculation which omitted it Boring your commentary is getting more and more pathetic every day Steve dealt with the issue first time less than a day after Mann 08 went online The proxies with the loudest modern warm period signal a Finnish lake sediment are said by the author to have been contaminated by non climatic modern disturbance Mann notes in the SI referring specifically to these 4 series we also examined whether or not potential problems noted for several records see Dataset S1 for details might compromise the reconstructions This smacks all too much like his attempt to adjust the bristlecone data concocting an adjustment that didn t affect the results The logical course of action when an author notes such disturbance is simply not to use the data There are dozens of other unused series In Mann s SI Figure 7 he argues that the presence absence of 7 problematic series doesn t matter So why use them And why use 4 of them It s definitely fishy ehak Posted Nov 4 2014 at 5 40 AM Permalink bernie1815 Your link shows than the HS holds without 7 proxies Not McIntyre s work though He needs help from realclimate And of course that is not without only Tiljander and bristelcones Try again Richard Drake Posted Nov 4 2014 at 6 57 AM Permalink ehak You re accepting that Mann should never have included Tiljander and bristlecones in his reconstructions then Like bernie I m confident Steve can give copious details of why your phrase the HS holds should soon be adorning the dustbin of history as well as the routines of stand up comedians But we remain open minded as always Willard Posted Nov 4 2014 at 10 02 AM Permalink this is another threadjack by Nick Stokes I was under the impression that Richard Drake channeled Nick with his never been keen to discuss the details of Climategate emails Using someone as a whipping boy and then blaming him for defending himself might very well be suboptimal How shameful this is for the auditors to decide Steve Nick s response was a wildly untrue statement about the analysis at CA of Mann s use of contaminated data Making wildly untrue allegations is hardly defending himself it was another fabricated accusation against others Plus Mann s use of contaminated Tiljander data had little to do with the Climategate emails Kaufman considered the issue in emails but offhand I don t recall Mann discussing this topic in the emails SO Nick s absurd accusation was coatrack as well Richard Drake Posted Nov 4 2014 at 11 30 AM Permalink My comment was on topic if little polyp s was I stand by my observation that Nick isn t keen on the subject Unfortunately the example he then gave was poor and this prompted Steve s comment But note that nothing Nick ehak or you have written has been removed It s up to the disinterested reader to decide Perhaps you d like to pass this strength of CA on to other blogs you admire so that they can emulate Steven Mosher Posted Nov 4 2014 at 12 01 PM Permalink willard king climateballer Using someone as a whipping boy and then blaming him for defending himself might very well be suboptimal How shameful this is for the auditors to decide 1 whipping boy hmm victim card much 2 blaming him for defending himself sorry not seeing either Not seeing anyone blame him and not seeing any kind of defense from him 3 and now the Bully willard moralizes about who should be shameful climateball homerun Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 4 2014 at 1 41 PM Permalink more of a strikeout or feeble popup Richard Drake Posted Nov 4 2014 at 1 06 PM Permalink Steve Nick s response was a wildly untrue statement Plus Mann s use of contaminated Tiljander data had little to do with the Climategate emails Kaufman considered the issue in emails but offhand I don t recall Mann discussing this topic in the emails SO Nick s absurd accusation was coatrack as well Er make that Unfortunately the non example he then gave was very poor in my earlier post Mosh climateball homerun It should really be on Fox Sports by now Nick Stokes Posted Nov 4 2014 at 3 19 PM Permalink Steve Nick s response was a wildly untrue statement about the analysis at CA I said that Mann published as part of his paper cautions about the use of Tiljander and quoted them That is entirely factual I then offered the opinion that CA has been unwilling to deal with the existence of that caution Unsurprisingly you disagree That doesn t make my opinion wildly untrue Failure to deal with it is shown here One of the contributing factors to Kaufman s error was Mann s prior failure to issue a corrigendum in respect to Mann et al 2008 where the identical error was criticized Actually worse Mann denied that there was an error The failure to issue corrigendums also impacted Tingley and Huybers 2013 which similarly used upside down data relying on the earlier error of Mann et al 2008 The fact that Mann et al 2008 warned very explicitly of the potentially problematic Tiljander data goes unmentioned but is surely relevant Steve your assertion that people here including me did not deal with Mann s reference to Tiljander in his SI was wildly untrue Mann s original Si has been carefully analysed on multiple occasions In the SI Mann failed to disclose the impact of contaminated data on the heavily promoted nodendro reconstruction If at the time Mann knew that the nodendro reconstruction did not validate according to his no necessarily valid methods without contaminated data his failure to this in the original SI was dishonest If Mann did not know this then when Mann became aware of it he should have issued a corrigendum if not retraction However he didn t do so And yes like others I later learned that he acknowledged the failure to validate in the SI