Machine learning ‘causing science crisis’

Science under stress?[image credit: thespiritscience.net]

Problems can arise ‘because experiments are not designed well enough to ensure that the scientists don’t fool themselves and see what they want to see in the results.’ For example, it seems ‘up to 85% of all biomedical research carried out in the world is wasted effort’.

Machine-learning techniques used by thousands of scientists to analyse data are producing results that are misleading and often completely wrong, reports BBC News.

Dr Genevera Allen from Rice University in Houston said that the increased use of such systems was contributing to a “crisis in science”.

MET-Office update: There is no update.

In the meantime, here’s how the 2016-2021 forecast (in blue) is doing compared to the latest data (red trace).

Last year, I wrote a short post entitled Met-Office invents infallible climate prediction method, in which I showed how the MET-Office would always update their ‘decadal’ (actually semi-decadal) climate prediction before the data caught up with them.

At the time, they were promising to update their prediction in January of this year. But they haven’t, despite describing themselves as “WMO Lead Centre for Annual-to-Decadal Climate Prediction“. So instead, I’ve done a retrospective update of the data on their 2016 to 2021″decadal” prediction.

Models of a Truly Settled Science will all have the Same Results

.
.
Playing around with CO2 levels doesn’t work, either in climate models or real life.

CO2 is Life

Run the above experiment 1 billion times and you will get 1 billion identical outcomes. Now, look at the “settled science” of climate science. They have multiple models, none of them agree, and worse, they don’t accurately reflect reality. The only thing “settled” about climate science is that the climate experts don’t have a clue as to how to model the climate.

Don’t take it from me, listen to the true experts.

Many new scientific papers affirm climate model results conflict with one another, diverge from observations, and aren’t fully rooted in established physics. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

View original post

Scientific error upends major ocean warming study

Apparently you’re a ‘climate contrarian’ if you dare to check the claimed results of climate-related studies. The researchers ‘calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe’. But now they admit this ‘novel method’ didn’t work out the way they first thought, having had the error pointed out to them.

Researchers with the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change, reports Phys.org.

A Conversation with Brandon R Gates about climate models

Brandon R. Gates‏ @brandonrgates 3h3 hours ago

It bears repeating that the RCP8.5 scenario is clearly indicated on the plot, and that any honest truth-seeker with a pulse and half a brain could figure out on their own where to find the forward projection. But since Rog can’t even do a better hindcast, he picks bogeys and …

Rog Tallbloke‏ @RogTallbloke 2h2 hours ago

Rog Tallbloke Retweeted Rog Tallbloke

Rog Tallbloke added,

Rog Tallbloke @RogTallbloke

I already showed it to you Brandon. So now let’s resume discussion of your “The data doesn’t know the future” objection to the solar data integration technique I employ to obtain a realistic replication of the effect of the sun on the high heat capacity overturning deep oceans.

Alan Carlin: Press Release on new research report showing CO2 has no significant effect on temperatures

In their latest report the authors point out: ‘it is never mathematically proper to attempt to validate any theory embedded in a model using the model itself.’

As discussed last week, several reports have shown in the last year or two that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not significantly affect global temperatures, contrary to endless repetitions to the contrary by climate alarmists and the mainstream press.

Today some of the same authors of the reports discussed last week have released a new report that among other things makes a similar point using a different data set, making a total of 15 such data sets between the earlier reports and this new report.

Extraterrestrial Forcing of Surface Temperature and Climate Change: A Parody

Jamal Munshi
Sonoma State University

Date Written: March 21, 2018

Abstract
It is proposed that visitation by extraterrestrial spacecraft (UFO) alters the electromagnetic properties of the earth, its atmosphere, and its oceans and that these changes can cause global warming leading to climate change and thence to the catastrophic consequences of floods, droughts, severe storms, and sea level rise. An empirical test of this theory is presented with data for UFO sightings and surface temperature reconstructions for the study period 1910-2015. The results show strong evidence of proportionality between surface temperature and cumulative UFO sightings. We conclude that the observed warming since the Industrial Revolution are due to an electromagnetic perturbation of the climate system by UFO extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Keywords: Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Action, UFO, Extraterrestrial, Parody, Correlation, Proportionality, Cumulative Values

Pruitt to end EPA’s use of secret science to justify regulations

Surely a step in the right direction. The public is entitled to something better than smoke and mirrors when it comes to the use of science – or alleged science – to determine national policy. But the aim of objectivity is a tough one.
H/T The GWPF

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations, reports Michael Bastasch.

