Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF) (David R. B. Stockwell, Ph.D. Ecosystem Dynamics)
Computer Climate Model Validation has again failed despite the best attempts at mathematical deception by its proponents.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Firstly there is no "Computer Climate Model" involved in the paper.
The paper is about the techniques of fitting curves to observational data. Note that the curves stop in 2006 (Rahmstorf et al. [2007]) and 2008.
If you use the curves as "Computer Climate Model Validation" then the fact that all of the curves lie within the IPCC TAR projections validates the climate models used. However I would not do that since the IPCC projections extend beyond 2008 and 2010 - the last year on the diagram.
Secondly there is no "mathematical
deception".
Rahmstorf et al. [2007] produced results that projected into the upper part of the IPCC results. This was unexpected so they gave
three reasons why their results were at the upper limit. That is not deception. That is scientific honesty.
There is probably a mathematic
mistake as David R.B. Stockwell has pointed out that the probable reason for the curves appearing in the upper part of the IPCC results is
Based on the updated trend, Rahmstorf et al. [2007] appears to make a statistical Type I error – mistaking a random deviation for a
significant change.
This is a good example of why peer review is an ongoing process. Many people think that peer review is used to stop obviously bad papers from being published (at least in reputable journals). Peer review actually continues after publishing as people read and analyze the paper, use it in their own work and replicate the results (for experimental and analysis papers - not so much for theoretical papers).
The real issue with the Rahmstorf et al. is that it was used by some people to argue that the climate would change quicker than expected and so action had to be taken immediately. That is politics not science.
