gwern comments on Separating the roles of theory and direct empirical evidence in belief formation: the examples of minimum wage and anthropogenic global warming - Less Wrong

24 Post author: VipulNaik 25 June 2014 09:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (65)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 29 June 2014 07:56:27PM *  2 points [-]

so I simply referred to the closest proxies which are plotted.

Seems like a bad proxy to me. Is snowfall really that hard a metric to find...?

other parts of the report refer to decadal smoothing

If the window is a decade back then the '90s will still be affecting the '00s since it only goes up to 2007.

I can't see any evidence that the decline in the 80s was somehow factored into the plot in the 2000s.

I think it may depend on how exactly the smoothing was being done. If it's a smoothing like a LOESS then I'd expect the '00s raw data to be pulled up to the somewhat higher '90s data; but if the regression best-fit line is involved then I'd expect the other direction.

Comment author: drnickbone 29 June 2014 11:43:12PM *  0 points [-]

Seems like a bad proxy to me. Is snowfall really that hard a metric to find...?

Presumably not, though since I'm not making up Met Office evidence (and don't have time to do my own analysis) I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).

However, the graphs of mean winter temperature, maximum winter temperature, and minimum winter temperature all point to the same trend as the air frost and heating-degree-day graphs. It would be surprising if numbers of days of snowfall were moving against that trend.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 30 June 2014 03:21:40AM -1 points [-]

I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).

Interesting. I wonder why they're no longer plotting some trends. Maybe because it's too hard to fit them into their preferred narrative.

Comment author: drnickbone 30 June 2014 06:31:01AM *  0 points [-]

Or moving from conspiracy land, big budget cuts to climate research starting in 2009 might have something to do with it.

P.S. Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now? Or are you just going to re-introduce those snippets in a future conversation, and hope no-one checks?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 July 2014 12:32:13AM 6 points [-]

Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now?

I was going from memory, now that I've tracked down the actual links I'd modify the claims what was actually said, i.e., snowfalls becoming exceedingly rare and the West Side Highway being underwater.

Comment author: drnickbone 01 July 2014 04:55:14PM 1 point [-]

Thanks.... Upvoted for honest admission of error.