Whoosh!

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    May 30, 2009

    what happened to cohenite – is he still waiting for his wife to come home and do his homework for him??

  2. #2 bi -- IJI
    May 31, 2009

    Shorter cohenite:

    I know totally nothing about statistical analysis, but I know the globe is experiencing a cooling trend. Here’s a bunch of scientific papers which I don’t understand squat, but which support my view.

  3. #3 David Irving (no relation)
    May 31, 2009

    To save everyone else the trouble of following cohenite’s links in 95 and 97 (above), one is to the download page for some statistical software (?) and the other is to an abstract for a paper about sewer failure (??)

    If anyone can enlighten me about how either of these inform the debate I’d be obliged.

    Of course, it looks like they were just a couple of links randomly thrown up by Google for “statistics” and “environment”.

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    May 31, 2009

    David at #103.

    The software link is for an add-in to program R, a rather nifty (and a little bit demanding) program beloved of many statistical analysts. I suspect that cohenite was attempting to show how clever he is, but if he gets his wife to do his analysis for him, there’s no way that he’d actually have a clue how to use R himself.

    After all, if he actually had a clue, he’d know enough about basic regression descriptions to know that there’s nothing profound to find in the randomness of the two data sets (from #93) beyond the basic lessons about the illegitimacy of cherry-picking and the pitfalls of attempting over-interpretation.

    It’s a pity that he is impervious to this lesson, as he has swanned right in after McLean and Quirk to make, as the latter two do, the same errors in ‘analysis’ and interpretation as are described in the preceeding sentence and in previous posts by many commenters on this thread.

    The paper reference is surely a suggestion, in a rare moment of lucidity, about where the ideas of cohenite and his colleagues deserve to be flushed…

  5. #5 Michael
    May 31, 2009

    Bernard,

    You’ve got poor cohers stumped.

    He’s had to resort to asking for help from his like-minded friends over at Jennifers Blog of Credulity,
    …..a Chow Test needs to be done;…..But I’ll need some assistance to do that so the vultures are having some fun at my ineptitude not appreciating that their argument is predicated on the incredible assumption that there is no climatic effect from the climate shift between La Nina and El Nino.” – cohenite.

    Now that will be a laugh.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    May 31, 2009

    Michael.

    I don’t even bother with the Bog these days, but I did wonder if cohenite would attempt to recruit others to his task. But did he really say this?!

    [T]he vultures are having some fun at my ineptitude not appreciating that their argument is predicated on the incredible assumption that there is no climatic effect from the climate shift between La Nina and El Nino.

    Even for a lawyer, cohenite appears to be overly happy to misrepresent his opposition.

    I (and I am sure many others here) have never assumed, said or even implied that “there is no climatic effect from the climate shift between La Nina and El Nino”. To the contrary, at [#17](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1657582) I noted that the planet’s temperature trajectory is dependent upon multiple complex factors. This of course includes oscillations such as ENSO, although cohenite needs to be careful that he is not being tautological, or even simply irrelevant, in his attributions of cause and effect in climate phenomena.

    Lee said it well about the Mclean & Quirk ‘paper':

    There is not a single statistical significance test, in either the McClean paper or in the Quirk appendix. None. They don’t test or report if their model is significant. They don’t test or report if it is any better than the standard linear model. They don’t report or test any of the standard statistical methods for finding change points in time series data.

    They simply arbitrarily place two change points in the analysis, one at at 1976, and one at 1980 (McClean) or 1979 (Quirk). They do this without any supporting analysis whatsoever. They eyeballed it. Hell, I can eyeball a bigger step (using their alleged analysis) at about 1955, or between 1985-1988. Does McClean’s utterly unsupported choice of dates actually produce a better model than these would? And what does that do to McClean’s “Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1975″ argument? He has NO ANALYSIS WHATSOEVER of the statistical validity of his choice of break points at all, or over other possible break points. Massive fail.

    The point being made by many on this thread regarding this ‘work’ is that the BoM annual mean temperature data was not parsimoniously (or even sensibly) ‘analysed’ by McL&Q.

    Without a significantly detailed and scientifically-justified a priori protocol for incorporating a suit of indicators to identify ‘transition’ states in the climate, chopping a time series into pieces as McL&Q/cohenite are wont to do is Bad Technique. Cohenite and his revered McL&Q rely upon non-statistically justified reference to the Southern Oscillation index in order to identify a ‘transition’, and completely ignore any and all other climate parameters that might legitimately be considered relevant.

    This is cherry-picking.

