{"id":275509,"date":"2023-08-25T12:53:05","date_gmt":"2023-08-25T10:53:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275509"},"modified":"2023-08-25T12:53:18","modified_gmt":"2023-08-25T10:53:18","slug":"dr-patrick-franks-refutation-of-a-sks-critique-attempt-loblaws-24-mistakes-exposed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275509","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Patrick Frank\u2019s Refutation Of A SkS Critique Attempt: Loblaw\u2019s 24 \u2018Mistakes\u2019 Exposed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From NoTricksZone<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Kenneth Richard<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0<\/em>24. August 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAggregating all the [mistakes]\u2026one estimates Mr. Loblaw [SkepticalScience blog author] to have made about 24 direct analytical mistakes and several arguments from misdirection in this one disquisition. That may be some sort of record.\u201d \u2013 Dr. Patrick Frank<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 27 June, 2023, Dr. Patrick Frank had his 46-page\u00a0paper<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0with 284 references published in the journal\u00a0Sensors.\u00a0<\/em>It exhaustively detailed the magnitude of uncertainty and error in calculating global-scale temperature measurements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image Source:\u00a0Frank, 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A blogosphere introduction to the paper appeared a few days later. It generated\u00a0over 1,200 responses on the WUWT site<\/a><\/strong>, where debate is welcomed by those who agree or disagree, including direct discussion with the author himself in comments. (We highlighted Frank\u2019s paper\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0a few weeks later, but without knowledge of the attention it had generated elsewhere.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrast this open debate format with what occurs at climate blogs like\u00a0RealClimate<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0SkepticalScience<\/em>. Comments challenging the \u201cconsensus\u201d position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are deleted and\/or fail to emerge from moderation. Debate is effectively banned, as this leaves the impression that \u201cconsensus\u201d AGW positions are irrefutably correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI\u2019ve deleted a number of his \u2026comments, but I feel no obligation to explain to him why they disappear<\/a>.\u201d -SkepticalScience\u00a0<\/em>moderator<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In light of the attention the Frank\u2019s paper was propagating in the skeptical blogosphere,\u00a0SkepticalScience<\/em>\u00a0contributing author, Bob Loblaw, decided it was time to take matters into his own hands earlier this month. His article, \u201cA Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty<\/a><\/strong><\/em>,\u201d appeared on 7 August, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image Source:\u00a0SkepticalScience<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In the vein of actual scientific debate (that is not allowed at\u00a0SkepticalScience<\/em>), Dr. Frank has provided a detailed 29-point response to Bob Loblaw\u2019s critique attempt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frank accuses Loblaw of presenting a careless, mistake-filled manifesto that \u201cviolates the ethics of scientific review.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first five pages of Frank\u2019s response he identifies over 20 mistakes Loblaw made in his analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Frank catches Loblaw (1) confusing the uncertainty of the average (Equation 4) with the average of the uncertainty (root-mean-square, Equations 5&6), as well as (2) assuming uncertainty can simply be reduced by averaging (Loblaw:\u00a0\u201cFrank\u2019s calculations make the astounding claim that averaging does not reduce uncertainty!\u201d<\/em>) even though uncertainty can\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0be reduced by averaging if the uncertainty results from\u00a0random<\/em>\u00a0error. (The paper itself clearly describes why shipboard temperature measurements derived from pulling wooden buckets out of the water are fraught with errors that are\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0random.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last two pages of Frank\u2019s response address the rather self-contradictory Loblaw claim that scientists do\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0prejudicially assume that measurement error is randomly distributed so they can profess to reduce uncertainty by averaging. (Loblaw:\u00a0\u201cNobody actually makes this assumption.\u201d<\/em>) Clearly the scientific literature is replete with \u201cAssumers of Random Measurement Error.\u201d Frank originally provided seven pages of the random-error-assumption examples in scientific papers dating from the 1920s to present. The list has been substantially parsed down here for brevity\u2019s sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Dr. Frank was interviewed on Tom Nelson\u2019s podcast on 21 August, 2023. He addressed uncertainty and error in temperature measurements and climate model projections. A YouTube link to Dr. Frank\u2019s\u00a0\u201cNobody Understands Climate\u201d<\/em>\u00a090-minute presentation appears below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n