Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[BenBurch]

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

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

A. You are the one politicizing the debate.

B. Your threads are transparently political.

 

[D'rok]

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

Scientifically based ideological discussion? Does not compute.

 

[Poptech]

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

What does the line do since 2001? Those are the actual projections, since the models were run in 2001!

A. You are the one politicizing the debate.

B. Your threads are transparently political.

Coming from you this is classic.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Of course you don't. Your position on the subject is so firmly rooted in ideology/politics that it's unfathomable for you to accept that there is ideologically neutral science behind AGW/Climate change.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't believe anything on Wikipedia because again I know better. It helps if you understand your sources.

So you don't believe that Discover the Networks and Activistcash are poltically motivated and ideologically driven organizations? Is this same denialism the reason you don't believe in AGW?

 

[Reality Check]

It does really not matter whether Rahmstorf's paper had anything to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions (but it did - see below).

Thanks for contradicting your self and invaliding the rest of your post

So you cannot understand English now?
but it did = the Rahmstorf et al. paper did have something to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions. That is what they state that they do.

The second paper exposes his data padding technique. Like I said EPIC Fail! You have no idea how much I keep laughing watching you guys flop around as one of the alarmists most treasured pile of crap papers goes down in flames!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More childish stupidity.
David R. B. Stockwell's paper uses exactly the same "data padding technique" as Rahmstorf et al.'s paper. Someone did not bother to read the paper or even the caption to the figure in the OP

Fig. 1: Annual global mean of land and ocean combined surface temperature from GISS (red) and the Hadley Centre, Climatic Research Unit, (blue) with their trends to 2006 (dashed) and trends to 2008 (solid) as produced by the nonlinear curve fitting technique, singular spectrum analysis (SSA), used in Rahmstorf et al. [2007].

Alarmists did cite Rahmstorf et al.'s paper a lot. That has nothing to do with the validity of the paper. Are all the papers that deniers cite thus a "treasured pile of crap papers" just because a bunch of deniers cite them? Obviously only an idiot would think that either statement was correct.

Yet another EPIC FAIL Poptech !
Well deserving a


Then there is your obvious lie (just read the paper):

Rahmstorf's paper had nothing to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions and thus Rahmstorf's paper is discredited.

 

[Poptech]

Of course you don't. Your position on the subject is so firmly rooted in ideology/politics that it's unfathomable for you to accept that there is ideologically neutral science behind AGW/Climate change.

My position is firmly routed in skepticism of alarmist based science. The myth is that you think AGW is ideologically neutral.

The only denialism is that you believe real climate to be neutral or objective.

 

[Poptech]

Rahmstorf et al. paper did have something to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions. That is what they state that they do.

The paper was clearly written to promote alarmism which is why he used a non IPCC standard smoothing technique and then changed this again later on to get the conclusions he wants.

David R. B. Stockwell's paper uses exactly the same "data padding technique" as Rahmstorf et al.'s paper. Someone did not bother to read the paper or even the caption to the figure in the OP

Of course he did to show the flaws in it. Where did I say he did not?

Alarmists did cite Rahmstorf et al.'s paper a lot. That has nothing to do with the validity of the paper.

I never said it did but the paper's validity just went down in flames.

The EPIC Fail is reserved for those who failed, Rahmstorf and those who cited him to promote shrill alarmism.

 

[Reality Check]

The paper was clearly written to promote alarmism which is why he used a non IPCC standard smoothing technique and then changed this again later on to get the conclusions he wants.

No it was not. It is a paper on fitting curves to data.
There is no "non IPCC standard smoothing technique" mentioned in the paper. There is no change of smoothing technique mentioned in the paper.

Of course he did to show the flaws in it. Where did I say he did not?

Where in the paper does David Stockwell show the flaws in SSA?

I never said it did but the paper's validity just went down in flames.

Now you have said it and you are wrong.
The explanations that the authors presented for the upward trend of the curves have gone down in flames.
Their actual results are still valid (curves that fit within the IPCC TAR projections).