    That cohenite cannot understand this; that he is unable to follow the most basic of pointers that would demonstrate to him that his and MCL&Q’s ‘results’ fail the principles of careful and of parsimonious analysis; that he is now apparently recruiting others to cover his arse: all indicate how removed from basic statistical procedure he is.

    That he doesn’t seem to understand the relationships between signals, noise, numbers of data points in a time series, and how all three are legitimately analysed to detect significant trends, only confirms this.

    That he has avoided answering a few simple questions with regard to commenting upon the dummy data puzzles me, unless it is because he realises that by doing so he makes a mockery of his own [prior description](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1661913) of the Bom data.

    Still, if he wants to Chow down on the dummy data, and tell us the story as to why he did so, I would be happy to hear his explanation.

    I’d be even more intrigued to see him or his mates do the same to the BoM data, and explain how they managed to account for all climate-modifying parameters when picking, as an explanation (a la SOI), any that they believe marks a ‘transition’.

  7. #7 Michael
    May 31, 2009

    Cohers’ befuddlement is final proof that his ability to objectively assess the ‘papers’ he champions is zero.

    He simply likes to believe what he thinks the papers mean. The rest is just hot air.

  8. #8 Ken
    May 31, 2009

    Doesn’t courtroom argument depend very much on ensuring that witnesses tell selected bits of truth but rarely if ever the whole truth? I would think that expert witnesses should present testimony in keeping with the standards of their profession and if their conclusions are widely different from the mainstream I’d hope the other side are competent enough to know and show that to be the case. I’m, not convinced that’s the case.

    Actually recent criticisms of advocates in courts around here were scathing, many being completely unfamiliar with the cases in question, their arguments poorly made and often incomprehensible. It looks to my like their peers seem most reluctant to do any kind of serious review and the bodies that should be holding them to high standards appear more concerned with maintaining the appearance of high standards by rarely finding fault with their professional collegues – they’re more likely to act like defence advocates for their incompetent peers.

    In any case I think that science has a better record of getting things right than courts do. It’s certainly much more able to review and revise in the light of new data. Of course all the new data re climate change continues to support AGW and strengthen the case for action.

    Cohenite, will you lead a class action against major CO2 producers when those coastal properties get affected by rising sea levels?

  9. #9 David irving (no relation)
    May 31, 2009

    Bernard, I knew cohenite’s first link was for a R package. I’ve heard of it, but wouldn’t have much of a clue using it (and I guarantee I’ve got a hell of a lot more mathematics that cohenite). I just couldn’t see its application to a question that most of us could answer with pencil and paper and, in my case, an elementary statistics text.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    June 1, 2009

    David, I suspect that you are in concordance with most intelligent folk here. Using a Chow in the context of the Aussie mean annual temperature data (and with the dummy data) is the statistical equivalent of pinning the tail on the donkey, Quirk’s “variance analysis” of arbitrary time periods in figure 4 notwithstanding. Given the lack of a detailed a priori justification for a Chow, I am as baffled as you are as to why cohenite would suggest it, if he is not merely cherry-picking.

    Though having just said that, perhaps pinning the tail on the donkey is exactly what cohenite intended. He’s certainly tacked one right between his own eyes.

  11. #11 cohenite
    June 1, 2009

    Stay tuned dingbats, I haven’t put the white flag up on this one yet; and BJ, you do go on.

  12. #12 Dan L.
    June 1, 2009

    > cohenite: I haven’t put the white flag up on this one yet

    Just a flesh wound, eh?

  13. #13 Nathan
    June 1, 2009

    Cohenite,
    you have no credibility so why will you bother coming back here.

    You have no idea how science works. You seem to think that EL Nino and ENSO are completely unrelated to AGW, with no proof.

    You are what is known as – an idiot.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    June 1, 2009

    Stay tuned dingbats, I haven’t put the white flag up on this one yet; and BJ, you do go on.

    And I’ll ‘go on’ some more.

    Cohenite, Mclean and Quirk are attempting to posit that the Australian temperature record is the result of natural phenomena, rather than arising from any CO2-related warming.

    Given that they are attempting to refute a global phenomenon (AGW), how does one justify taking global or semi-global phenomena (e.g. ENSO) and applying them to the analysis of what is effectively a local temperature data-set? The reach of such oscillations is, after all, greater than to just the Australian context, as is the influence of CO2 itself…

    Given that you are considering global phenomena, what process are you employing to determine that your focus on local responses allows you to detect signal over noise; that is, what is your resolution?

    Given that oscillations (e.g. ENSO) are effectively noise around a signal, why is it legitimate to consider one ‘transitional’ stage in isolation, rather than to account for several complete oscillatory periods?

