Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Poptech said:
Yes by using a data-padding smoothing method. By his manipulation of later data he is clearly attempting to promote alarmism.
..snipped usual blog links, personal opinions and things not to do with this thread...
Click to expand...
Who cares if Rahmstorf et al. used a different curve fitting technique from their previous papers.

This thread is about RECENT CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS: DISAGREEMENTWITH PROJECTIONS (David R. B. Stockwell) and the paper he is analysing - Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections (Rahmstorf et al.[2007])

It is these papers that you are lying about.

ETA:
Neither paper is about the validiity of the techniques used in SSA. Both papers use SSA.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss
The paper clearly states that the models were run beginning in 1990. You can't even comprehend something that is plainly stated?
Click to expand...
The TAR projections were released in 2001 not 1990. Hindcasting can be tuned.
Click to expand...
Hindcasting is about testing the climate models so that they give correct results for known observations and so can be expected to give correct results for future observations.
The "tuning" is that if a climate model does not pass the hindcast then it is usually thrown away. Occasionally there is something that can be changed to allow it to pass the hindcast.
Hindcasting itself is not "tuned".

The TAR projections were released in 2001 for models that were run beginning in 1990, i.e. it was the models that 1990 refers to not the TAR.
 
Hindcasting is all about finding the model parameters that best fit what actually happened from known starting conditions, with the expectation that a model that models history while being naive of subsequent events will give a tolerably reliable projection into the unknown future.

Cloud computing projects run tens of thousands of multi-year model run from the same starting conditions.
 
Poptech said:
I do not believe that [ideology-free discussion] is possible with Global Warming.
Click to expand...

Belief and ideology clearly matter a lot to you. I've had ideology-free discussions of AGW on this very forum with people whose opinion differs from mine; DogB is an obvious recent example. Ideology has never entered into it. For many people ideology never intrudes on their lives at all, except as examples of closed-mindendness which contribute so much to the pervasive SNAFU of human existence.

This is a sceptics forum. Sceptics do not have ideologies nor beliefs, which are necessarily constraining. They can have values and even convictions, but no sceptic can subscribe to an ideology becaue no ideology can encompass the complexity of what has been, what is, and what will be.

By this post (and repeatedly by others) you reveal that you can only view reality from within the constraints of an ideology. You project your own way of thinking onto everybody else, and onto reality itself if it conflicts. You cannot accept that science is not an ideological pursuit but is one that seeks to reveal reality, however discomforting it may turn out to be for the scientist.

I can't discern exactly what your ideology is (an earlier reference to Ayn Rand not being an exact specification by any means) but it is clearly one which cannot encompass the reality of AGW. I strongly suspect that it's one which cannot encompass the very concept of externalities or any limitations of the physical environment on Man as an economic agent. Which would put it in the same class of ideology as Marxism.

Makes you think, doesn't it?
 
BenBurch said:
Hindcasting is all about finding the model parameters that best fit what actually happened from known starting conditions, with the expectation that a model that models history while being naive of subsequent events will give a tolerably reliable projection into the unknown future.
Click to expand...

The aspect which makes such modelling most productive (and least like curve-fitting) is that it focuses attention on why the parameters are so. This can often reveal previously unrealised processes. For instance the Milankovich model of the ice-age cycle failed when the feedback parameter to insolation was restricted to the albedo effect, ultimately revealing a CO2 feedback from the oceans. The science of gasses in solution was already well-known in a different discipline (chemistry) but the two had to be brought together to give the answer. Not the complete answer, of course (there's also weathering and permafrost etc) but it was a big step on the road.

The important point is that the Milankovich model wasn't rejected out-of-hand because it failed initially. It was clearly a good model, lacking in some ways which turned out to be very productive.
 
:thumbsup: accurate assessment Ben

He's a Von Mises acolyte...:eusa_doh:


•••

Funny he doesn't comment when "observed trends" actually conflict with his dug in position....must be allergic to ice.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html


Capel
The important point is that the Milankovich model wasn't rejected out-of-hand because it failed initially. It was clearly a good model, lacking in some ways which turned out to be very productive.
Click to expand...