to a different paper but that is not an acceptable alternative to a corrigendum Indeed even EPA s RTP documents for which Gavin Schmidt acted as reviewer was either deceived by Mann s failure to issue a corrigendum or intentionally ignored it It is astonishing that you defend such conduct Steven Mosher Posted Nov 4 2014 at 3 30 PM Permalink for willard I had to shorten right field Nick s never been keen to discuss the details of Climategate emails but he has found it necessary Richard Drake Posted Nov 4 2014 at 3 56 PM Permalink It was the commentary not the play I was enjoying Nick Stokes Posted Nov 4 2014 at 7 58 PM Permalink But note that nothing Nick ehak or you have written has been removed No But my response still sits in moderation Steven Mosher Posted Nov 4 2014 at 9 41 PM Permalink climateballer says but moderation UC Posted Nov 5 2014 at 3 55 AM Permalink the good old Mann08 SI As a further safeguard against potentially nonrobust results a minimum of seven predictors in a given hemisphere was required in implementing the EIV procedure because seven is prime MikeN Posted Nov 5 2014 at 10 53 AM Permalink I said that Mann published as part of his paper cautions about the use of Tiljander and quoted them That is entirely factual I then offered the opinion that CA has been unwilling to deal with the existence of that caution Unsurprisingly you disagree That doesn t make my opinion wildly untrue This is like Martin Vermeer s attempted defense of Mann s reply to Steve s comment in PNAS Allegation of upside down use is bizarre Regression algorithms are blind to the sign of the indicator Pointed out that Tiljander was used upside down and in fact was not fed through a correlation screening in CPS Thus Mann was responding with an irrelevant point Vermeer s reply was that Mann is right because regression algorithms are blind to the sign of the indicator Willard Posted Nov 5 2014 at 4 41 PM Permalink Making wildly untrue allegations is hardly defending himself it was another fabricated accusation against others Nick s response to the gratuitous more Omertà Nick 1 starts with this In fact I often found it necessary to point out to someone who had discovered a secret email admission that in fact what he was waving was just what was in due course published And so it is here Kaufman published a corrigendum in line with the email discussion The yes but Tiljander is tangential to this claim and turns Nick s response into an excuse to peddle the Tiljander Affair into the discussion To whatever claims like untrue allegations or fabricated accusation are supposed to refer unless they address Nick s point underlined above they amount to just another round of ClimateBall If we really want to discuss Nick s Omertà I do hope we can agree that as a matter of decorum it is legitimate not to say what one thinks 3 and I suggest we start by returning to an argument he put forward a few years ago I don t think snooping through people s private emails is a dignified activity There was no answer to that argument back then except perhaps mpaul s agreement 1 neverendingaudit tumblr com post 8195679480 2 neverendingaudit tumblr com post 1702909842 3 neverendingaudit tumblr com post 16927748749 4 neverendingaudit tumblr com post 9587811876 Steve the fact that Kaufman published a corrigendum in respect to Kaufman et al 2009 is unresponsive to Mann not publishing a corrigendum Indeed it supports the position that errors should be acknowledged in corrigenda and points to Kaufman s failure to thus far publish a corrigendum for PAGES2K TerryMN Posted Nov 5 2014 at 6 51 PM Permalink Because Nick and Willard are saving the planet they cannot nay should not be bothered with little things like facts logic and their own prior statements which happen to be contrary to their current statements barn E rubble Posted Nov 5 2014 at 10 27 PM Permalink RE Nick s response RE Steve It is astonishing that you defend such conduct Well I m thinking that leaves me among the the few bored who aren t astonished that nick small n op would defend such conduct But then again that s me and I suppose that s nick Nick Stokes Posted Nov 6 2014 at 12 28 AM Permalink would defend such conduct i Out of curiosity what conduct am I supposed to be defending I simply quoted what Mann said in the SI said that it was relevant to what is said here and people didn t seem to want to acknowledge it What conduct Steve your assertion that people here including me did not deal with Mann s reference to Tiljander in his SI was wildly untrue Mann s original Si has been carefully analysed on multiple occasions In the SI Mann failed to disclose the impact of contaminated data on the heavily promoted nodendro reconstruction If at the time Mann knew that the nodendro reconstruction did not validate according to his no necessarily valid methods without contaminated data his failure to this in the original SI was dishonest If Mann did not know this then when Mann became aware of it he should have issued a corrigendum if not retraction However he didn t do

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/31/the-kaufman-tautology/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Op Ed on Deflategate « Climate Audit
    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 if you

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/01/op-ed-on-deflategate/?replytocom=762727 (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Op Ed on Deflategate « Climate Audit
    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 if you find McIntyre s

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/01/op-ed-on-deflategate/?replytocom=762731 (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive