Nir’s 2005 paper “On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget”, available as pdf here, provides a solid case linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. The effect is consistent over hugely different timescales, using completely different indicators — from cosmic sources of CRF at the Phanerozoic, to the shortest time scale of the 11-yr solar cycle. The fit is extraordinary. The statistics competent. The bottom line?
CommentsThe theory of this Israeli astrophysicist has gained traction as the great white hope of climate skeptics. Below are some sources of background reading.
CommentsRonald Reagan was born on the 6th of February 1911. If ever we were in need of wisdom from the man who changed the free world, its now. Below are some of my favorite Reagan quotes, relating to some of the madness going on around us.
CommentsThe following is an approximate propagation of uncertainty through Dessler et als. equation for estimating the strength of water vapor feedback λ. We have been looking at the error-bars in his recent paper Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008, not calculated in the published paper. Assumptions made are noted. Refer to wiki for propagation of error equations.
CommentsA concerned reader sent me this recent paper Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008, writing:
CommentsThe following (ala Hansen) IMO should never have been accepted in a "peer reviewed" journal. "The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system."
The Google Reader tool is quite the step forward in productivity. Here are some of its most productive features.
CommentsDetecting bias in research is not so difficult when you know what to look for. The conclusions are not justified by the data. Instead, the data may confirm, be consistent with, (or not inconsistent with) the conclusions. Working against this however are basic human motives on the part of the writer, to find novel and interesting approaches, find significant results when nothing is there, to be accepted by their colleagues, to get grants and be published.
CommentsWhile Prof. David Karoly’s guest post at RealClimate is admirably nuanced, he has graciously left some low-hanging fruit to take the stick to. He states:
CommentsIan Castles organized a review of the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report by two Accredited Statisticians, who also review my first report on the skill of the climate models.
The statisticians find inadequate validation of the models of drought, as well as suboptimal regionalization in the DECR. They also find my analysis lacked force, and so I have done additional analysis in line with their suggestions.
The last few posts in the series have consisted of reviews of an unsuccessful submission to the Australian Meteorological Magazine (AMM), showing how contradictions between models and observations were suppressed from the conclusions of the DECR. These reviews cover similar ground from a different angle: the skill of the climate models in the DECR, failing to identify any real skill in the predictions of drought, and ways of showing variation between the model (increasing drought) and their real world observations (decreasing drought) at the climatic time scale.
Below are the abstracts:
Some comments on the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) and on Dr David Stockwell’s critique of it
K.R.W. Brewer1 and A.N. Other1
28 January, 20091. K.R.W. Brewer is an Accredited Statistician of the Statistical Society of Australia Inc. (SSAI) and a long term Visiting Fellow at the School of Finance and Applied Statistics within the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University.
2. A.N. Other is a pseudonym for another Accredited Statistician of the SSAI who prefers to remain anonymous. Full responsibility for the content is taken by K.R.W. Brewer.Abstract
The Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) was authored by a team drawn from the CSIRO and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, and was publicly released in July 2008. Almost immediately it became a source of controversy. This evaluation, both of the Report itself and of the critique of it written by Dr David Stockwell, finds good mixed with less than good in both. The DECR itself is criticized for its poor delineation of Regions within Australia, for the choices made of statistics to be constructed, for the manners of their construction, and for not getting the best out of the relevant available data. Dr Stockwell is criticized for his inappropriate choices of methodology and of time periods for analysis, and also for misunderstanding some parts of what the DECR’s authors had chosen to do. Nevertheless, both the Report itself and Dr Stockwell’s critique of it are welcome stimuli to further investigate a serious issue within the climate change debate.
Validation of Climate Effect Models: Response to Brewer and Other
David R.B. Stockwell
February 4, 2009Abstract
A review by independent Accredited Statisticians, Brewer and Other [KB09], suggested that some claims in the report “Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report” [DS08] were premature. Additional tests suggested by KB09 support the claim made in the original report of “no credible basis for the claims of increasing frequency of Exceptional Circumstances declarations”. The contributions of KB09 and DS08 to the evaluation of skill of climate model simulations with, arguably, weakly validated idiosyncratic statistics are discussed. These include recommendations for greater rigor in evaluating the performance of climate effects simulations, such as those used in standardized forecasting practices [AG09].
One thing is clear, the climate models that all of these predictions rely on have not been validated to accepted standards. That is a major lapse on the part of the climatologists who nonetheless use the models to influence public opinion and action.
Contrast the quality and professionalism of the review by statisticians, with the error-ridden categorical reviews by climate scientists to the AMM article. The greater rigor of the statisticians is clearly evident.