If David Stockwell had run SSA on the same data that Rahmstorf et al. then he would have got the same curves. If he had included these curves in his paper then according to you his "paper's validity just went down in flames".

The EPIC Fail is reserved for those who failed, Rahmstorf and those who cited him to promote shrill alarmism.

At last you say somthing that is haf right (highlighted).
I actually agree with you. No one should think that a single result in a complex area like climate science
A pity that it is not Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Technology.

Then there is your obvious lie (just read the paper):

Originally Posted by Poptech
Rahmstorf's paper had nothing to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions and thus Rahmstorf's paper is discredited.

 

[macdoc]

Your position.POP..whatever that might be....is firmly rooted in ignorance of geophysical systems and overdose of Koolaid from denier sources....

BTW did you write to Hans and tell him he's all wrong??

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

THIS is credibility.....

Royal Distinction for Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Deutsch | English

Potsdam, 1 November 2004

Queen Elizabeth II has appointed Professor Hans Joachim ("John") Schellnhuber, Founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Research Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE). The award is granted in recognition of Schellnhuber's exceptional commitment to climate research and to British-German collaboration. Schellnhuber will receive the Queen's congratulations on the award during her fourth state visit to Germany.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber heads two research institutes: The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Britain. He is currently engaged in developing a German-British network on climate research, which sees itself as a core for pan-European activity. As a scientist, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is a pioneer of integrative research and someone who is not afraid to put forward his knowledge on the complex risks associated with global warming in the public and political discussion on the subject and to fight for a bolder policy on climate protection. Since as long ago as 1992 he has advised the German federal government as a member of the German Advisory Council on Global Change. That "his efforts to bring about a turning point in climate policy" have been honoured by the Queen in this form is a great tribute to him.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber was born in 1950 in Ortenburg, Bavaria. He studied physics and mathematics at the University of Regensburg. After his doctorate in theoretical physics he spent periods of research abroad and received his habilitation in 1985, followed by a Heisenberg Fellowship. In 1989 he began a professorship at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Marine and Environmental Sciences (ICBM) at the University of Oldenburg, later becoming its Director. In 1991 he became the Founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Since 2001 he has been engaged in promoting the development of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, UK, as its Research Director.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pres...yal-distinction-for-hans-joachim-schellnhuber

and he IS alarmed....as is nearly every climatologist on the planet as well as thousands of other earth scientists.....

with good reason

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

My position is firmly routed in skepticism of alarmist based science.

...because of your ideological/political postions. The same way Creationists are skeptical of evolution, etc. etc.

The myth is that you think AGW is ideologically neutral.

The only denialism is that you believe real climate to be neutral or objective.

So much for your mind reading skills. Perhaps you should try bending utensils.

 

[Megalodon]

What does the line do since 2001? Those are the actual projections, since the models were run in 2001!

You can't really be that stupid, so I'll assume you are lying. Again.

The paper states time and time again that they are using the ensemble of models reported by the IPCC, which were run in 1990. That's why the gray area starts at 1990. That is the date from which the comparison was made with real world data, both in Rahmstorf et al and Stockwell. And in both those papers the real world data showed that the model ensemble was more than adequate.

Again, for those who didn't get it in the first hundred times:

You are a liar. You know that the science does not favour your political ideology, so as any good zealot you lie about it, and slander all involved in it.

You have no honor, and spend your time trying to spread enough disinformation to obstruct changes that are needed to minimize the impacts of global warming.

You are a scoundrel, and unlike your puppeteers I guess you're too stupid to even make a profit out of it.

 

[macdoc]

... not given to understatement lately are we.....

Even Mega can get riled I see.......

 

[Dancing David]

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


Who you were talking to!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4831516&postcount=77

This is about five hours after your post on the same day

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

Okay dokay.

 

[Dancing David]

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Maybe for you, we each have our own persepctives. I do not accept that there are going to be solutions that happen in a time frame many propose, nor do i accept all of the argument on both sides.

I think I can discuss many charged issues without political bias:

-abortion
-creatioism vs. evolution
-plasma cosmology
-economics
-history
-most science

Areas that are harder:
-mental health
-human rights
-domestic violence

 

[Dancing David]

Poptech?

