Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[TellyKNeasuss]

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position.

Your few hundred scientists, many of whom probably don't even do climate research, represent an insignificantly small percentage of all scientists. For example, the American Geophysical Union has over 50,000 members.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?

 

[Poptech]

What about their ranking criteria makes it subjective?

ISI decided on the method based on their opinions of how it should be.

Would that not be a ranking of the impact of authors rather than of journals?

Obviously, the point being that there is more then one way to rank "impact factor".

What in Stockwell's paper invalidates AGW?

It invalidates Rahmstorf's paper widely cited by alarmists.

If you ignore the last year then the trend is a steadily going up. So based on the previous 20 years of data in the graph the temperature change is going up. We can ignore the last year's data because it is still within the margin of error.

This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.

They reveal no comprehension of how running averages are arrived at in the slightest.

Apparently Rahmstorf does not either. I guess when the conclusions do not match what you want you just change your "smoothing method" to compensate!

Source of fishy odor confirmed: Rahmstorf did change smoothing (The Blackboard)

It must be nice to play with numbers to promote alarmist conclusions.

 

[Poptech]

Your few hundred scientists, many of whom probably don't even do climate research, represent an insignificantly small percentage of all scientists.

Really I have thousands and many do climate research.

For example, the American Geophysical Union has over 50,000 members.

Yeah so? Can you show me the poll done of it's membership.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?

It is what you tried when this part of the debate started.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

ISI decided on the method based on their opinions of how it should be.

They count the number of articles and the number of times those articles are cited. Where is the subjectivity?

Obviously, the point being that there is more then one way to rank "impact factor".

Do you understand that "author" and "journal" are not synonyms?

It invalidates Rahmstorf's paper widely cited by alarmists.

RealityCheck has already explained why this isn't so. Did you understand that post?

This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.

Again, RealityCheck has addressed this. I'll wait for your response to his/her post.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Really I have thousands and many do climate research.

Let me guess. You're going to post the Oregon Petition.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?

It is what you tried when this part of the debate started.

Really? In which of my posts did I claim that something is true because someone else said that it was true?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.


Apparently Rahmstorf does not either. I guess when the conclusions do not match what you want you just change your "smoothing method" to compensate!

Can you give an example of a method of calculating a trend that isn't sensitive to the end points?

 

[rjh01]

<snip>
This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.
<snip>

In other words BenBurch is correct when he says

rjh01 - Every dip in the data is trumpeted by the loonballs as the end of warming. They reveal no comprehension of how running averages are arrived at in the slightest.

 

[Megalodon]

Poptech lying through his teeth again?

Color me surprised.

Sorry Ben but the truth hurts.

Then stop lying and your feelings will be spared...

 

[Megalodon]

It's so cute to see the obstructionists ignoring the gray area in the graph.

A little background: One of the talking points of the obstructionists is that the models are worthless, this despite the very good track record of even the more primitive models from the 80's. What Rahmstorf et al. set to do was to compare the model projections compiled by the IPCC -which used data up to 1990 - with the actual data up to 2006. The model would be considered accurate if it was constrained within the gray area, the closest to the midpoint the better. If it stayed above the midpoint it would mean that the model was accurate but underestimating change, below the midpoint it would be overestimating it.

The data up to 2006 showed that the models were accurate, if a bit underestimating change, specially when it comes to sea level. This new publication in a pseudo-scientific rag created to carry anti-AGW propaganda is basically claiming that the models were overestimating temperature up to 2006 but now are closer to the midpoint. This, of course, validates the models, which was Rahmstorf's claim to begin with.

So, according to obstructionists, Rahmstorf et al. were wrong because a) they were right; and b) they couldn't see into the future, where they are still right.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)

Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.

Climate of Extremes is a Cato publication, but the claims made by the authors are worthy of consideration (Michaels was a member of the IPCC). If even better than reading PT's "summary"or reviews of the book, there's an hourish presentation/Q&A at Cato that you can view free on C-SPAN's Book TV on this page

 

[DC]

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory?

 

[Dancing David]

So, if we had the error bars on the graph, the actual data and the projected data would be within the error bars?