The IPCC admitted their ice assessment was weak and in all parameters the decline has exceeded projections...leading to a scramble for Arctic resources.
As the rapid losses in some areas continue it will improve the models but reality is - it's hot up there...81 degrees last year on Baffin......many small ecosystems that had survived for millenia in lower temps are simply gone.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Belief and ideology clearly matter a lot to you. I've had ideology-free discussions of AGW on this very forum with people whose opinion differs from mine; DogB is an obvious recent example. Ideology has never entered into it. For many people ideology never intrudes on their lives at all, except as examples of closed-mindendness which contribute so much to the pervasive SNAFU of human existence.
Click to expand...
Understanding others beliefs and ideology matters to me. You believe you have had these discussions but you approach them with your preconcluded biases (beliefs). Pure science yes is ideologically free it is the human component that makes it not so much.

As James Randi would say.

"There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out." - James Randi

CapelDodger said:
This is a sceptics forum. Sceptics do not have ideologies nor beliefs, which are necessarily constraining. They can have values and even convictions, but no sceptic can subscribe to an ideology becaue no ideology can encompass the complexity of what has been, what is, and what will be.
Click to expand...
Oh yes they do. I have never seen more ideological people claiming to be skeptics in my life. It has been overwhelmingly proven by the responses I have received.

CapelDodger said:
By this post (and repeatedly by others) you reveal that you can only view reality from within the constraints of an ideology. You project your own way of thinking onto everybody else, and onto reality itself if it conflicts. You cannot accept that science is not an ideological pursuit but is one that seeks to reveal reality, however discomforting it may turn out to be for the scientist.
Click to expand...
No that is my opinion on the AGW "science" debate. Like I have said many times before I have no problem with reality, it is virtual reality I have a problem with.

CapelDodger said:
I can't discern exactly what your ideology is (an earlier reference to Ayn Rand not being an exact specification by any means) but it is clearly one which cannot encompass the reality of AGW. I strongly suspect that it's one which cannot encompass the very concept of externalities or any limitations of the physical environment on Man as an economic agent. Which would put it in the same class of ideology as Marxism.
Click to expand...
Since Ayn Rand supports varies aspects of economics similar to myself in some ways I agree with her but her thesis on Objectivism is in my opinion just a way to create a cult in support of her as the figure head (which has been rather successful). Externalities are arbitrary and cannot be defined (except of course by those in their ivory towers). Limitations on the economic activity of man does not benefit man. Your delusion is control. The Marxism comment is just sad.
 
Poptech said:
I only deny virtual reality.
Click to expand...

Then get off the Internet.

Nothing is "virtual" about the actual measurements that prove we are losing landed and oceanic ice worldwide, that the oceans are warming, that the oceans are acidifying, that warm-weather biomes are moving towards the poles, and that the Northwest Passage has been opening every Summer.

All verifiable reality.

All of which you deny because if you accepted it your entire worldview would come crashing down.

You deny "virtual reality" when you actually exist in one of your own making.
 
Poptech said:
Yes by using a data-padding smoothing method. By his manipulation of later data he is clearly attempting to promote alarmism.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you didn't read the comments in the ClimateAudit article. If you had, you would realize that Rahmstorf's method is an accepted way of fitting a trend line.

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)

Rahmstorf's conclusions are invalidated.
Click to expand...

Again, you apparently don't comprehend the difference between fitting a trend and fitting polynomials. Didn't they make you take a numerical analysis class?

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.
Click to expand...

Yawn.

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.
Click to expand...

As explained above, this statement isn't true.

The Secret of the Rahmstorf "Non-Linear Trend Line" (Climate Audit)
Click to expand...

I guess that the ClimateAudit folks don't understand the difference between trends and polynomial fitting either.
 
Last edited:
All of which you deny
Click to expand...
Please using my own words explain to me what I am denying. Because all you do is state lies over and over.

I suspect he never made it through any college at all
Click to expand...
I did but I suspect you did not.
 
Last edited:
How about you use your own words to explain what is driving this instead engaging in puerile pissing contests.....:eusa_doh:

Warming Arctic could teem with life by 2030

* 19:01 08 July 2009 by Catherine Brahic

"Teeming with life" may not be the description that springs to mind when thinking of the Arctic Ocean, but that could soon change as global warming removes the region's icy lid.
Click to expand...

continues
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17436-warming-arctic-could-teem-with-life-by-2030.html

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
and that little bit of puerile dodging just about sums up your total ignorance of the science and the planet you inhabit
••••
Click to expand...

I wonder if Watts sourced that animated giff? It’s certainly been around longer then 2008 when it appeared on Watt’s site. There would certainly be irony if when poptart was asked for something in his own words he linked to a stolen image on someone else’s web site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom