• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

There is a journal published paper laying out the evidence very clearly. (Keenan, Energy and Environment)

E&E isn’t a journal. The best analogy is the various paranormal publications claiming to be peer reviewed journal. Anything that you see in E&E is essentially woo that is un-publishable in any real journal.

At best E&E is an energy industry trade publication, but it’s publishes openly admit to political motivations and have stated outright they think it’s ok lie to advance their political position.
 
For the record a board of enquiry had this to say about the email which is the source of the phrase:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann



Not that that will stop mhaze spamming the AGW threads with it, of course.

I think this interpretation of the "trick" is disputed with good cause.

To do the exact same thing (apply this statistical method to bring together two different data sets) in financial circles would end up in prosecution.

Of course that opaque language actually describes how a specific prortion of a times series was discarded because it did not give the desire results (i.e. it declined). There is no defence on that one.


Nor on the withholding (and lying about) verification statistics.
 
Of course that opaque language actually describes how a specific prortion of a times series was discarded because it did not give the desire results

This was part of an ongoing working discussion with someone who both understood the material being discussed and was privy to the details of the discussion taking place. You are neither, so what is your basis for assuming those details are in any way opaque?


There is no defence on that one.

On what bases do you claim data that it’s “indefensible” to exclude data for a period where the peer reviewed literature already clearly states that data is unreliable for that period?
 
To do the exact same thing (apply this statistical method to bring together two different data sets) in financial circles would end up in prosecution.


So what do they, in financial circles, do to the DOW industrial average when one of the DOW companies undergoes a merger or gets kicked out of the DOW?

I'm sure they use some sort of mathematical "trick"
 
It's not, it is Nothing In/Desired Results out insofar as the station histories from Maoist China that we are discussing.

Ohhh....
Well that makes it a lot better:rolleyes::boggled::)

He has a spammish phase he can use on any occasion without ever justifying it. (Or so he believes.)
It is content-free and best ignored, as is he.
For the record a board of enquiry had this to say about the email which is the source of the phrase:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann
Not that that will stop mhaze spamming the AGW threads with it, of course.

I don't see it as spamming, I see it as a running joke - and pretty funny at that too.

So what do they, in financial circles, do to the DOW industrial average when one of the DOW companies undergoes a merger or gets kicked out of the DOW?

I'm sure they use some sort of mathematical "trick"

Can you please show us where and when this has occured exactly? You might be right, but I have never heard of such a thing.
That aside, even if the DOW do such things, do you think that is ok?
 
Can you please show us where and when this has occured exactly? You might be right, but I have never heard of such a thing.
That aside, even if the DOW do such things, do you think that is ok?

Consider this:

It must be remembered that the market "averages" are no longer really averages, although they were originally and still are referred to as such. Although they are certainly useful measures of the overall movement of the stock market, the numbers themselves must not be confused with the dollar-per-share prices of stocks. This applies not only to the DJIA but to all other stock indexes as well.
The reason for the disparity can be found in stock splits, which occur when a company believes that the per-share price of its stock is too high for broad investor appeal. The company then arbitrarily splits the high-priced shares, creating more lower-priced stocks. For example, if a stock selling for $100 is split two-for-one, the new share price would be $50. Of course, each owner of the old $100 stock must be given an additional share of stock for every original share so that the value of his or her holding will not be reduced.
Stock splitting, which occurs yearly, would distort the averages unless statistical market value-weighted adjustments were not made to compensate for them. Thus, the Dow Jones averages are not dollar averages of current market prices but movement indicators, kept essentially undistorted for more than a century.
Originally consisting of 12 stocks in 1896, the DJIA was increased to 20 in 1916 and then to its present level of 30 in 1928. Whenever any particular component stock for any reason becomes unrepresentative of its industrial sector, a substitution is made and the average adjusted, just as when a split occurs.

So, yes indeed, the Dow "average" continually uses statistical "tricks" so as to make it's numbers a better reflection of the reality of the movement of the stock market than they would be if they simply slavishly followed their original mathematical formula. And no, there's nothing criminal about this because everyone understands what is being done and why--just as is the case for the "trick" used in the paper at the center of the AGW nontroversy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification - enlightening:)

So does this mean that the stock market and AGW are directly comparible in other areas also? i.e. Which comparisons are ok and which aren't?

Does it also mean that because DOW (and others internationally presumably) do this 'trick' openly, ("because everyone understands what is being done and why") that it is ok to do it covertly in AGW?

Whilst I can see the mathematical reasoning and logic behind the trick (to a point), it does not follow that the use of t in one area makes it ok in another, or does it?
 
Thanks for the clarification - enlightening:)

So does this mean that the stock market and AGW are directly comparible in other areas also? i.e. Which comparisons are ok and which aren't?

Does it also mean that because DOW (and others internationally presumably) do this 'trick' openly, ("because everyone understands what is being done and why") that it is ok to do it covertly in AGW?