    Given that climate is, as everyone acknowledges, a complex beast, why is it legitimate to consider one aspect (e.g. ENSO) in your (and McL&Q’s) “alternative hypothesis” and omit the large number of other impacting factors in scales of both space and of time?

    Are understanding dawning yet? If not, I and many others here are prepared to continue “going on”.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    June 1, 2009

    Are Is understanding…

  16. #16 Richard Simons
    June 2, 2009

    Cohenite (#111)

    I haven’t put the white flag up on this one yet;

    Cohenite is clearly approaching this in a different way from a scientist. A scientist would present their best evidence and arguments, but if the other person’s evidence and arguments were better, would be willing to modify their views (although some scientists do get attached to their pet hypotheses). Being persuaded that someone else’s ideas are better is generally no big deal. Cohenite, however, sees it as a personal defeat. Given this attitude, I don’t think there is any chance of him ever changing his mind.

    Stay tuned dingbats

    Why does expecting you to be able to justify your claims turn me into a dingbat?

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    June 2, 2009

    Following up on Michael’s comment [at #105](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1669230), I stumbled upon [this](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/gaia-%e2%80%93-saved-by-the-seas/?cp=all#comment-107947):

    Comment from: cohenite May 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    “Thing like ENSO…are well recognised.” Well, Nick I just spent a very invigorating period at Deltoid where sod and other lumps of dirt argued that ENSO doesn’t exist. [emphasis mine]

    Cohenite, along with your other homework, please detail where “sod and other lumps of dirt argued that ENSO doesn’t exist“.

  18. #18 cohenite
    June 2, 2009

    I do apologise Richard; I was directing my comments at Nathan who seems to be on the turps again and channeling the Vecchi and Soden thesis of El Nino look-a-like effects caused by ACO2.

    BJ; you raise a couple of point about the locality of ENSO effects and the oscillation versus trend disparity. It is true that M&Q concentrate on Australian conditions but a cursory glance at GMST trends also show an upward trend about 1976 and M&Q note this on p4 of McLean’s section.

    Your comment about oscillations being just noise around a signal is really the guts of this issue with, according to you, the real trend from AGW emerging from an effectively trend-stationary ENSO oscillation. I hope to show some analysis contrary to this soon, but feel free to continue berating me in the meantime.

  19. #19 cohenite
    June 2, 2009

    “the analysis of australian data is rubbish, because even if it was true, it couldn t explain the global warming.

    the analysis is rubbish, as bluegrue described above.

    Posted by: sod | May 28, 2009 4:20 AM”

    And BJ, you regard ENSO as merely noise around a signal so I think I was entitled to assume you thought ENSO was non-existent. After all, if something has no effect its existence is rather tenuous.

  20. #20 Nathan
    June 2, 2009

    Cohenite
    You are truly stupid.
    I did not argue that ENSO was an AGW signal. I said that your theory require ENSO to not be affected AT ALL by AGW – something that you just decided was true, with no evidence. It’s a spectacularly stupid idea.

    “I hope to show some analysis contrary to this soon…”
    Oh God, not Bob what’s’his’names ‘analysis’… Spare us the rubbish.

  21. #21 Nathan
    June 2, 2009

    Cohenite:
    “And BJ, you regard ENSO as merely noise around a signal so I think I was entitled to assume you thought ENSO was non-existent. After all, if something has no effect its existence is rather tenuous.”

    And you wonder why people don;t take you seriously when you arrive at stupid conclusions like this?

    You can’t treat science like a rhetorical game. All you show is that you are a dunce.

    And by the way, with respect to this comment:
    “I hope to show some analysis contrary to this soon…”
    Why were you declaring your ENSO theory as fact when you hadn’t even done any analysis?

  22. #22 cohenite
    June 2, 2009

    Very good nat, now I’m being insulted for taking on board what you brainiacs objected to in M&Q and then going off to prepare a response to that.

  23. #23 Nathan
    June 2, 2009

    Cohenite:
    “Very good nat, now I’m being insulted for taking on board what you brainiacs objected to in M&Q and then going off to prepare a response to that. ”

    No, you are being insulted because you are a moron and you keeping posting here proclaiming that AGW is wrong and blah blah blah. It’s tiresome rubbish.

    Why did you claim that AGW could be explained by ENSO when you hadn’t done the analysis?

