"Following on from the ‘interesting’ House Science Committee hearing two weeks ago, there was an excellent rebuttal curated by ClimateFeedback of the unsupported and often-times misleading claims from the majority witnesses. In response, Judy Curry has (yet again) declared herself unconvinced by the evidence for a dominant role for human forcing of recent climate changes. And as before she fails to give any quantitative argument to support her contention that human drivers are not the dominant cause of recent trends. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/

Gavin then does on to show the models aren't tuned.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/gmsat_hist.png

Gee, those models are running hot. I guess the models aren't tuned. ;)

Wow, way to go to lose ALL credibility!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

Wow, way to go to lose ALL credibility!

Yep. Real Climate sets out to rebut Curry, but in doing so kicks an own goal on how well the models are doing.

Swings and roundabouts.

Interesting to see one of the commenters calling Gavin a scientist. ;D ;D ;D

No credibility left  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

No credibility left  ;)

Gavin doesn't realise he has no credibility left.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

After reading the article I don’t think RC lost ANY credibility.

Maybe you could spell out in detail why you think they did?


Right  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 6:24am:

After reading the article I don’t think RC lost ANY credibility. Maybe you could spell out in detail why you think they did?

Because it is the models that underpin CAGW. And Gavin, the climate modeller, knows all about climate models. And  most of the climate models, even allowing for the adjusted temperatures, are still running hot,

Even a mean of the climate models will be running hot. They are tuned for the past, but not well. Their forward predictions projections assumptions are increasingly getting away from the observations. They even have to rely on natural events, like El Nino, to spout "see it is the hottest year evah". Of course they want to forget 1997. ;)

So you don’t really have a clue, just as I thought.

Perhaps you can show what your denier website you think and why you think it.

I look at this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/gmsat_hist.png

And see the observed and the simulations cluster pretty tightly around the mode of the simulations. Mode—value with the highest number of cases in it. The mode is a statistic of central tendency.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

And see the observed and the simulations cluster pretty tightly around the mode of the simulations. Mode—value with the highest number of cases in it. The mode is a statistic of central tendency.

And ignore about 42 above the mode to 25 below it. Also ignoring the ignoring satellite and balloon measurements which he didn't want to include. ;)

Yes, slight skew to the hot side but a nice tight pattern.

BTW, looks like we will have another El Nino this summer. Hope your place is well insulated and has good aircon.

Will back to back El Ninos become more common? Considering the amount of heat in the oceans it could be.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 5:59pm:

Yes, slight skew to the hot side but a nice tight pattern.

Yes. only about 26% higher. Ever so slight. ;)

Most of it is pretty much around the value of the observations—which themselves have a distribution. A test of difference between means would find that there is no difference, both are the same population.

See the bit about a new El Nino starting up?

I am guessing you have never dealt much with sampling, probability and so on. If you had done you would have seen what sampling distributions look like.

You really need to calculate the mean and standard deviation of the observed values then see just how many of the simulations fit within mean ± 2 standard deviations. Most do, just eyeballing the histogram.

Really need a much larger sample too.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:

See the bit about a new El Nino starting up?

Yes, Speculation is a wonderful thing. Not scientific; but fun.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 7:05pm:

I am guessing you have never dealt much with sampling, probability and so on. If you had done you would have seen what sampling distributions look like.

Yeah, and normalising datasets that are not normally distributed.

That tiny dataset looks roughly normal to me. There are ways to test for normality.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 7:22pm:

That tiny dataset looks roughly normal to me. There are ways to test for normality.

You do know models don't output data; don't you?

It is a dataset of the simulations if you like.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

It is a dataset of the simulations if you like.

So an artificial construct with limited if any benefit. ;)

It has been turned into a histogram and you were drawing rash conclusions from it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:04pm:

It has been turned into a histogram and you were drawing rash conclusions from it.

Yes, I should have said it was utterly useless. Because he doesn't want to acknowledge satellite and balloon data. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think this thread has reached its end I think.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

I think this thread has reached its end I think.

Yes, you have reached the end of your tether. ;)

That book you were touting all the time at one stage, Statistics for Dummies, I think you should buy it and read it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

That book you were touting all the time at one stage, Statistics for Dummies, I think you should buy it and read it.

You do know statistics have no predictive capability?

If you were to read it you would not make so many howlers.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:

If you were to read it you would not make so many howlers.

You have the wrong avatar. t should be a howler monkey. ;)