Whilst I can see the mathematical reasoning and logic behind the trick (to a point), it does not follow that the use of t in one area makes it ok in another, or does it?

It wasn't done "covertly" in the case of AGW. Nobody lied to anybody about where the data for the graph came from or how the graph was derived from the data. The only people doing any lying are the denialists, who refuse to be honest about this. Funny that.

And yes, the two cases are very comparable. In both cases a continuous graph is created out of what are, in fact, discontinuous runs of data (in the case of the DOW, its component companies have changed constantly and completely over the course of its existence. A "true" reading of the average price of the DOW would be 0 if you insisted that it must base its reading on only the one original data set (the values of the companies originally included in the 'average'--mostly extinct railway companies).

AGW denialists are like some sort of weird "DOW originalists" cult who are insisting that the stock market really hasn't ever increased in value because if you look at the "original" DOW figures and don't "cheat" by switching to new and different companies, the DOW increases for a while and then ultimately dwindles to zero. If only they hadn't devised that damned statistic "trick" of switching datasets so as to get more representative and reliable data we'd none of us be fooled into believing that the US economy had expanded since the late C19th!
 
Whilst I can see the mathematical reasoning and logic behind the trick (to a point), it does not follow that the use of t in one area makes it ok in another, or does it?


It has to be a case by case basis.

In the DOW case, you really have no choice, as continuity is more important than the value of the average.

In the climate reconstruction, who would use the reconstruction when measured temperatures of far better accuracy and precision are available?

It is a massive spaghetti graph of data from many sources, why not use the best data for each time period.

If you claim he was trying to hide the decline, wouldn't you have to show evidence that there actually was a decline?
 
It wasn't done "covertly" in the case of AGW. Nobody lied to anybody about where the data for the graph came from or how the graph was derived from the data.

Yoink, do you have a link to the paper where this was presented?
 
Is your real name Kafka?

There are no station histories. Are you saying I have to prove that the authors knew there were no station histories when they claimed there was?

That is absurd beyond belief.

Let them produce the station histories that led them to believe the claime was true. In absence of them they made up the claim. They lied.

As it is, we have the exact opposite. Evidence that histories do not exist and did not exist at the time.
The authors stated:
Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (PDF)
Eastern China
We assembled a network of 42 station pairs of rural and urban sites in the eastern half of China (Fig. 1c). The data cover the period 1954-1983. The 84 stations were selected from a 260-station temperature set recently compiled under the US Department of Energy and People's Republic of China Academy of Sciences Joint Project on the Green House Effect. The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. All 84 records were complete for the 30 year period.
(emphasis added)

By selecting the unchanging stations they are assuming that the station histories that they have been given are correct.
It turns out that was a wrong assumption. As I understand it the Chinese bureaucrats decided that if a station did not have a history they would assign it one that did not change (I may be wrong).

They never state that the station histories are complete.
The "records" that they refer to are the temperature records.
If they were refering to the station histories they would have said "station histories". There would be little point in plotting incomplete temperature records.


Your claim is seems to be
  1. The dataset the author used included the fact that the station histories were incomplete or completely missing.
  2. The authors ignored this and published their data anyway.
Now give your evidence that this is the case.
As it is, we have the exact opposite. Evidence that histories do not exist, did not exist at the time and that the authors were lied to.
 
Last edited:
....So, yes indeed, the Dow "average" continually uses statistical "tricks" so as to make it's numbers a better reflection of the reality of the movement of the stock market than they would be if they simply slavishly followed their original mathematical formula. And no, there's nothing criminal about this because everyone understands what is being done and why--just as is the case for the "trick" used in the paper at the center of the AGW nontroversy.

Not "just as in the case".

If we start by defining the DOW for modern times as 30 stocks, then add the next in line in when one drops out, we are following the initial rule set. And this was done recently when GM was replaced by Cisco.

If anything, it might be argued that the stock market indices do not reflect reality because they do not account for inflation. But that's a different argument.

Gekko's point about splicing different time series being a cause for criminal prosecution in numerous fields is simply correct.

All of the various arguments presented as to why the truncation of the tree ring series was right are simply ways to....

Hide the Decline!
 
All of the various arguments presented as to why the truncation of the tree ring series was right are simply ways to....

Hide the Decline!
All of the various arguments presented as to why the truncation of the tree ring series was right are simply ways to....

Make Pretty Graph!
 
The level of "debate" from the AGW Truthers has descended to the level of the Tea Party goons, RC. That is to say an utter subjugation of science and truth to a very fascist notion of how the world would work if only they could run it.
 
All of the various arguments presented as to why the truncation of the tree ring series was right are simply ways to....

Make Pretty Graph!
Hiding the Decline was "right"?

This only shows that you, and those who think like you, would:

Hide the Decline!
 
Hiding the Decline was "right"?

This only shows that you, and those who think like you, would:

Hide the Decline!
Hiding the Decline was "right" for a given defintion of "right".

This only shows that you, and those who think like you, would:

Hide the Pretty Graph!
 

Back
Top Bottom