Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Poptech]

A source is only compromised if it is compromised by your political foes. If a source is compromised by your political allies, it is given a complete pass. How do you expect us to take you seriously? You are your own worst enemy.

Thank you for invalidating your own argument.

This is not true, you stopped responding in that thread before it was locked, I wonder can you have a rational discussion? I do not care why you would state such a thing, you stopped posting and responding in that thread begore it was locked.

Now you are lying. I stopped responding after the post was cut up, butchering my replies and then locked. If many of my responses were removed so to appear I did not respond there is no point in continuing a censored discussion.

I note that you also avoid answering the direct critiques others offer, I can not stop their foolish behavior any more than I can stop yours. I am not using ad-homs, I have chosen to not report bickering in this and a number of threads. It is a nuisance.

Another lie. You appear to selectively read what you want to. You are confusing offtopic comments with on topic "critiques".

How is Rahmstorff data-padding and what do you mean by that?

This explains it in detail.

The Secret of the Rahmstorf "Non-Linear Trend Line" (Climate Audit)

Where is the first chart you show from?

Did you even click on the link to look at the paper?

No bias, why are you so hopped up and paranoid? I read both sides and skim the bickering.

Apparently you are missing things while "skimming".

Your rude response is noted, and truly is a weak argument to say the least.

Please pretend it is rude and it is a weak argument when it was never an argument to begin with! I highly suggest looking up the word Sarcasm in the dictionary.

 

[Poptech]

Add to it that it places the end of the observed trend smack in the center of the projection, with the rest of it still well in the upper part...

Those results merely invalidate Rahmstorf's paper, they do not confirm the projections. When an IPCC approved smoothing process is used they fall on the low end and trend AWAY. Also the only projections that I consider valid are 2001 and on as the models have been tuned for hindcasting coorelation.

 

[D'rok]

Thank you for invalidating your own argument.

Missed the point again. I'm not rejecting your claims of political bias while advancing my own. That would be you. Find a new tactic or be forever confined to the troll bin.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Those results merely invalidate Rahmstorf's paper, they do not confirm the projections. When an IPCC approved smoothing process is used they fall on the low end and trend AWAY.

Two things about the plot confuse me:
1) It looks like some sort of running average rather than a trend.
2) The gray area differs from not only Ramstorf's plot, but Stockwell's as well. Does it represent something different?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Two things about the plot confuse me:
1) It looks like some sort of running average rather than a trend.
2) The gray area differs from not only Ramstorf's plot, but Stockwell's as well. Does it represent something different?

Actually, a third thing puzzled me: Did you make that plot yourself? It seems like I've seen it somewhere else.

 

[Poptech]

Missed the point again. I'm not rejecting your claims of political bias while advancing my own.

Which means you either accept that RealClimate is politically biased or you discredit your argument.

Two things about the plot confuse me:
1) It looks like some sort of running average rather than a trend.
2) The gray area differs from not only Ramstorf's plot, but Stockwell's as well. Does it represent something different?

The grey area represents the model results. If you can find the method used to reproduce the graphic exactly like Rahmstorf I can assure there people who will gladly make a similar representation.

Actually, a third thing puzzled me: Did you make that plot yourself? It seems like I've seen it somewhere else.

No Climate Audit did.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The grey area represents the model results. If you can find the method used to reproduce the graphic exactly like Rahmstorf I can assure there people who will gladly make a similar representation.

Which is not what the gray area in either Rahmstorf's or Stockwell's papers represented.

ETA: I couldn't help noticing that the ClimateAudit plot is highly sensitive to the end points.

 

[Poptech]

Which is not what the gray area in either Rahmstorf's or Stockwell's papers represented.

The grey area in their plots represents the range of model projections filled in solid, instead of each model run being individually represented.

ETA: I couldn't help noticing that the ClimateAudit plot is highly sensitive to the end points.

So you have a problem with the IPCC's smoothing method?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The grey area in their plots represents the range of model projections filled in solid, instead of each model run being individually represented.

Which gets back to the question of why ClimateAudit's gray area is shifted up a few tenths.

So you have a problem with the IPCC's smoothing method?

As I stated previously, it looks like a polynomial fit to smoothed data rather than a trend. If that's the case, comparing it to Rahmstorf's or Stockwell's papers is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Dancing David]

...

Now you are lying. I stopped responding after the post was cut up, butchering my replies and then locked. If many of my responses were removed so to appear I did not respond there is no point in continuing a censored discussion.

Now that is strange,
you posted here in the thread:
June 21 at 1:31am
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4831216&postcount=73

My first post is
June 21 at 6:47 am
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4831516&postcount=77

Then you posted here in the thread:
June 23 at 9:03 pm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4840234&postcount=145


So apparently you could have read my post and responded to it. But either did not read it, or chose not to respond to it.

Thread locked:
June 27
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4851809&postcount=150

What did I miss?

I grant you may not have read my post.

Another lie. You appear to selectively read what you want to. You are confusing offtopic comments with on topic "critiques".

I will ist the ones I would like to see you respond to, after reading your links.

Your rudeness is noted again.

This explains it in detail.

The Secret of the Rahmstorf "Non-Linear Trend Line" (Climate Audit)


Did you even click on the link to look at the paper?

Can't say if I did, I will now, Thanks.

I asked and you answered.

Wonderful

Apparently you are missing things while "skimming".

I also have dropped and started reading this thread again.

My you are a grouchy bear!

;P

Please pretend it is rude and it is a weak argument when it was never an argument to begin with! I highly suggest looking up the word Sarcasm in the dictionary.

Sarcasm to me would be rudeness and sort of strange. I was not rude to you. It also is a poor form of argumentation.

sarcasm is not a very stronf form of argument.

 

[Poptech]

...it looks like a polynomial fit to smoothed data rather than a trend.

You have to look at where the actual projections start, 2001.

 

[Poptech]

Now that is strange...

So apparently you could have read my post and responded to it. But either did not read it, or chose to respond to it.

Your post was to bokonon - why would I respond to it?

What did I miss?

Who you were talking to!

Sarcasm to me would be rudeness and sort of strange. I was not rude to you. It also is a poor form of argumentation.

No sarcasm is when you make a statement in a manner to make fun of something. I never claimed it was an argument.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You have to look at where the actual projections start, 2001.

Do you know what a "trend" is?

 

[Poptech]

Do you know what a "trend" is?

Trend (Defined) - "The general direction in which something tends to move"

 

[D'rok]

Which means you either accept that RealClimate is politically biased or you discredit your argument.

Ditto for you and your sources. So if we both admit that sources are politically biased on both sides, that puts us right back to the starting point. Then maybe an ideology-free discussion can occur. What do you say?

 

[Poptech]

Then maybe an ideology-free discussion can occur. What do you say?

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

 

[BenBurch]

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Of course it is.

 

[D'rok]

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Then start your threads in the Politics section.

 

[Poptech]

Of course it is.

The responses I have gotten here prove that it is not.

Then start your threads in the Politics section.

All the threads I started are scientifically based, go check.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Trend (Defined) - "The general direction in which something tends to move"

Does a line that oscillates up and down at frequent intervals indicate a general direction?