  24. #24 Nathan
    June 2, 2009

    Cohenite
    You should also note that I insulted you because you said something that was clearly stupid:
    “And BJ, you regard ENSO as merely noise around a signal so I think I was entitled to assume you thought ENSO was non-existent. After all, if something has no effect its existence is rather tenuous.”

    If you keep saying stupid things people will assume you’re stupid.

  25. #25 Gaz
    June 2, 2009

    Nathan, you say at #124: “If you keep saying stupid things people will assume you’re stupid.”

    Would it not be more accurate to say, in this case, that if you keep saying stupid things people will deduce that you’re stupid?

  26. #27 Nathan
    June 2, 2009

    Sod,
    I think you need a 4th degree polynomial to make it make any sense… :)

  27. #28 Barton Paul Levenson
    June 2, 2009

    cohenite writes:

    And BJ, you regard ENSO as merely noise around a signal so I think I was entitled to assume you thought ENSO was non-existent. After all, if something has no effect its existence is rather tenuous.

    How does “exists as noise” translate to “doesn’t exist?” For that matter, how does “exists as noise” translate to “has no effect?”

  28. #29 Bernard J.
    June 2, 2009

    Very good nat, now I’m being insulted for taking on board what you brainiacs objected to in M&Q and then going off to prepare a response to that.

    Just out of interest cohenite, what is your a priori hypothesis, your intended methodology for determining which are the relevant factors that have an impact on Australian mean annual temperature, and your statistical procedure for analysing the significance of your a priori-determined impactors?

  29. #30 Bernard J.
    June 2, 2009

    Michael at [#105](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1669230).

    Do you have a link to that comment of cohenite’s? I’m curious to see how the cheer-squad at Marohasy’s may have responded.

    I have had a quick look through some of the threads and searched, but nothing relevant seems to come up. I just don’t have the patience at the moment to wade through the endless mullock-heaps to find the source.

  30. #31 sod
    June 2, 2009
  31. #32 pough
    June 2, 2009

    And BJ, you regard ENSO as merely noise around a signal so I think I was entitled to assume you thought ENSO was non-existent. After all, if something has no effect its existence is rather tenuous.

    Easily one of the strangest things I’ve seen written here. Do you believe in waves? If so, do you think they affect the tides? If they don’t affect the tides, does that make their existence tenuous?

  32. #33 Michael
    June 3, 2009

    Here BJ,
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/defining-the-greens-part-12/?cp=all#comment-108761

    And no takers, partly because Jen deleted further comments on it…….a sensible move on her part.

    I’m hoping that Graeme Bird will offer his services to cohers.

  33. #34 Michael
    June 9, 2009

    No sign of cohers.

    Does this mean that he has “put the white flag up on this one“?

  34. #35 Bernard J.
    June 9, 2009

    If cohenite is still contemplating how to twist the dummy data, and/or the McL&Q ‘paper’ results, into demonstrating how his/McL&Q’s interpretation of the 20th century+ warming follows their ‘model’ above that of climatologists around the world, he might like to follow John Mashey’s [post on the “Always Click on the Links” thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/always_click_on_the_links.php#comment-1688982).

    Most especially, cohenite might like to contemplate [this post](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/18/climate-denial-crock/#comment-15766) of John’s, and comment on the implications of the [figure 1](http://i41.tinypic.com/2i88s2.jpg) and [figure 4](http://i41.tinypic.com/2uzw93b.jpg) graphs. I did a similar thing last year with 30-year slope data from GISS, following a process I use for change in body size in poikilotherms, and got a similar result.

    John’s exploration is far more thoroughly detailed though, and nicely explained, and importantly, he put has it out there for others to contemplate.

    I would very much like to hear the result of any such contemplation by cohenite, and especially what he might think about the various time-scale slope plots in the figure 4 graphic have to say about temperature change, and particularly so in the context of his and McLean & Quirk’s theories.

  35. #36 Michael
    June 9, 2009

    Cohers may have decided not to bother as Jennifer Marohasy makes a revolutionary claim. Perhaps her treatise is about to appear in some internationally recognised journal,

    I reckon it would perhaps be easier to believe in Creation than AGW. Both are theories in my view easily disproven

  36. #37 Bernard J.
    July 30, 2009

    Cyfrowe Wydania.

    If you are after more information regarding the dodgy statistical process cohenite attempted to use to show a step in a dataset, a process that he has so far not attempted to reflect in an analysis of some simple [dummy data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/whoosh.php#comment-1664460), you might be interested in [James Annan’s comment](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/07/editorial-standards-at-agu-journals.html) on exactly this type of nonsense, in a discussion of that [McLean, de Freitas, and Carter paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php).

Current ye@r *