And by the way, this is what I mean by explanation. Telly doesn't write a dissertaion, he just summarizes the argument.
Yep. And gets it utterly wrong, despite the fact that for him, I went into great detail explaining some of the ideas behind the work. Which underlines to me why explaining these things is a waste of time on JREF.
Now anyone who wants to respond knows what he's talking about.
You clearly don't. He misrepresents Halley's paper. If you had read and understood the paper, you'd know that. But you haven't, and you don't. Which is why explaining these things on JREF is a waste of time. (Can you see a pattern emerging here?)
We don't have to guess at his meaning because he tossed out a name.
No, in fact TellyKNeasuss underlines exactly why engaging in this debate on JREF is so futile.
To be fair to TellyKNeasuss: he/she was the only one to actually go to the peer reviewed literature and try to research the topic. Most people (as coincidentally demonstrated by a unique person just above) simply dismiss it without any attempt to understand it.
Unfortunately, TellyKNeasuss' attempts fall rather woefully short.
As I've already explained, the principle problem that Cohn, Lins and Koutsoyiannis point out is that the geophysical time series exhibit a particular type of persistence which results in a very high instance of type I errors (i.e., that something is significant or exceptional when in fact it is not). Put simply: in climate science, CIs are underestimated. This was my primary claim above, which you seemed incapable of reading or understanding, yet it is up there clear as day.
What is the first thing Halley does in his paper? He tests to see whether this persistence does indeed seem to exist. His result? Yes, he confirms the presence of this type of persistence.
Just in case you missed this:
his first test result confirms the views of Cohn, Lins and Koutsoyiannis.
He then goes on to apply a test to determine whether paleoclimate reconstructions are significantly different from modern instrumental records, even accounting for the above persistence. He finds they are.
However, he also finds that these reconstructions are significantly different from one another. Oops. That is a problematic result.
He notes that the result he finds could be because AGW exists. And, indeed, I made it clear that I don't claim AGW doesn't exist. I just claimed the CIs were woefully underestimated. That is,
AGW might exist but it isn't necessarily measurable based on the current data.
However, Halley also points out his result could have been caused by systematic errors in paleoclimate reconstructions, and references another paper that suggest just that possibility. This is a rather more plausible explanation, since it also explains the inconsistency between reconstructions.
Halley then outlines a list of the problems that would need to be resolved before you can make the interpretations that AGW can be confirmed even with the presence of long term persistence.
But even if this test ultimately could confirm AGW exists, it still leaves an enormous number of type I errors in the IPCC reports and the peer reviewed literature by virtue of the type of persistence applied in those analyses. Halley's analysis can never refute that.
All of this is clear as day in the Halley paper, written out in black and white. It isn't well communicated by the abstract (which is why scientists never rely on an abstract). But despite it all being written in black and white, as clear as day, neither you nor TellyKNeasuss could figure it out. And I have to produce reams of text explaining why you're wrong.
But realising why you're wrong requires you to understand some of the nuances of this debate. I'm not optimistic on this aspect. Nobody else on the AGW threads of JREF has demonstrated the knowledge or ability to follow this. TellyKNeasuss - despite being the best on here by far - couldn't even see that Halley's paper strongly supports my claims.
That's not a good place to be. Really.
