Pielke Sr’s new statistical technique

Posted by Tim Lambert on July 1, 2009
(106)
More »

You might have learnt in stats class how to use linear regression to estimate trends. Well I’m sorry but you going to have to forget it all and the boring statistics books are going to have to be rewritten because that stuff is obsolete due to revolutionary breakthrough by Roger Pielke Sr. If you use the boring-and-now-obsolete linear regression stuff on the University of Colorado at Boulder sea level data you discover that the trend is positive and highly statistically significant, even if you just consider the data since 2006.

But using his revolutionary new technique Roger Pielke Sr discovers that sea levels are not rising and in fact: “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.”

Look at the proof and marvel:

i-9acf510ad21cb2af184e0394a829f950-pielke_slr.png

Pielke also claims:

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

David Appell is mystified because this is contradicted by the latest research, but the answer is simple:

i-72f7bd2bd892a63eda5122ed06e30be3-OHC-Levitus4.png

No increase there once you Pielkeize the graph.

Pielke’s third and final claim is that Arctic ice is not shrinking because it’s increased since 2008. If only we had been measuring ice before 2008! Oh, wait:

i-2622164ab77d75388d7f20efc20d589a-324873main_kwokfig4_full.jpg

i-4cb1198dcdf28a8bbf61ebe830da676a-pielke2.jpg

Oh heck, I can’t resist proving that temperatures have not risen since 1975.

i-5d3e0ef32c50ef26805aaadf03a11f08-Gisstemp-Fig.A2pielke.png

Keywords:
(106)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 MAB
    July 7, 2009

    And how come that isn’t a problem with denialists going “It’s just a way for the scientists to get grant money” which is
    a) rude b) not an argument that it is wrong c) wrong

    It is a problem, but not one I can influence, except expose in the most articulate way that I can.

  2. #2 TrueSceptic
    July 7, 2009

    71 wo-c,

    I was replying to post 64 and forgot to include the number. I always *try* to do that, to avoid misunderstandings. I failed. ;)

  3. #3 Mark
    July 7, 2009

    > It is a problem, but not one I can influence, except expose in the most articulate way that I can.

    > Posted by: MAB

    I’ve never seen it happen, so I don’t see there IS a problem.

    Answer questions and if those answers seem to disappear into a black hole, stop being nice.

    Nice to begin with, since they ARE asking.

    Buf it they’re wasting your time, they aren’t being nice themselves.

    And if you’ve already turned all cheeks available, you throw the moneylenders out, to misuse a parable…

  4. #4 MAB
    July 7, 2009

    :)

  5. #5 Petro
    July 15, 2009

    Obviously Pielke Sr has joined The Flat Earth Society!

  6. #6 Steve Reuland
    July 31, 2010

    Okay, I know this thread is a year old, but since Tim just linked to it I’m going to comment anyway.

    The funny thing is, with a year of additional data, we have a more direct test of Pielke’s claim wrt sea level.

    His claim of course was based on the favorite denialist technique of cherry-picking an outlying data point (in this case, from early 2006), pretending as if it’s the baseline, and declaring that since the outlier hasn’t yet been exceeded, the trend is flat (or even down). You just have to ignore any and all statistics, smoothing, or long-term trends.

    Well, even ignoring those things, it turns out that in early 2010, that data point was exceeded and a new record was set. But I guess in Pielke’s world, this just sets a new baseline from which sea level has been dropping ever since…

1 2