“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”

Climate scientists admit they need more reliable temperature measurements

Weather station [image credit: UK Met. Office]

Making so-called ‘adjustments’ to existing temperature data, followed in some cases by adjustments to the adjustments, was never going to be a credible scientific method.
H/T The GWPF

A group of prominent scientists are calling for a global network of advanced weather stations that don’t need to go through controversial data adjustments, and it’s vindication for global warming skeptics, writes Michael Bastasch.

Seventeen climate scientists co-authored a research article published in the International Journal of Climatology calling for a global climate station network modeled after the United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN) to use as a baseline for data quality.

We should use central pressure deficit, not wind speed, to predict hurricane damage

Hurricane Katrina, 2005 – The air pressure, another indicator of hurricane strength, at the center of this Category 5 storm measured 902 millibars, the fourth lowest air pressure on record for an Atlantic storm. The lower the air pressure, the more powerful the storm.
[image credit: Jeff Schmaltz, NASA/GSFC]

This is supported by Hurricanes – Science and Society, which says:
‘It is well accepted that the most influential factor in storm surge generation is the central pressure deficit, which controls the intensity of a hurricane, i.e. wind velocity and stress over the ocean surface and inverse barometric effects.’

The system for categorizing hurricanes accounts only for peak wind speeds, but research published in Nature Communications explains why central pressure deficit is a better indicator of economic damage
from storms in the United States, reports Phys.org.

“Sandy is the classic example. It was a very big storm, but in terms of maximum wind speed it was arguably not a hurricane,” said Dan Chavas, an assistant professor of atmospheric science at Purdue University who led the study. “If you looked at the central pressure deficit, you would have expected it to cause a lot of damage. But if you used maximum wind speed, as people usually do, you wouldn’t expect it to do the damage that it did.”

Central pressure deficit refers to the difference in pressure between the center of the storm and outside it. Pressure and wind speed have been used interchangeably to estimate potential damage from hurricanes for years, but the relationship between them has been a long-standing riddle in tropical meteorology.

Two Decades of Temperature Data from Australia – Not Fit for Purpose – Jennifer Marohasy

Credit: aboutaustralia.com

What is going on with Australian temperature data? It doesn’t look good, as Jennifer Marohasy explains.

Australia is a large continent in the Southern Hemisphere. The temperatures measured and recorded by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology contribute to the calculation of global averages.

These values, of course, suggest catastrophic human-caused global warming. Two decades ago the Bureau replaced most of the manually-read mercury thermometers in its weather stations with electronic devices that could be read automatically – so since at least 1997 most of the temperature data has been collected by automatic weather stations (AWS).

Before this happened there was extensive testing of the devices – parallel studies at multiple site to ensure that measurements from the new weather stations tallied with measurements from the old liquid-in-glass thermometers.

MET Office ‘adjusts’ the data to bring us the hottest day since 1976

The BBC breathlessly reports a MET-office reported temperature of 34.5C at Heathrow yesterday, but what does the actual data say?

New Dawn Of Truth: London Climate Change Conference 2016

It’s finally happening. Thanks to Herculean efforts by Niklas Morner, we are presenting a two-day conference in central London on the 8-9th September. Speakers are coming from all over the world to present their work, and it is not to be missed!

Take the 8-9th September off work and join us for this historic event. The first UK climate conference in decades which will counter the scaremongering of the IPCC with a cool, rational approach to the study of climate change, presenting alternative explanations, new data, theory and commentary. Topics include solar-planetary theory, causes of ENSO, sea ice extent, sea level, ozone depletion, volcanos, regional forecasting, journal gatekeeping and many more.