The paper states time and time again that they are using the ensemble of models reported by the IPCC, which were run in 1990. That's why the gray area starts at 1990. That is the date from which the comparison was made with real world data, both in Rahmstorf et al and Stockwell. And in both those papers the real world data showed that the model ensemble was more than adequate.

Critique or offtopic?

 

[Poptech]

No it was not. It is a paper on fitting curves to data.

Yes by using a data-padding smoothing method. By his manipulation of later data he is clearly attempting to promote alarmism.

There is no "non IPCC standard smoothing technique" mentioned in the paper. There is no change of smoothing technique mentioned in the paper.

Who said it was in the paper? I said he did not follow IPCC standard smoothing methods. He then changed methods when his original data-padding method did not get the results he wanted.

Rahmstorf Rejects IPCC Procedure (Climate Audit)

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 invalidated.

Where in the paper does David Stockwell show the flaws in SSA?

By using recent data up to 2008 and the data-padding SSA method it does not reach the alarmist conclusions as per the intent of Rahmstorf. The reason Rahmstorf choose the method (though he will never admit it) was to reach his conclusions intentionally. This is supported by his changing of smoothing policy for the later report. The paper is a joke and so is Rahmstorf.

Their actual results are still valid (curves that fit within the IPCC TAR projections).

Not when used with IPCC standard smoothing methods.

If David Stockwell had run SSA on the same data that Rahmstorf et al. then he would have got the same curves. If he had included these curves in his paper then according to you his "paper's validity just went down in flames".

No kidding! What part of the SSA method uses data padding do you not understand? That invalidates the SSA method used by Rahmstorf and any conclusions reached by him.

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

Then there is your obvious lie (just read the paper):

It is not a lie because the intent of the paper was to try and make the data match his pre-determined conclusions. It was not some objective study. You can pretend it is not but the evidence says otherwise.

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

 

[Poptech]

BTW did you write to Hans and tell him he's all wrong??

What a crack pot. ROFLMAO! Hey Mac can you show me the peer-reviewed study to support this alarmist fantasy.

 

[Poptech]

...because of your ideological/political postions. The same way Creationists are skeptical of evolution, etc. etc.

No because I am a computer scientist who understands the limitation of computer systems. Yes, yes back to the creationist crack pot nonsense. This is all you guys do. I have already said repeatedly I support evolution theory. The difference is there is real science and scientists supporting AGW skepticism.

The paper states time and time again that they are using the ensemble of models reported by the IPCC, which were run in 1990. That's why the gray area starts at 1990. That is the date from which the comparison was made with real world data, both in Rahmstorf et al and Stockwell. And in both those papers the real world data showed that the model ensemble was more than adequate.

Maybe you should read when these models were run 2001 not 1990. Tuning your model to match previous data is laughable. Thus only projections after 2001 should be considered. I understand why someone who does not understand computer science would think otherwise.

You are a liar. You know that the science does not favour your political ideology, so as any good zealot you lie about it, and slander all involved in it.

No I am not a liar but please tell me what my political ideology is and yes the science supports my position. All you do is attempt to slander me. I understand you anger as your alarmist paper Rahmstorf 2007 just went down in flames.

You have no honor, and spend your time trying to spread enough disinformation to obstruct changes that are needed to minimize the impacts of global warming.

Honor is subjective. I spend my time informing people who have not been told the whole story.The alarmist fantasy is that there is something that needs to be minimized and that you even can.

What You Can(‘t) Do About Global Warming (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.

But see this is the information you do not want anyone to know.

You are a scoundrel, and unlike your puppeteers I guess you're too stupid to even make a profit out of it.

Again this is not the conspiracy section. But you sad attempts to discredit me are not helping you data-padding buddy Rahmstorf. I make plenty of money in the real world (unrelated to any of this) but then again I also understand economics.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What does the line do since 2001? Those are the actual projections, since the models were run in 2001!

The paper clearly states that the models were run beginning in 1990. You can't even comprehend something that is plainly stated?