Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Megalodon]

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.

Your image has nothing to do with the paper in question, or the piece of propaganda you linked to.

 

[Poptech]

The original article I quoted was simply proving that Rahmstorf's "method" was flawed and thus his paper's conclusions. The recent article I linked to shows that observations are trending AWAY from the useless "projections".

The recent image I linked to has everything to do with the paper if you apply IPCC data smoothing standards, something Rahmstorf intentionally did not do so he could promote alarmist conclusions.

I realize the embarrassment is EPIC, especially since it is your fascination with a data padding artist.

The only propagandists are Rahmstorf and you.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Could you present you rationale a little better than that.

It would appear that the actual data fall within the margin of error for the model.

I notice that there are points above and below the projections.

Could you state you rationale without your polemic? I am interested to read it.

The graph moves up and down, so what are you trying to say?

 

[Megalodon]

The original article I quoted was simply proving that Rahmstorf's "method" was flawed and thus his paper's conclusions.

The original pdf you quoted only managed to prove that Rahmstorf et al. cannot see into the future.

The recent article I linked to shows that observations are trending AWAY from the useless "projections".

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it. The model range they use is different from the one used by Rahmstorf, making it a comparison between apples and oranges. At least your first link was honest enough to use the same range, even if it destroys his whole case.

 

[Megalodon]

And, of course, we have to mention that the data used on your figure is not sourced... Please note what happens if you use the NCDC temperature anomaly on the same model plot:



Now, that model plot is calibrated to which reference value of temperature anomaly? I would think the one used by GISS or NCDC, but since you brought it up, you tell us...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The method is more complicated then that.

If you say so.

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

If you say so. That still doesn't answer the question as to why this "debunking" has only been published in a politically-oriented magazine.

I have multiple sources.

Oooh, I'm impressed. Instead of listing all these millions of names, maybe you could just list the scientific societies that have taken the position that AGW has been debunked.

You implied it...

Where did I cite anything that these people said or wrote as evidence to support me?

I take it that you don't know of any method of fitting a trend that isn't sensitive to the endpoints.

 

[D'rok]

Summary: Global Warming Alarm-ism is not supported by the science. The first paper you can read free of charge.

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position. As for the IPCC report you may find this interesting.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)

You attempt to poison the well of realclimate.org by claiming that it is politically biased, and then you cite this website?

Pathetic.

 

[lomiller]

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it.

Which is of course why he can’t get published in real journals…

 

[Megalodon]

Which is of course why he can’t get published in real journals…

Yeah... those mean, mean reviewers!!

Much easier writing in the interwebs, where you get to say whatever stupidity you want and even get a following of mindless drones...

 

[macdoc]

and like Poptech get paid for his GoogleAds on his denier site....no agenda there...

••

Some minor cause for celebration tho it occurred to me the authors will all be dead by the time the accounting comes due..

Unlike a 2020 when someone might have to take responsibility.....

Target found in G8's climate-change fight

The G8 countries have agreed to do whatever needs to be done to limit the world's temperature to a two-degree increase. The target requires aggressive cuts to emissions that call into question what how it would affect Canada's oil industry

Leaders of the world's eight foremost industrialized economies have established an aggressive new marker in the battle against climate change: holding the global temperature to a two-degree-Celsius increase.

To get there, the leaders agreed that the world's 32 industrialized nations should slash their greenhouse-gas emissions 80 per cent by 2050, though they did not agree on the base year from which the cuts would be made

continues
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...d-in-g8s-climate-change-fight/article1211478/

Lotsa wiggle room tho "whatever needs to be done" is encouraging..

How about we start with lots and lots of nuclear plants....

 

[Poptech]

The original pdf you quoted only managed to prove that Rahmstorf et al. cannot see into the future.

No it proved Rahmstorf's conclusions are worthless because his methods are biased as in data-padding. This is massive irony, his whole case is based on "seeing into the future". LMAO!!!!

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it. The model range they use is different from the one used by Rahmstorf, making it a comparison between apples and oranges. At least your first link was honest enough to use the same range, even if it destroys his whole case.

No they are not. They expose the dishonest mathematical games certain climate scientists use to push their alarmist position.

Please note what happens if you use the NCDC temperature anomaly on the same model plot

Interesting what you can do with graphic editing software.

Now, that model plot is calibrated to which reference value of temperature anomaly? I would think the one used by GISS or NCDC, but since you brought it up, you tell us...

Calibrated? You mean curve fitted? As in manually tuned. This is classic.

Rahmstorf's alarmist predictions are going down in flames. Maybe he should read up on the IPCC report.

 

[Poptech]

If you say so. That still doesn't answer the question as to why this "debunking" has only been published in a politically-oriented magazine.

It is not a politically oriented magazine no matter how many times you try to smear it.

Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use.

and Peer Reviewed.

Oooh, I'm impressed. Instead of listing all these millions of names, maybe you could just list the scientific societies that have taken the position that AGW has been debunked.

Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

Where did I cite anything that these people said or wrote as evidence to support me?