The list of contributors is long, we are packing a huge number of presentations into this two day event. Speakers include Niklas Morner, myself, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller,  Nicola Scafetta, Per Strandberg, Jan-Erik Solheim, and thats before lunch on day one! Piers Corbyn will be there! So will  Christopher Monckton! See the full programme and the extended abstracts in this 35 Megabyte document for full details. There are also some travel and booking details on the geoethic.com website. An updated version is available on reseachgate

Stonehenge transport mystery solved?

Stonehenge [image credit: BBC]

Whether this is ‘case closed’ is uncertain but it does seem to offer another option to resolve the puzzle, as the Telegraph explains.

It is an archaeological conundrum that has baffled generations of experts. Just how did prehistoric Britons manage to transport the huge bluestones of Stonehenge some 140 miles from the Preseli Mountains in Wales to their final home on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire?

The answer is surprisingly simple. The feat really isn’t as hard as everyone imagined.

Nicola Scafetta: High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations

Image credit: NASA

Note from the author: I am sending you my new paper. It has been just published.

Scafetta, N.: High resolution coherence analysis between planetary and climate oscillations.
Advances in Space Research 57, 2121-2135, 2016.
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.02.029

To help access and share the article, there is the following article link, which will provide free access to the article until June 9, 2016.
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1SvYs~6OiTa4q

Conversation with Paul Pukite

Can a gaseous atmosphere really radiate as a ‘black-body’?

Commenter ‘USteiner’ asks this question on suggestions 16 and explains the reason for asking.

Let’s put aside the conclusion that CO2 makes the antarctic cool the earth. In the Schmithüsen paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full) they claim to have made the calculation, and it shows that. However, what is new? This had been measured with – gosh – real data some 45 years (!) ago. See here the Nimbus data from 1971 in Fig. 12d (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710026041.pdf )

Further, look at Schmitthüsen’s Fig 2. You see the spike on the CO2 pimple at the South pole at a Spectral radiance of 2.5. And exactly at the same level for the US Standard atmosphere. This is at least consistent with an interpretation that CO2 radiates the same everywhere on earth, but becomes only visible, when the background black body radiation from the ground is low enough. And this requirement is fulfilled only at the very cold south pole. So, what is left as excitement?

Arctic ice data conflict, example of software tool usage

Moderator Tim Channon writes: This article is unusual for the Talkshop. I may for personal reasons be leaving the Talkshop, a consequence of recent serious troubles, why I have been quiet. I hope this proves untrue.
I want to get some items out in the world for others. From my point of view leave a legacy. I am releasing the Synth software, done rapidly so none of this is neat or complete.

This is a simple example of usage with perhaps some current interest. No answers are intended for more the whole idea is about gaining insight by you playing around with data and ideas.

Figure 1

According to published datasets the characteristics of sea ice changed around 2006/7. Dataset used here is NSIDC/NOAA D02135 monthly. ( if you try and decode the published data, read the notes, has offsets which need compensation, do not use as is)

Based on experience I think this change is in the data gathering, perhaps geometry, not actual ice change. In the past in various articles I’ve mentioned some of the dubious practices.

Donna’s Erice talk, showing the scrag end which is the UN

An ought to read

“Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise has been watching the climate world since 2009. What she sees isn’t pretty.” — strap line from her blog. Donna has now put up a transcript with slides of a talk she gave to World Federation of Scientists in Erice, Italy, during August 2015

The IPCC?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/

Temperature variation at Heathrow over the past year

This article is part of preparing the way for later revelations about instrumentation defects.

Figure 1 (upper), Figure 2 (lower) computed mean insolation for horizontal surface at this exact location and weather parameters, no cloud.

Figure 1 (upper), Experimental work[1] showing nearly daily temperature variation from expected, specifically designed to exclude diurnal but include detail variation at the fastest scale feasible. Time graticule at 10 days, data points at 12 hours. Surprisingly the July 1st hot period has vanished. Plots of other sites show a similar effect. The most frequent warm and cool periods of weather are brief and readily seen.

This computation will produce different values from the mean values computed from thermometer minimum and maximum data because data shape at other times is taken into account, min/max does not. The filter used is also windowed, leakage is negligible.