Hmmmm.

 

[macdoc]

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory?

 

[Megalodon]

So, if we had the error bars on the graph, the actual data and the projected data would be within the error bars?

Hmmmm.

In a way, you do have the error bars in the graph. The gray area is the range of the projection. That would normally be 95% confidence, or 2 StdDev.

So the only thing proved by this piece of propaganda was that the real world data after 2006 is well within the range of the model's projection. It also does nothing to disprove the claim that the models, if anything, underestimated the rate of change during the period of 1990-2006.

Again, there's nothing there to support their cause, but they'll make the noise anyhow, because lying loud enough might just help delay the necessary measures a little while longer, and they're cashing in all that time.

 

[macdoc]

Post 2006 you say ....hmmm back to back La Nina.....surely coincidence...

 

[Poptech]

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory?

Because this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with the science or lack thereof in support of global warming alarmism.

 

[Poptech]

They count the number of articles and the number of times those articles are cited. Where is the subjectivity?

The method is more complicated then that.

Do you understand that "author" and "journal" are not synonyms?

I was refering to alleged impact rankings in general as being used here to discredit a scientific argument through a subjective popularity contest.

RealityCheck has already explained why this isn't so. Did you understand that post?

No he did not. None of the three reasons include an arbitrary (non-IPCC supported) smoothing method and data padding.

Again, RealityCheck has addressed this. I'll wait for your response to his/her post.

No he didn't, he is assuming it is a mistake. But based on Rahmstorf's later work it is clear he is intentionally applying arbitrary smoothing techniques and data padding to get the results that he wants.

Let me guess. You're going to post the Oregon Petition.

I have multiple sources.

Really? In which of my posts did I claim that something is true because someone else said that it was true?

You implied it...

"And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment."

Can you give an example of a method of calculating a trend that isn't sensitive to the end points?

Rahmstorf did not even follow the IPCC procedure. Which states:

"'...they should involve as few weighting coefficients as possible, in order to minimise end effects."

The fact is...

Instead of simply complying with standard IPCC procedures, Rahmstorf used a filter procedure described only in the AGU newspaper - the triangular filter properties of which were not described in the original article and indeed the authors say that they unaware of this defect at the time. Rahmstorf changed smoothing policy not just once, but twice. First, in Rahmstorf 2007, he abandoned IPCC policy in favor of an article in the AGU newspaper; then he changed accounting parameters in the Copenhagen Report - all without explicitly stating that he had changed policy from the IPCC report and accompanying the change notice with an explicit accounting of the impact of the change. Rahmstorf can no longer assert that observations are in the "upper" part of models, with the implication that things are "worse than we thought".

Rahmstorf's conclusions are debunked.

 

[Poptech]

What Rahmstorf et al. set to do was to compare the model projections compiled by the IPCC -which used data up to 1990 - with the actual data up to 2006.

No what Rahmstorf attempted to do was not only prove the models correct put promote further alarmism. All he did was prove he is trying to use mathematical tricks to get the conclusions he wants.

This has to be an EPIC embarrassment for you Megalodon, since you like to tout his paper which is nothing but an exercise in data-padding.

Ouch!

Rahmstorf did not even follow standard IPCC procedures. EPIC FAIL!

 

[Poptech]

In other words BenBurch is correct when he says

If you want to actually look at the "projections" since 2001 against Rahmstorf (with IPCC approved smoothing) the observations are trending the opposite direction! Everything before 2001 is curve fitting and has nothing to do with "projections". EPIC FAIL part 2.

 

[Megalodon]

No what Rahmstorf attempted to do was not only prove the models correct put promote further alarmism. All he did was prove he is trying to use mathematical tricks to get the conclusions he wants.

The word of a proven liar against the aims of an article... what to do, what to do...

This has to be an EPIC embarrassment for you Megalodon, since you like to tout his paper which is nothing but an exercise in data-padding.

Hmmm... Isn't that quaint... If it is an exercise in data-padding, why is it that the "article" you quoted also has the temperature inside the range of the IPCC models?