Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

You are wrong, we are not having a discussion. You are spreading lies and disinformation and I'm laughing at you.
I was responding only to your comment on model calibration. As for your continued slander... pathetic.

Though it is of EPIC embarrassment to you about Rahmstorf's data padding exercise and his now discredited paper. I feel your pain but you are right I cannot stop laughing.
 
My dear... you need more than an E&E propaganda piece to discredit a Science article. Like, you know, a peer-reviewed scientific article in a scientific journal.
 
In relation to model calibration, I consider it an advanced exercise in curve fitting but since this is simply causing confusion due to the discussion of data smoothing, it is easier to call it "model tuning" - which is a Joke.
Then what is the joke? Does it involve an Irishman?

Seriously though - it sounds like you are stating that all scientific models (computer or otherwise) should disregard the observations that they are supposed to tested against. "Model calibration" is the process of making sure that the model duplicates existing data. It is not a "Joke". it is an essential part of any scientific process. If your model (computer or otherwise) cannot match existing data then it is useless. If you do not do it then you have no idea if your model is correct or not.

Not fitting models against existing data is the dumbest idea that I have heard of.

That is why the paper you have linked to is so damaging to your anti- global warming posture (given the kinds of threads that you have stated).
It turns the not so good confirmation of Rahmstorf (2007) of the IPCC TAR predictons into a better confirmation of the IPCC TAR predictons.
 
My dear... you need more than an E&E propaganda piece to discredit a Science article. Like, you know, a peer-reviewed scientific article in a scientific journal.
What Poptech still has not realized is the that E&E paper does not discredit the Rahmstorf paper. It does 2 things
  1. Shows that using the Rahmstorf et. al. methodology with 2008 data produces a better fit to the IPCC TAR predictions!
  2. Points out that people are incorrectly using the Rahmstorf paper to raise false alarms about a rapid increase in warming.
 
What Poptech still has not realized is the that E&E paper does not discredit the Rahmstorf paper. It does 2 things
  1. Shows that using the Rahmstorf et. al. methodology with 2008 data produces a better fit to the IPCC TAR predictions!
  2. Points out that people are incorrectly using the Rahmstorf paper to raise false alarms about a rapid increase in warming.

Not for lack of trying... I've been telling him that since post #49.
 
My dear... you need more than an E&E propaganda piece to discredit a Science article. Like, you know, a peer-reviewed scientific article in a scientific journal.
The paper is both peer-reviewed and in a scientific journal. I realize the embarrassment as it cannot be used to justify alarmist conclusions anymore.
 
What Poptech still has not realized is the that E&E paper does not discredit the Rahmstorf paper. It does 2 things
  1. Shows that using the Rahmstorf et. al. methodology with 2008 data produces a better fit to the IPCC TAR predictions
Rahmstorf's paper had nothing to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions and thus Rahmstorf's paper is discredited. You cannot change the conclusion or even use the paper as proof of anything since he is using a discredited data-padding technique (which he since changed to get the data to match his alarmism). When you apply IPCC approved smoothing methods it does not produce a better fit but trends away on the low end of the projections.

In a way you are right, when using data padding techniques you can match the IPCC TAR predictions.

Megalodon, I understand the hysterical laughing, I am too at Rahmstorf.
 
Last edited:
Maye Rahmstorf should go into economics that way he can use his data padding techniques to show how great your portfolio is doing.

Do not post copyrighted images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no reason to doubt a data-padder like Rahmstorf, if he says the economy is ok then it must be! I mean look at the graph!
 
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.

Irony storm in 3... 2....

(Discover the Networks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center
Discover the Networks (previously, and still often referred to as, "Discover the Network") - A database of what it describes as organizations and "activists for leftwing agendas and causes -- egalitarians, socialists, and opponents of American 'imperialism'",[6] with a Java applet to display their interconnections in graphic form.[7]This description can include Jihadists, "anti-American" strains of anti-Iraq War activists, etc. After two years of development, went online in February, 2005, with a staff of two at a cost of about $500,000. [8]

Hold on folks, we're going to have a second wave...

(Activist Cash)
activistcash redirect to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
The forerunner to the CCF was the Guest Choice Network, which was organized in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company,[2] "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." According to Berman, the GCN mission was to encourage operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice.'"[3] Philip Morris donated $2.95 million to GCN between 1995 and 1998.[4]

The Guest Choice Network argued against restaurant-related initiatives from environmental, animal rights and anti-alcohol organizations[5] and straightedgers, including arguments that restaurants should be allowed to maintain smoking sections.[6] In November 2001, the group expanded its criticism of activist groups with the launch of ActivistCash.com, which compiled information gathered from IRS documents and media reports, describing the funding and activities of groups it opposed, and listed key activists and celebrity links.

In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network became the Center for Consumer Freedom, a change the group said reflected that "the anti-consumer forces [were] expanding their reach beyond restaurants and taverns [and] going into your communities and even your homes," claiming that a broader organization was needed to act "wherever they try to take away your consumer freedom."[7]

Yeah, not like these organizations have a political/economic agenda or are trying to poison the well.. :rolleyes:
 
Rahmstorf's paper had nothing to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions and thus Rahmstorf's paper is discredited. You cannot change the conclusion or even use the paper as proof of anything since he is using a discredited data-padding technique (which he since changed to get the data to match his alarmism). When you apply IPCC approved smoothing methods it does not produce a better fit but trends away on the low end of the projections.

In a way you are right, when using data padding techniques you can match the IPCC TAR predictions.

Megalodon, I understand the hysterical laughing, I am too at Rahmstorf.
That post was by me - 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).


The second paper still does not discredit Rahmstorf's paper for 2 reasons:
  1. It does what the the Rahmstorf et. al. paper did (using their methodology) with the addition of 2008 data.
    That showed that the high slope of the curves near 2006 was an artifact of the data and so the original explanations of a climate cause for the high slope were moot.
  2. It was other people that wereincorrectly using the Rahmstorf paper to raise false alarms about a rapid increase in warming - not Rahmstorf et. al. .
You are either lying above or in this post:
That the technique Rahmstorf (2007) used to smooth his data and "prove" the computer climate model's predictions valid falls completely apart once applied to the current data. It has nothing to do with El Nino. Mac has no remote idea what the discussion is even about.

You obviously did not read the paper (doi:10.1126/science.1136843):
Observations of the climate system are crucial to establish actual climatic trends, whereas climate models are used to project how quantities like global mean air temperature and sea level may be expected to respond to anthropogenic perturbations of the Earth's radiation budget. We compiled the most recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1).

That really only leaves one thing to say: EPIC FAIL Poptech :eye-poppi !
(I'd add the laughing dog but everyone is already laughing at you - better than a clown getting a custard pie in the face :D !)
 
Irony storm in 3... 2....
Wikipedia... Irony indeed!

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait I thought it was Peer-reviewed? Oooooops! Looks like Science's peer review process is a JOKE. ROFLMAO!!!!

Ben libel is what you say about me, sarcasm is what I stated. I understand you do not comprehend the difference.
 

Back
Top Bottom