You mentioned them with the implication that they were "experts" otherwise you had no reason to make the comment.

I take it that you don't know of any method of fitting a trend that isn't sensitive to the endpoints.

I take it this is very embarrassing to people pushing Rahmstorf's paper since he failed to follow even the IPCC standards. Too funny.

 

[Megalodon]

No it proved Rahmstorf's conclusions are worthless because his methods are biased as in data-padding. This is massive irony, his whole case is based on "seeing into the future". LMAO!!!!

No, their whole case is that a past projection agrees with past temperatures... I know you are confused, but I thought concepts like past and future were within your grasp...

No they are not. They expose the dishonest mathematical games certain climate scientists use to push their alarmist position.

So you say, but you're wrong. Again.

Interesting what you can do with graphic editing software.

Calibrated? You mean curve fitted? As in manually tuned. This is classic.

No, my thought impaired friend... The model plot is within a temperature anomaly range. Temperature anomalies differ according to the reference period used. Different datasets use different reference periods.

As an example, if the model plot is calibrated to the GISS reference period, but your friends are using the Hadley center temperature anomaly database, the resulting graph is a clumsy lie.

So, what reference period is the model plot using? GISS, HadCRUT, NCDC?

 

[Poptech]

RealClimate is politically biased

You attempt to poison the well of realclimate.org by claiming that it is politically biased, and then you cite this website?

There is nothing to poison, it is a proven fact. That is if you can look up Domain Registration Info. RealClimate is politically biased, it is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist organization (EMS) and Al Gore.

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services

Admin Organization: Environmental Media Services

- Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]

EMS officially served as the "scientific" branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America's dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]

EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration's environmental policies. Among these titles were: "Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups"; "President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill"; "Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health"; "Bush Administration Report Card: 'F' on Protecting Children"; and "National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush." EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted "the latest and most credible information" provided by "top scientists, physicians, and other experts." These "experts" included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

- Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton's paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It's a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]

It's called "black marketing," and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged "story ideas" for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These "experts," though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It's a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don't consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous "spin."

 

[D'rok]

There is nothing to poison, it is a proven fact. That is if you can look up Domain Registration Info. RealClimate is politically biased, it is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist organization (EMS) and Al Gore.

I think you missed the point of my post. It is quite obvious that it is not political bias in science that you object to, it is the "wrong" kind of political bias in science that you object to. You are quite happy to cite blatantly politically biased sources while decrying your opponents for (supposedly) doing the same.

1. Hypocritical

2. Pathetic

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is not a politically oriented magazine no matter how many times you try to smear it.

The editor of it (Energy and Environment) said that she was pushing her political agenda.

and Peer Reviewed.

So is the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or whatever that thing is called).

Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

And the leadership doesn't respond to the membership? What about the American Association of Petroleumn Geologists. Didn't its membership pressure the leadership into changing the official position?

You mentioned them with the implication that they were "experts" otherwise you had no reason to make the comment.

I was just stating that there are "real climatologists" on my side as well.

I take it this is very embarrassing to people pushing Rahmstorf's paper since he failed to follow even the IPCC standards. Too funny.

Who care? Neither you nor Dr. Stockwell has shown that the IPCC projections are unrealistic.

 

[Poptech]

No, their whole case is that a past projection agrees with past temperatures... I know you are confused, but I thought concepts like past and future were within your grasp...

That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.

So you say, but you're wrong. Again.

Nope, you wish they were since they massively embarrass data-padders like Rahmstorf.

So, what reference period is the model plot using? GISS, HadCRUT, NCDC?

He says what he did...

I had collated A1B model information from KNMI (a large 57-run subset of the 81 PCMDI runs) and presumably representative. I converted all models to 1961-1990 anomalies to match HadCRU and did an unsmoothed comparison of model ensemble average and observations showing 1-sigma limits as in the original.

Yes they curve fitted the model first.

 

[technoextreme]

That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.

?????????????????????????????????????? Do you not ever say anything that flies in the face of every single aspect of science????????????????????????? Since when did curve fitting became a tool that scientists were forbidded to use.

 

[Poptech]

The editor of it (Energy and Environment) said that she was pushing her political agenda.

All editors pursue their own political agenda whether they admit it or not. That doesn't make the journal political. Journals like Nature do the same thing by who they assign as reviewers to certain papers.

So is the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or whatever that thing is called).

Absolutely no remote relation.

And the leadership doesn't respond to the membership? What about the American Association of Petroleumn Geologists. Didn't its membership pressure the leadership into changing the official position?

Still no vote? Maybe the AAPG board members are not alarmist.

I was just stating that there are "real climatologists" on my side as well.

Well so was I.

Who care? Neither you nor Dr. Stockwell has shown that the IPCC projections are unrealistic.

Megalodon does, he kept pushing the paper now shown to be the work of data-padding. Using IPCC standards it is shown that "adjusted" observations are on the very low end of "projections" and trending in the opposite direction.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

I can, however, cite a Harris Poll that shows that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society overwhelmingly believe in AGW.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html