CommentsA review by independent Accredited Statisticians, Brewer and Other [KB09], suggested that some claims in the report “Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report” [DS08] were premature. Additional tests suggested by KB09 support the claim made in the original report of “no credible basis for the claims of increasing frequency of Exceptional Circumstances declarations”. The contributions of KB09 and DS08 to the evaluation of skill of climate model simulations with, arguably, weakly validated idiosyncratic statistics are discussed. These include recommendations for more rigor in evaluating the performance of climate effects simulations, such as those used in standardized forecasting practices [AG09]. Read the rest of this entry…
Comments1. K.R.W. Brewer is an Accredited Statistician of the Statistical Society of Australia Inc. (SSAI) and a long term Visiting Fellow at the School of Finance and Applied Statistics within the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University.
2. A.N. Other is a pseudonym for another Accredited Statistician of the SSAI who prefers to remain anonymous. Full responsibility for the content is taken by K.R.W. Brewer.
The Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) was authored by a team drawn from the CSIRO and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, and was publicly released in July 2008. Almost immediately it became a source of controversy. This evaluation, both of the Report itself and of the critique of it written by Dr David Stockwell, finds good mixed with less than good in both. The DECR itself is criticized for its poor delineation of Regions within Australia, for the choices made of statistics to be constructed, for the manners of their construction, and for not getting the best out of the relevant available data. Dr Stockwell is criticized for his inappropriate choices of methodology and of time periods for analysis, and also for misunderstanding some parts of what the DECR’s authors had chosen to do. Nevertheless, both the Report itself and Dr Stockwell’s critique of it are welcome stimuli to further investigate a serious issue within the climate change debate.
CommentsBelow are Peter Gallagher’s thoughts on the reviews of the submission to AMM. Contrast this with ac’s impressions that “To my reading the reviewer’s criticisms are reasonable and pertinent.” It goes to show, that reasonable and unrelated people can see things in different ways. Where is the resolvability of fact in the review process? Consensus?
CommentsHere are the second reviewers comments. This is quite short, so I have only a few remarks to make, mainly that I tried as much as possible to mimic the analysis used in the DECR, so any criticisms of the methodology are also criticisms of the report. Perhaps the reviewer would like to inform the authors of the DECR about their thoughts on that?
CommentsThe Financial Times recently reported on the Australian bushfires, linking them to increases in greenhouse gases. We take another look at the data in the DECR and find Australia is getting wetter not drier:
CommentsHere are my comments on the reviewers 1 comments on the manuscript submitted to AMM about the DECR. The summary of the manuscript stated:
CommentsThe 2008 Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) makes a number of bold claims in its assessment of likely changes in the frequency and severity of severe rainfall deficiencies over the next 20-30 years. This review presents an analysis which brings into question whether these claims can be sustained by the data. Taking into account the poor performance of climate models, as evidenced by simulations of area of exceptionally low rainfall trending in the opposite direction to observations, a more valid interpretation of the data would be for drought frequency and severity in Australia to remain largely unchanged in the future, with no expectation of a change in the climatological basis for EC declarations.
Peter Gallagher reports that even while the coals are still warm, some are already blaming the Victorian fires on increases in greenhouse gases.
The following summarizes indications of decline in droughts in Australia from 1900 to the present, compiled from data provided with the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. Some of this information was provided in the submission the the Australian Meteorological Magazine (more about this tomorrow). Drought is defined as the percentage of area with rainfall lower than the 5th percentile. The areas are averaged over seven Australian regions.
Read the rest of this entry…
A number of familiar tests, often used to evaluate the performance of models: R2 correlation, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and similarity of trends and return period, were reported here, noting not much evidence of skill in the DECR models compared with observations at any of these. I also said what a better treatment might entail but left that for another time:
CommentsPosts over the next few weeks will be updates on the status of reviews myself and others have initiated of the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR), by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
CommentsIn the last episode, retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist John S. Theon, who claimed to be one of Hansen’s former supervisors, declared himself a skeptic and said Hansen had “embarrassed NASA.” Left leaning blogs cried foul. This week, James Hansen says he doesn’t recall Theon, and John Theon responds that Hansen is losing his memory. From CO2skeptic.
CommentsSome stories these days send shivers down my spine, over the sheer magnitude of the changes going on in world finance. King Among Clowns is packed with great quotes, about the Congressional testimony of a unlikely anti-hero, with an unlikely name, Harry Markopolos.
He ran the numbers. They didn’t fit. He spoke out. See the pillars of power tremble at his words.
Comments